ArticleParasites & vectors2025
Acaricidal efficacy of fluralaner against Rhipicephalus microplus ticks under laboratory and field conditions in Brazil.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Susceptibility of Rhipicephalus microplus to fluralaner: assessment before and after implementation of a strategic control protocol in taurine cattle in a tropical region.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Assessing the susceptibility of 200 Rhipicephalus microplus populations to fluralaner using larval immersion test: A nationwide analysis from Brazil.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe first isoxazoline-based acaricide (fluralaner) for the control of Rhipicephalus microplus was introduced onto the market in 2022, initially in Brazil, followed by other Latin American countries. Therefore, it is important to establish laboratory methods to monitor the susceptibility of populations of R. microplus to this molecule and to determine the relationship between the results of laboratory tests and those from field trials.
methodsA larval immersion test (LIT) was performed on 18 populations of R. microplus. The lethal concentration 50 (concentration causing 50% mortality [LC50]) values were calculated to determine the resistance ratios (RRs) of the populations. The lethal concentration 99 (concentration causing 99% mortality [LC99]) values were calculated to determine the discriminating doses (DDs = 2 × LC99). The DDs were applied in tests with the POA (susceptible) and GYN (resistant) strains, as well as in tests with the population that presented the lowest LC50 value (population 14) and with the two populations that presented the highest LC50 value (populations 10 and 16). Finally, we performed field trials with the population that presented the lowest and two highest LC50 values.
resultsIn the LIT with fluralaner, the LC50 values ranged from 0.144 to 0.481 µg/mL for the 18 R. microplus populations. The mortality rate was 100% in the tests of the DDs in the five populations tested. In the field trials, the efficacy of fluralaner was similar for the three populations of R. microplus tested (populations 14, 10 and 16), with therapeutic efficacy (until day 21) of 100% and persistent efficacy (between days 28 and 42) > 95%.
conclusionWe observed natural variability in the susceptibility of larvae from the different populations of R. microplus that had never been treated with this compound. Despite the observed variability in the in vitro results (LC50), a comparable efficacy of > 90% lasting until day 42 was observed in the field trials. Also, based on the results of the laboratory testing (LC50 and DD) and field trials, we can conclude that there was no resistance to fluralaner in the 18 studied tick populations.
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.