|Plasma dispositions of ivermectin and doramectin in dogs
Although they are not licensed for the use in small animals, ivermectin, moxidectin and doramectin injectable formulations are widely used to treat certain ectoparasites in dogs. Are there major differences between doramectin and the `classic` ivermectin? An important question which was evaluated in Turkey.|
|This study evaluates the comparative plasma dispositions of ivermectin (IVM) and doramectin (DRM) following oral and subcutaneous administration (200 microg/kg) over a 40-day period in dogs.
Twenty bitches were allocated by weight in to four groups (Groups I-IV) of five animals each. Animals in the first two groups (Groups I and II) received orally the injectable solutions of IVM and DRM, respectively, at the dose of 200 microg/kg bodyweight.
The other two groups (Groups III and IV) received subcutaneously injectable solutions at the same dose rate.
Blood samples were collected between 1h and 40 days after treatment and the plasma samples were analysed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using fluorescence detection.
The results indicated that IVM produced a significantly higher maximum plasma concentration (C(max): 116.80+/-10.79 ng/ml) with slower absorption (t(max): 0.23+/-0.09 day) and larger area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC: 236.79+/-41.45 ng day/ml) as compared with DRM (C(max): 86.47+/-19.80 ng/ml, t(max): 0.12+/-0.05 day, AUC: 183.48+/-13.17 ng day/ml) following oral administration of both drugs; whereas no significant differences were observed on the pharmacokinetic parameters between IVM and DRM after subcutaneous administrations.
In addition, subcutaneously given IVM and DRM presented a significantly lower maximum plasma concentration (C(max): 66.80+/-9.67 ng/ml and 54.78+/-11.99 ng/ml, respectively) with slower absorption (t(max): 1.40+/-1.00 day and 1.70+/-0.76 day, respectively) and larger area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC: 349.18+/-47.79 ng day/ml and 292.10+/-78.76 ng day/ml, respectively) as compared with the oral administration of IVM and DRM, respectively.
No difference was observed for the terminal half-lives ((t(1/2lambda(z)) and mean residence times (MRT) of both molecules.
Considering the pharmacokinetic parameters, IVM and DRM could be used by the oral or subcutaneous route for the control of parasitic infection in dogs.
Source: Gokbulut C, Karademir U, Boyacioglu M, McKellar QA. (2006): Comparative plasma dispositions of ivermectin and doramectin following subcutaneous and oral administration in dogs. In: Vet Parasitol. 2006 Feb 18;135(3-4):347-54.
Tell a friend
Send this article
Long-Âterm outcome of dogs with primary immune-Âmediated thrombocytopeniaComputed tomographic arthrography of the canine shoulder joint Prognostic scoring system for dogs managed with hemodialysisSonography vs percutaneous palpation to identify targeted thoracolumbar intervertebral disc spacesDistribution of alveolar-Âinterstitial syndrome in dogs and cats with respiratory distress Disorders of sex development in catsCore ocular surface microbiome in dogsACVIM small animal consensus statement on safe use of cytotoxic chemotherapeutics MRI imaging of masticatory muscles in basset houndsMucosal microbiota, gastrointestinal inflammation and small cell intestinal lymphoma in cats Efficacy of pentamidine analogue 6 in dogs with chronic atrial fibrillationTick-borne relapsing fever in various species