ArticleBMC veterinary research2021
Is the suckling period and application pattern relevant for fluazuron against tick infestation in cows and their suckling calves?
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluazuron is a chitin synthesis inhibitor administered as a pour-on formulation in cattle for tick control. This study analyzes under endemic tick infestation, the incidence of the pour-on application pattern on the plasma levels of fluazuron in calves and cows in the lactation period of the beef cow. Two hundred and ninety-two beef cows around parturition were treated with a commercial pour-on formulation of fluazuron at a rate of 2.5 mg/kg of body weight. A total of 4 treatments were carried out on days 0, 32, 77, and 117. At each administration time, the cows were grouped according to the pour-on administration pattern: long (~ 60 cm pour-on application surface) and short (~ 30 cm pour-on application surface). Fluazuron levels in cows and calves plasma were determined before the third and fourth application for each subgroup (n = 10) by HPLC-MS/MS. During the entire study, cow-calf pairs were maintained under field conditions and qualitatively examined for tick infestation on the day of each treatment. Both treatments (long and short) schemes were designed to prevent the annual persistence of ticks.
resultsNo animals with presence of ticks were identified during the first 117 days of the study, except for three cows and one calf at the time of the third application (day 77). There were no differences after 40 days (day 77) post-treatment of the second application (30 ± 5 ppb vs. 28.5 ± 12 ppb, p > 0.05) and 45 days (day 117) after the third application (147 ± 55 ppb vs 140 ± 46 ppb, p > 0.05) between groups of cows treated with the long or short pour-on application, respectively. Plasma concentration of fluazuron at second and third application was increased (3.3 and 2.9 times, respectively) in calves under free suckling compared to cows. Nevertheless, both groups of cows and calves showed a significant increase in plasma concentration of fluazuron between times (4.9 times, p < 0.0001 and 2.8 times, p < 0.0001, respectively). In both groups, tick prevalence was 0% throughout the trial, except for day 77, which reached 1%.
conclusionsThe main conclusions of this study were the following: 1) Different administration patterns (long vs. short) did not differ in plasma levels of fluazuron.; 2) Given that only the cows were treated and lactating calves presented higher plasma levels of fluazuron than cows, passage through milk appears to be relevant and possibly due to a cumulative effect and continuous drug intake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.