Open Access

Efficacy of a slow-release imidacloprid (10%)/flumethrin (4.5%) collar for the prevention of canine leishmaniosis

  • Emanuele Brianti1Email author,
  • Gabriella Gaglio1,
  • Ettore Napoli1,
  • Luigi Falsone1,
  • Chiara Prudente1,
  • Fabrizio Solari Basano2,
  • Maria S Latrofa3,
  • Viviana D Tarallo3,
  • Filipe Dantas-Torres3, 4,
  • Gioia Capelli5,
  • Dorothee Stanneck6,
  • Salvatore Giannetto1 and
  • Domenico Otranto3
Parasites & Vectors20147:327

https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-327

Received: 31 May 2014

Accepted: 30 June 2014

Published: 14 July 2014

Abstract

Background

The efficacy of a slow-release insecticidal and repellent collar containing 10% imidacloprid and 4.5% flumethrin (Seresto, Bayer Animal Health) in preventing Leishmania infantum infection was evaluated in a large population of dogs living in a hyper-endemic area of Sicily (Italy).

Methods

A total of 219 dogs, negative for L. infantum were enrolled in a multicentre, controlled study. Dogs were divided into two homogeneous groups, defined as G1 (n = 102) and G2 (n = 117). Before the start of the sand fly season, dogs in G1 were treated with the collar while animals in G2 were left untreated, serving as negative controls. Dogs were serially sampled on day D90, D180, D210 and D300 in order to assess Leishmania infection by IFAT, PCR on skin (D210-D300) and bone marrow (D300) and cytology on bone marrow aspirate (D300).

Results

Three dogs (2.9%) in G1 and 41 (40.2%) in G2 became positive for L. infantum in at least one of the diagnostic tests employed in the study. The number of seropositive dogs in G2 increased in the course of the study from 15 (D90) to 41 (D300), with some of them also positive in other diagnostic tests. Eight (19.6%) of the seropositive dogs in G2 showed an increase in antibody titers ranging from 1:160 to 1:1,280. At the last follow-up, some of dogs in G2 displayed overt clinical signs suggestive of leishmaniosis. The mean incidence density rate at the final follow-up was 4.0% for G1 and 60.7% for G2, leading to a mean efficacy of the collar in protecting dogs at both sites of 93.4%.

Conclusions

The slow-release collar tested in this study was shown to be safe and highly effective in preventing L. infantum infection in a large population of dogs. Protection conferred by a single collar (up to eight months) spanned an entire sand fly season in a hyper-endemic area of southern Italy. The regular use of collars, at least during the sand fly season, may represent a reliable and sustainable strategy for the prevention of leishmaniosis in dogs living in or travelling to an endemic area.

Keywords

Leishmania infantum Dog Canine leishmaniosis Prevention Control

Background

Canine leishmaniosis (CanL), caused by protozoa of the genus Leishmania (Kinetoplastida: Trypanosomatidae), occurs globally and is transmitted through the bites of phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) [1]. Leishmania infantum is the most important aetiological agent of CanL, and responsible for visceral and cutaneous leishmaniosis in humans in Eurasia and America [2], with an estimated 8.5/100,000 new cases per year in southern European countries (including Turkey) [3, 4]. Over the past two decades, the disease has spread northwards from southern Europe [2, 5] as a result of several factors such as changes in the distribution of phlebotomine sand fly vectors [6], increased movement of dogs from Mediterranean to central and northern regions [7], and lack of effective control measures [3, 8]. Dogs act as reservoir hosts, and the association between CanL and human leishmaniosis has been proven in areas where sand flies are present [13]. In particular, dogs with overt clinical signs act as the most important reservoir of L. infantum and play a major role in the epidemiology of the infection [911]. Therefore, although anti-Leishmania treatment of infected dogs reduces clinical signs and parasite load, it does not completely inhibit infection by sand flies [12].

Over the last few decades, several attempts have been made to improve control strategies and to develop reliable and cost-effective preventive measures in dogs [13]. For example, newly developed vaccines have shown efficacy in preventing the progression of active infection and disease [1417]. Nonetheless, the prevention of sand fly bites through the use of repellent and insecticidal compounds in different formulations (e.g. spot-on, spray, impregnated collars) is regarded as the most effective method of avoiding L. infantum infection in dogs [1, 10, 13] and therefore potentially reducing the risk for human infection [18]. Several pyrethroid-based compounds have been shown to be effective against Leishmania infection in dogs living in endemic areas [1923]. Recently, a polymer matrix collar containing a combination of 10% imidacloprid and 4.5% flumethrin (Seresto®, Bayer Animal Health), referred to in the following as the “collar”, has been licensed for use in dogs and cats [24]. This collar conferred long-term protection (eighth months) against ticks and fleas [25, 26] and was successful in preventing the transmission of tick-borne pathogens [2729]. Although the collar is not currently registered against sand flies, a single preliminary field trial showed its potential for the control of CanL in young dogs from an endemic area [30]. Thus, this study investigates the efficacy of the collar in the prevention of infection by L. infantum in dogs of different ages living in two heavily populated shelters located in a hyper-endemic area of the Mediterranean basin.

Methods

Ethical statement

A negative-controlled and multicentre study was conducted according to the principles of Good Clinical Practice (VICH GL9 GCP, 2000 http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/10/WC500004343.pdf) and the guideline on Statistical Principles for Veterinary Clinical Trials (VICH CVMP/816/00, 2000 http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/01/WC500120834.pdf). The study design and the experimental procedures were approved and authorized by the Italian Ministry of Health (authorization number DGSAF/297-03/04/2012).

Study sites

Dogs were housed in two private animal shelters in Sicily (southern Italy), i.e. Messina (N 38.241624°E 15.522016° altitude 520 m), and Augusta (N 37.239034°E 15.135016° altitude 394 m), referred to as site 1 (S1) and site 2 (S2), respectively. The study sites were located in a hyper-endemic area for L. infantum[2, 5], where the presence of competent sand fly vectors was reported [31, 32]. At site S1 approximately 450 dogs were housed in 124 pens measuring 18.4 or 54 m2 (Figure 1). Study dogs were housed in pens with a concrete or mixed (concrete and fine gravel) floor, with the pens separated by aluminum composite mesh panels. Site 2 housed approximately 530 dogs in 38 mixed-floor pens each measuring about 100 m2. Pens in S2 were separated by iron wire mesh (1×1 cm). In both facilities all the dogs had an adequate covered resting area with dog beds and an open area outside. Dogs in each pen had daily access to wide, shared runs, and were fed with commercial dry dog food and tap water.
Figure 1

Landscape of the Messina shelter (site S1) in which approximately 450 dogs were housed.

Study design and experimental procedures

In March 2012, before enrolment, a total of 455 dogs (S1 = 144, S2 = 311) were screened for circulating anti-L. infantum antibodies using an indirect immunofluorescent antibody test (IFAT) and/or a rapid ELISA test (see below). Only dogs negative at screening were considered as candidates for inclusion in the study. In April-May 2012 (Day 0) these animals were physically examined and weighed, and blood, skin and bone marrow samples were collected (see below). Dogs fulfilling the inclusion criteria (normal general health, ≥ 7 weeks of age, not treated with ectoparasiticidal products or immunosuppressive drugs in the preceding months, and negative for L. infantum at serology (IFAT) and in skin and bone marrow PCR and cytology on bone marrow smears from samples collected at the time of inclusion) were enrolled in the study. Included dogs were identified using the microchip code and assigned to one of the two groups, G1 and G2, using a random treatment allocation plan. Randomization was conducted pen-wise instead of allocating single dogs in order to avoid animals from both groups being in physical contact in one pen and active ingredient possibly being transferred from treated to untreated dogs. On the day of inclusion (D0) imidacloprid 10% + flumethrin 4.5% collars were fitted to dogs in G1 on the basis of their body weight (i.e., small collar: < 8 kg/large collar: > 8 kg), while dogs in G2 were left untreated and served as negative controls.

Animals were followed up on days 90, 180, 210 and 300 after inclusion. At each follow-up dogs were physically examined and blood, skin and bone marrow samples were collected as shown in Table 1. The collars were worn from day 0 to 210 and were replaced only if they were lost or if the animal’s weight increased above the threshold of 8 kg. On day 210 the collars were removed from the dogs in group G1 and not replaced. All dogs included in the study were observed daily for any changes in their health. The use of other ectoparasiticides on dogs or in the environment was not allowed throughout the study period. However, individual treatments were authorized when heavy tick or flea infestations occurred. Due to the nature of the investigational veterinary product (collar), blinding was applicable only for the personnel that performed laboratory analyses.
Table 1

Study calendar and samples collected at the scheduled visits from screened/included dogs

Study day

Date

Physical examination

Collar

Blood

Skin

Bone marrow

Preliminary Screening

March-April 2012

+

-

+

-

-

Inclusion (D0)

April-May 2012

+

Application

+

+

+

I Follow-up (D90 ± 10)

July-August 2012

+

-

+

-

-

II Follow-up (D180 ± 10)

October-November 2012

+

-

+

-

-

III Follow-up (D210 ± 10)

November-December 2012

+

Removal

+

+

-

IV Follow-up (D300 ± 10)

February-March 2013

+

-

+

+

+

Sampling and diagnostic procedures

Blood samples of approximately 5 mL were collected in vacuum tubes from the brachial or jugular vein, immediately transferred into cooled storage (+4°C), left to clot, and centrifuged (1,700 rpm for 10 minutes). The resulting serum was collected in individual microtubes. Skin tissue samples (about 0.5 cm2) were collected from the interscapular region and stored in individual microtubes containing 1 mL of phosphate buffer saline (PBS) solution. Bone marrow was sampled by an aspiration technique from the iliac crest using Rosenthal needles (16 or 18 gauge) and stored in the same way as blood and skin samples. In addition, bone marrow samples were smeared on slides for cytological examination for L. infantum amastigotes. Microtubes containing sera, skin and bone marrow samples were stored at -20°C until analysis.

Serum samples were tested for circulating anti-L. infantum antibodies by IFAT using a cut-off of 1:80 as described elsewhere [23]. Positive sera were also titrated using serial dilutions until negative. In addition, in order to reduce the risk of enrolling potentially infected dogs, serum samples collected at the preliminary screening were tested using 1:40 as cut-off. PCR for the amplification of Leishmania DNA was performed on bone marrow and skin samples. Total DNA was extracted using the QIAampDNA Micro Kit (Qiagen, GmbH, Hilden, Germany) and the Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Gentra Systems, Minnesota, USA), respectively, and a fragment of L. infantum kinetoplast DNA minicircle was amplified using the MC1/MC2 primer set [33]. Amplicons were resolved in ethidium bromide-stained (2%) agarose gels (Gellyphor, Italy) and sized by comparison with markers in the Gene Ruler™ 100 bp DNA Ladder (MBI Fermentas, Lithuania). Gels were photographed using a digital documentation system (Gel Doc 2000, BioRad, UK). Bone marrow smears were stained with MGG Quick Stain (Bio-Optica, Italy) and microscopically examined for L. infantum amastigotes. Each smear was examined for about 10 minutes under light microscopy (100 microscopic fields) using a 100× oil immersion objective.

Entomological survey of sand fly activity

Light traps were used to assess the species and activity of sand flies in the investigated shelters. Starting from May 2012, two traps were placed biweekly in each shelter 50 cm above the ground before sunset (6:00 p.m.) and left in situ for 12 hours (6:00 a.m.) [32]. Monitoring activity was suspended after three consecutive negative trappings. Sand flies captured and grouped by shelter and collection day were counted and the species were identified using morphological keys [34, 35].

Statistical analysis

The minimum sample size per group (n = 107), was determined by Win-Episcope 2.0 [36] based on an expected incidence of 1% and 10% in G1 and G2, respectively (power = 90% and confidence level = 95%). The homogeneity of the groups was calculated retrospectively on day 0 baseline characteristics such as sex, age, coat length and body weight using a Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for qualitative data (sex, coat length) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for quantitative data (age and weight). Since the objective of the study was to define the efficacy of the treatment in preventing L. infantum infection, negative dogs were defined as those that were negative in any of the diagnostic tests used (IFAT, PCR of skin and bone marrow tissues, cytology of bone marrow aspirate) throughout the study. The efficacy evaluation was based on the comparison of the incidence of L. infantum-infected dogs in the two treatment groups. Incidence was calculated as the annual crude incidence (i.e. considering only the results of the final sampling regardless of what happened in between) as follows: annual crude incidence = number of dogs newly infected with L. infantum/(number of negative dogs initially enrolled - number of lost or dead dogs) × 100. To overcome the problem of dogs lost to follow-up during the study, the incidence of infection was also calculated using the incidence density rate (IDR) [37]. IDRs were calculated at each follow-up as the number of newly infected dogs in any diagnostic test, divided by the number of dog-months of follow-up (i.e. the number of months between the previous and the current assessment for each dog at risk for L. infantum infection). Dogs tested only once (e.g. lost, dead) did not contribute at any time to the incidence calculation. Final IDRs were then expressed per year.

The efficacy (%) of the collar in preventing L. infantum infection was calculated using the formula: % protection = (% of positive dogs in group G2 - % of positive dogs in group G1)/(% of positive dogs in group G2) × 100. The percentage of positive dogs was calculated as the IDR. The significance of the efficacy (i.e. the significance of the difference between IDRs in collared and non-collared dogs) was tested using the Chi-square test.

Results

At the preliminary screening 355 (78%) out of 455 dogs tested serologically negative for circulating anti-L. infantum antibodies (Table 2). The percentage of seropositive dogs was higher (p > 0.05) in S2 (25.4%; 79/311) than in S1 (14.6%; 21/144). On Day 0, 279 (G1 = 135, G2 = 144) dogs were enrolled; however, 60 dogs (G1 = 33, G2 = 27) were excluded from the study because they were either positive to serology and/or PCR on samples collected at day 0 (G1 = 26, G2 = 22), reluctant to keep the collar (G1 = 3), given for adoption (G2 = 1), dead before first follow-up visit (G1 = 2, G2 = 4) or because a history of leishmaniosis was reported (G1 = 2). Thus, a total of 219 (G1 = 102, G2 = 117) dogs were kept in the study and included in the calculation of efficacy. These dogs were homogeneously distributed (p > 0.05) with respect to sex, coat length, age and weight (Table 3). In the course of the study, 29 (G1 = 16, G2 = 13) were lost to follow-up at different time-points due to a fatal outcome of aggression (fights) (G1 = 11, G2 = 12), renal failure (G2 = 1), or they were excluded because they lost the collar more than 3 times (G1 = 5).
Table 2

Results of screening for the presence of circulating anti- Leishmania infantum antibodies

 

Study site

Messina (S1)

Augusta (S2)

Number of screened animals

144

311

Mean age (months)/range

48.5/3-108

38.1/2-120

Coat length (%) short/medium/long

50.0/35.4/14.6

52.7/35.6/11.7

Sex (%) female/male

52.8/47.2

60.8/39.2

ELISA Positive

15/144 (10.4%)

33/311 (10.6%)

IFAT Positive

11/50 (22.0%)

69/268 (25.7%)

ELISA and/or IFAT positive

21/144 (14.6%)

79/311 (25.4%)

Table 3

Characteristics of dogs included in the study

 

All sites

Messina (S1)

Augusta (S2)

G1

G2

Total

G1

G2

G1

G2

Number of included dogs

102

117

219

35

38

67

79

Mean age (months)/range

30.7/2-96

29.5/2-84

30.1/2-96

29.9/3-84

31.3/3-72

31.1/2-96

28.6/2-84

Sex (%) female/male

55.9/44.1

65.0/35.0

60.7/39.3

60.0/40.0

52.6/47.4

53.7/46.3

70.9/29.1

Weight (kg)/range

19.3/3.8-41

19.2/4.1-47

19.3/3.8-41

19.6/7.5-41

21.5/6.9-47

19.2/3.8-35

18.1/4.1-38

Coat length (%)

       

Short

55.8

53.0

54.3

51.5

50.0

58.2

54.4

Medium

32.3

35.0

33.8

28.5

36.8

34.3

34.1

Long

11.9

12.0

11.9

20.0

13.2

7.5

11.5

In treated animals, collars were replaced if the dog’s weight increased above the 8 kg threshold (n = 8), or because they were damaged or lost on one (n = 10) or more (n = 3) occasions.

Overall, three dogs (2.9%) in G1 and 47 (40.2%) in G2 tested positive for L. infantum in at least one of the diagnostic tests employed in the study. The number of seropositive dogs in G2 increased in the course of the study from 15 (first follow-up) to 41 (fourth follow-up), with some of them (n = 19; 40.4%) also positive in PCR on skin and/or bone marrow and/or in cytology on bone marrow aspirate (Table 4). All dogs except for one that had an initial seroconversion remained positive until the end of the study. Eight of the seropositive dogs (19.6%) in G2 showed an increase in antibody titers ranging from 1:160 to 1:1,280. Of the seropositive dogs in G1, two were found to be positive since the second follow-up, while the third tested serologically positive at the last follow-up (Table 4). At the last follow-up, some of the positive dogs in G2 displayed overt clinical signs suggestive of CanL, with lymph node enlargement (n = 28; 68.3%) and dry exfoliative dermatitis (n = 6; 14.6%) being the most frequent signs (Figure 2).
Table 4

Results of diagnostic tests recorded in the follow-up of dogs in both groups (G1 = treated and G2 = control) that became positive for Leishmania infantum in at least one test/follow-up

Group

ID/Site

I Follow-up (July-Aug. 2012)

II Follow-up (October-Nov. 2012)

III Follow-up (November- Dec. 2012)

IV Follow-up (February-March 2013)

Serology

Serology

Serology

PCR skin

Serology

PCR skin

PCR bone marrow

Cytology

G1

042/S2

negative

negative

negative

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G1

261/S2

negative

1:80

1:160

negative

1:160

negative

negative

positive

G1

310/S2

negative

1:80

1:320

negative

1:320

negative

negative

positive

G2

073/S2

1:80

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

081/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

positive

negative

positive

G2

083/S2

1:80

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

G2

086/S2

negative

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

positive

positive

G2

092/S2

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

negative

negative

negative

G2

093/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

positive

G2

106/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

positive

G2

109/S2

1:80

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

positive

negative

negative

G2

111/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

positive

G2

112/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

positive

negative

positive

G2

140/S2

1:80

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

positive

negative

positive

G2

142/S2

1:80

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

G2

157/S2

1:80

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

G2

158/S2

1:80

1:80

1:160

positive

1:1,280

positive

negative

negative

G2

163/S2

negative

negative

1:80

positive

1:160

positive

negative

negative

G2

164/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

168/S2

negative

negative

negative

negative

1:80

positive

negative

negative

G2

173/S2

1:80

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

175/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

-

-

-

-

G2

177/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

178/S2

negative

negative

negative

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

179/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:160

negative

negative

positive

G2

192/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

201/S2

negative

negative

1:80

positive

1:160

negative

positive

negative

G2

204/S2

1:80

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

208/S2

1:80

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

positive

negative

negative

G2

216/S2

1:80

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

237/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

272/S2

1:80

1:80

1:160

negative

1:160

negative

negative

negative

G2

273/S2

1:80

1:80

1:160

negative

-

-

-

-

G2

277/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

298/S2

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

018/S1

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

021/S1

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

022/S1

negative

negative

1:160

positive

1:160

negative

negative

negative

G2

051/S1

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

062/S1

negative

negative

negative

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

063/S1

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

064/S1

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

065/S1

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

positive

G2

087/S1

1:80

1:80

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

positive

G2

100/S1

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

101/S1

negative

negative

negative

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

139/S1

1:80

1:160

1:320

negative

1:320

negative

negative

negative

G2

140/S1

negative

negative

negative

negative

1:80

negative

negative

negative

G2

143/S1

negative

negative

1:160

positive

1:320

positive

negative

negative

G2

144/S1

negative

negative

1:80

negative

1:80

positive

negative

negative

For serology (IFAT) the highest dilution titer is reported.

Figure 2

A control dog showing clinical signs of leishmaniosis (i.e. dry exfoliative dermatitis) at the last follow-up (D300).

The annual crude incidence calculated using dogs that remained in the study until the last scheduled follow-up (D300) was 3.5% (3/86) and 39.4% (41/104) for G1 and G2, respectively (p < 0.001). The IDRs for each group at each follow-up are shown in Table 5. The mean IDR at the final follow-up was 4.0% for G1 and 60.7% for G2. Hence, the mean efficacy of the collar in protecting dogs from L. infantum infection was 93.4% (p < 0.01), ranging from 90.5% to 100% at site S2 and S1, respectively. No adverse events or side effects related to the collars were observed in treated dogs. Severe tick infestations were recorded in 38 dogs in G2; these animals were individually treated by manual removal (n = 17) or with non-repellent individual ectoparasiticide product, i.e. Frontline® spot-on, Merial SAS (n = 21).
Table 5

Incidence density rate for leishmaniosis in collared (G1) and uncollared control (G2) dogs calculated for each follow-up in the study

Study day

Number of dogs in the cohort

Number of new cases

Dog-months of follow-up

Incidence density rate/year

G1

G2

G1

G2

G1

G2

G1

G2

(Site S1/Site S2)

(Site S1/Site S2)

(Site S1/Site S2)

(Site S1/Site S2)

(Site S1/Site S2)

(Site S1/Site S2)

(Site S1/Site S2)

(Site S1/Site S2)

Inclusion (D0)

102 (35/67)

117 (38/79)

-

-

-

-

-

-

I Follow-up (D90 ± 10)

102 (35/67)

117 (38/79)

0 (0/0)

15 (2/13)

299.9 (97.7/202.3)

341.6 (103.4/238.6)

0.0 (0.0/0.0)

52.7 (23.2/65.4)

II Follow-up (D180 ± 10)

91 (30/61)

100 (36/64)

2 (0/2)

2 (0/2)

273.9 (91.8/182.4)

308.0 (115.9/192.0)

8.8 (0.0/13.2)

7.8 (0.0/12.6)

III Follow-up (D210 ± 10)

86 (30/56)

95 (36/59)

0 (0/0)

25 (10/15)

81.7 (29.1/52.1)

89.30 (34.9/55.5)

0.0 (0.0/0.0)

336.0 (343.6/324.6)

IV Follow-up (D300 ± 10)

84 (30/54)

67 (26/41)

1 (0/1)

5 (3/2)

242.8 (87.0/155.5)

190.3 (75.4/115.2)

4.9 (0.0/7.7)

31.5 (47.8/20.8)

Total

  

3

47 (15/32)

898.3 (305.6/592.3)

929.2 (329.6/601.3)

4.0 (0.0/6.1)

60.7 (54.6/63.9)

Site S1 = Messina shelter; Site S2 = Augusta shelter.

Sand flies (n = 700) were captured from the end of May 2012 until the first week of November 2012 (S1), and from the end of June until October (S2). At both sites Sergentomyia minuta was the best-represented species (433 females and 83 males; 73.7%), followed by Phlebotomus perniciosus (84 males and 35 females; 16.9%), Phlebotomus perfiliewi (42 females and 13 males; 7.9%) and Phlebotomus neglectus (7 females and 2 males; 1.3%). A single female specimen of Phlebotomus sergenti was captured at site S2. The largest number (n = 327) of sand flies was captured in September, while the majority of P. perniciosus specimens were collected in August (n = 21), September (n = 40) and October (n = 25), respectively.

Discussion

The slow-release collar tested in this study proved to be safe and highly effective (mean efficacy at the final follow-up = 93.4%) in preventing L. infantum infection in dogs living in an area hyper-endemic for CanL. A single preliminary field trial suggested the high potential of this collar in preventing CanL in young dogs never exposed to a transmission season [30]. In the present study we confirmed and extended this knowledge by testing the collar in a larger and heterogeneous dog population from an area hyper-endemic for CanL. The hyperendemicity of both study sites was confirmed by the annual incidence (39.4%) and the mean IDR (60.7%) recorded in the control dogs at the last follow-up, which are the highest ever recorded in southern Italy [1921, 23, 30, 3840]. This might be due to the simultaneous presence of diseased animals and susceptible unprotected dogs in the two shelters, along with the presence of competent sand fly species. In addition, according to the results of the preliminary screening, a large number of apparently healthy but seropositive dogs were present at both study sites (S1 = 14.6%; 21/144 and S2 = 25.4%; 79/311).

In the course of the study, a total of 47 (40.2%) out of the 117 uncollared dogs tested positive at least in one of the four follow-up investigations. The majority of these dogs were positive only on serology while others (n = 19/47; 40.4%) displayed an active infection, being simultaneously positive by different diagnostic methods (serology, PCR and cytology). The status of active infection was also corroborated by the increase in the antibody titers recorded in eight dogs (19.6%). It is known that, once established in dogs, L. infantum infection progresses over a variable period of time through different clinical presentations [7, 38, 40], although in the 12 months post infection the majority of dogs do not display a clinical condition [40]. Accordingly, in the present study, while lymph-node enlargement was the clinical sign most frequently found (68.3%) in serologically positive dogs, other signs such as dry exfoliative dermatitis and weight loss were observed at the last follow-up in 14.6% and 2.4% of dogs, respectively.

Among the collared dogs, only three animals became seropositive for L. infantum. Although seropositive, these animals did not show clinical signs suggestive of CanL. These three dogs were housed at site S2, where the highest IDR of the infection (63.9%) in control dogs was registered at the last follow-up. This might explain the high parasitic pressure at site S2, which ultimately led to a percentage of protection below 100%. It is accepted that the mechanism through which the collar protects dogs against Leishmania infection is the anti-feeding effect of flumethrin that reduces the number of sand flies bites and, in turn, the infection challenge [30]. In the same way, it has been demonstrated that a small number of sand flies may effectively feed on collared dogs, as demonstrated in a study with dogs wearing deltamethrin-impregnated collars [41]. Nonetheless, most sand flies fed on collared dogs will die in a few hours [41]. Thus, it may be concluded that even if some collared dogs may become infected if bitten by an infected sand fly, they will hardly ever contribute to transmission of the infection to other dogs. Indeed, most sand flies will be repelled when in contact with a collared dog and the few that will be able to feed on them will die shortly afterwards.

The percentage efficacy of the collar containing imidacloprid (10%) and flumethrin (4.5%) against L. infantum infection recorded in young dogs (100%) [30] or in the present study (93.4%) is higher than that obtained using a deltamethrin-impregnated collar, which yielded a maximum 86% after two consecutive seasons in southern Italy [19, 20]. This might be due to the longer residual effect of the imidacloprid/flumethrin collar (up to 8 months) than the deltamethrin collar (up to 5 months) as a result of the slow-release mechanism of the first device. In the present study, treated dogs wore the collar for up to eight months (from May to December). Accordingly, sand fly species that are competent vectors of L. infantum (P. perniciosus, P. perfiliewi and P. neglectus) were captured from June to October and from May to November at sites S1 and S2, respectively. The retrieval of a single specimen of P. sergenti in S2 is also of interest considering that this species is involved in the transmission of Leishmania tropica, the aetiological agent of human cutaneous leishmaniosis in the Middle East and Africa [2].

Despite the protracted period for which the collars were worn and the typology of the treated animals, i.e. sheltered dogs living in collective pens separated by iron wire meshes, no side effects or accidents were recorded during the study. The percentage (22.5%) of collar replacements observed in this study is similar to that reported in a previous investigation involving the same collar [30]. In fact, the dogs that had lost the collar were mainly young, probably very playful and lively animals.

Conclusions

The slow-release collar containing a combination of 10% imidacloprid and 4.5% flumethrin tested in this study proved to be safe and highly effective (90.5–100%) in preventing L. infantum infection in a large and heterogeneous group of dogs. The labeled protection conferred by a single collar (eight months) spanned an entire sand fly season in the examined area, where competent sand flies are active from May to November. Therefore, the regular use of collars, at least during the sand fly season, may be regarded as a reliable and sustainable strategy for the control of leishmaniosis in dogs living in or travelling to an area endemic for CanL.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Sebastiano Ficara and Raimondo Gissara of the local sanitary authority (Dipartimento Veterinario ASP 8, Siracusa) are thanked for their work with the administrative procedures of the study. The authors are indebted to the staff of the animal shelters and to the veterinarians, Giuseppe Cicero (practitioner in Augusta) and Alessandro Taormina (practitioner in Messina), who have participated in this study. Arcoblu’s personnel are thanked for the coordination of the project.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Dipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie, Università degli Studi di Messina, Polo Universitario Annunziata
(2)
Arcoblu s.r.l.
(3)
Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Bari, Strada Provinciale per Casamassima
(4)
Departamento de Imunologia, Centro de Pesquisas Aggeu Magalhães
(5)
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Laboratorio di Parassitologia
(6)
Bayer Animal Health GmbH

References

  1. Dantas-Torres F, Solano-Gallego L, Baneth G, Ribeiro VM, de Paiva-Cavalcanti M, Otranto D: Canine leishmaniosis in the old and new worlds: unveiled similarities and differences. Trends Parasitol. 2012, 28: 531-538.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gramiccia M, Gradoni L: The current status of zoonotic leishmaniases and approaches to disease control. Int J Parasitol. 2005, 35: 1169-1180.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dujardin JC, Campino L, Canavate C, Dedet JP, Gradoni L, Soteriadou K, Mazeris A, Ozbel Y, Boelaert M: Spread of vector-borne diseases and neglect of Leishmaniasis, Europe. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008, 14: 1013-1018.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvar J, Vélez ID, Bern C, Herrero M, Desjeux P, Cano J, Jannin J, den Boer M: Leishmaniasis worldwide and global estimates of its incidence. PLoS ONE. 2012, 7: e35671-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gramiccia M: Recent advances in leishmaniosis in pet animals: epidemiology, diagnostics and anti-vectorial prophylaxis. Vet Parasitol. 2011, 181: 23-30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Maroli M, Rossi L, Baldelli R, Capelli G, Ferroglio E, Genchi C, Gramiccia M, Mortarino M, Pietrobelli M, Gradoni L: The northward spread of leishmaniasis in Italy: evidence from retrospective and ongoing studies on the canine reservoir and phlebotomine vectors. Trop Med Int Health. 2008, 13: 256-264.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Baneth G, Koutinas AF, Solano-Gallego L, Bourdeau P, Ferrer L: Canine leishmaniosis - new concepts and insights on an expanding zoonosis: part one. Trends Parasitol. 2008, 24: 324-330.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dujardin JC: Risk factors in the spread of leishmaniases: towards integrated monitoring?. Trends Parasitol. 2006, 22: 4-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Michalsky EM, Rocha MF, da Rocha Lima AC, França-Silva JC, Pires MQ, Oliveira FS, Pacheco RS, dos Santos SL, Barata RA, Romanha AJ, Fortes-Dias CL, Dias ES: Infectivity of seropositive dogs, showing different clinical forms of leishmaniasis, to Lutzomyia longipalpis phlebotomine sand flies. Vet Parasitol. 2007, 147: 67-76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Miró G, Cardoso L, Pennisi MG, Oliva G, Baneth G: Canine leishmaniosis - new concepts and insights on an expanding zoonosis: part two. Trends Parasitol. 2008, 24: 371-377.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Otranto D, Paradies P, de Caprariis D, Stanneck D, Testini G, Grimm F, Deplazes P, Capelli G: Toward diagnosing Leishmania infantum infection in asymptomatic dogs in an area where leishmaniasis is endemic. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2009, 16: 337-343.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Miró G, Gálvez R, Fraile C, Descalzo MA, Molina R: Infectivity to Phlebotomus perniciosus of dogs naturally parasitized with Leishmania infantum after different treatments. Parasit Vectors. 2011, 4: 52-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Otranto D, Dantas-Torres F: The prevention of canine leishmaniasis and its impact on public health. Trends Parasitol. 2013, 29: 339-345.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nogueira FS, Moreira MA, Borja-Cabrera GP, Santos FN, Menz I, Parra LE, Xu Z, Chu HJ, Palatnik-de-Sousa CB, Luvizotto MC: Leishmune 1 vaccine blocks the transmission of canine visceral leishmaniasis: absence of Leishmania parasite in blood, skin and lymph nodes of vaccinated exposed dogs. Vaccine. 2005, 23: 4805-4810.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Palatnik-de-Sousa CB, Silva-Antunes I, Morgado Ade A, Menz I, Palatnik M, Lavor C: Decrease of the incidence of human and canine visceral leishmaniasis after dog vaccination with Leishmune in Brazilian endemic areas. Vaccine. 2009, 27: 3505-3512.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Moreno J, Vouldoukis I, Martin V, McGahie D, Cuisinier AM, Gueguen S: Use of a LiESP/QA-21 vaccine (CaniLeish) stimulates an appropriate Th1-dominated cell-mediated immune response in dogs. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012, 6: e1683-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Moreno J, Vouldoukis I, Schreiber P, Martin V, McGahie D, Gueguen S, Cuisinier AM: Primary vaccination with the LiESP/QA-21 vaccine (CaniLeish®) produces a cell-mediated immune response which is still present 1 year later. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2014, 158: 199-207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gavgani AS, Hodjati MH, Mohite H, Davies CR: Domestic dog ownership in Iran is a risk factor for human infection with Leishmania infantum. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002, 67: 511-515.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maroli M, Mizzon V, Siragusa C, D’Orazi A, Gradoni L: Evidence for an impact on the incidence of canine leishmaniasis by the mass use of deltamethrin-impregnated dog collars in Southern Italy. Med Vet Entomol. 2001, 15: 358-363.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Foglia Manzillo V, Oliva G, Pagano A, Manna L, Maroli M, Gradoni L: Deltamethrin-impregnated collars for the control of canine leishmaniasis: evaluation of the protective effect and influence on the clinical outcome of Leishmania infection in kennelled stray dogs. Vet Parasitol. 2006, 142: 142-145.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Otranto D, Paradies P, Lia RP, Latrofa MS, Testini G, Cantacessi C, Mencke N, Galli G, Capelli G, Stanneck D: Efficacy of a combination of 10% imidacloprid/50% permethrin for the prevention of leishmaniasis in kennelled dogs in an endemic area. Vet Parasitol. 2007, 144: 270-278.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferroglio E, Poggi M, Trisciuoglio A: Evaluation of 65% permethrin spot-on and deltamethrin-impregnated collars for canine Leishmania infantum infection prevention. Zoonoses Publ Health. 2008, 55: 145-148.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Otranto D, de Caprariis D, Lia RP, Tarallo V, Lorusso V, Testini G, Dantas-Torres F, Latrofa S, Diniz PP, Mencke N, Maggi RG, Breitschwerdt E, Capelli G, Stanneck D: Prevention of endemic canine vector-borne diseases using imidacloprid 10% and permethrin 50% in young dogs: a longitudinal field study. Vet Parasitol. 2010, 172: 323-332.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanneck D, Ebbinghaus-Kintscher U, Schoenhense E, Kruedewagen EM, Turberg A, Leisewitz A, Jiritschka W, Krieger KJ: The synergistic action of imidacloprid and flumethrin and their release kinetics from collars applied for ectoparasite control in dogs and cats. Parasit Vectors. 2012, 5: 73-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Stanneck D, Rass J, Radeloff I, Kruedewagen E, Le Sueur C, Hellmann K, Krieger K: Evaluation of the long-term efficacy and safety of an imidacloprid 10%/flumethrin 4.5% polymer matrix collar (Seresto®) in dogs and cats naturally infested with fleas and/or ticks in multicentre clinical field studies in Europe. Parasit Vectors. 2012, 5: 66-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Brianti E, Falsone L, Napoli E, Prudente C, Gaglio G, Giannetto S: Efficacy of a combination of 10% imidacloprid and 4.5% flumethrin (Seresto®) in slow release collars to control ticks and fleas in highly infested dog communities. Parasit Vectors. 2013, 6: 210-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Dantas-Torres F, Capelli G, Giannelli A, Ramos RA, Lia RP, Cantacessi C, de Caprariis D, De Tommasi AS, Latrofa MS, Lacasella V, Tarallo VD, Di Paola G, Qurollo B, Breitschwerdt E, Stanneck D, Otranto D: Efficacy of an imidacloprid/flumethrin collar against fleas, ticks and tick-borne pathogens in dogs. Parasit Vectors. 2013, 6: 245-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fourie JJ, Stanneck D, Jongejan F: Prevention of transmission of Babesia canis by Dermacentor reticulatus ticks to dogs treated with an imidacloprid/flumethrin collar. Vet Parasitol. 2013, 192: 273-278.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Stanneck D, Fourie JJ: Imidacloprid 10%/flumethrin 4.5% collars (Seresto®, Bayer) successfully prevent long-term transmission of Ehrlichia canis by infected Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks to dogs. Parasitol Res. 2013, 112: 21-32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Otranto D, Dantas-Torres F, de Caprariis D, Di Paola G, Tarallo VD, Latrofa MS, Lia RP, Annoscia G, Breitschwerdt EB, Cantacessi C, Capelli G, Stanneck D: Prevention of canine leishmaniosis in a hyper-endemic area using a combination of 10% imidacloprid/4.5% flumethrin. PLoS One. 2013, 8: e56374-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gómez-Saladín E, Doud CW, Maroli M: Short report: surveillance of Leishmania sp. among sand flies in Sicily (Italy) using a fluorogenic real-time polymerase chain reaction. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005, 72: 138-141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Gaglio G, Brianti E, Napoli E, Falsone L, Dantas-Torres F, Tarallo VD, Otranto D, Giannetto S: Effect of night time-intervals, height of traps and lunar phases on sand fly collection in a highly endemic area for canine leishmaniasis. Acta Trop. 2014, 133: 73-77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Cortes S, Rolão N, Ramada J, Campino L: PCR as a rapid and sensitive tool in the diagnosis of human and canine leishmaniasis using Leishmania donovani s.l.-specific kinetoplastid primers. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2004, 98: 12-17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Killick-Kendrick R, Tang Y, Killick-Kendrick M, Sang DK, Sirdar MK, Ashford RW, Schorscher J, Johnson RH: The identification of female sandflies of the subgenus Larroussius by the morphology of the spermathecal ducts. Parassitologia. 1991, 33: 335-347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Romi R, Khoury C, Bigliocchi F, Maroli M: Schede Guida su Acari e Insetti di Interesse Sanitario. 1994, Roma: Rapporti Istisan 94/8Google Scholar
  36. Thrusfield M, Ortega C, de Blas I, Noordhuizen JP, Frankena K: WIN EPISCOPE 2.0: improved epidemiological software for veterinary medicine. Vet Rec. 2001, 148: 567-572.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreira ED, de Souza VM M, Sreenivasan M, Nascimento EG, Pontes De Carvalho L: Assessment of an optimized dog-culling program in the dynamics of canine Leishmania transmission. Vet Parasitol. 2004, 6: 245-252.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliva G, Scalone A, Foglia-Manzillo V, Gramiccia M, Pagano A, Di Muccio T, Gradoni L: Incidence and time course of Leishmania infantum infections examined by parasitological, serologic, and nested-PCR techniques in a cohort of naïve dogs exposed to three consecutive transmission seasons. J Clin Microbiol. 2006, 44: 1318-1322.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Paradies P, Capelli G, Cafarchia C, de Caprariis D, Sasanelli MT, Otranto D: Incidence of canine leishmaniasis in an endemic area of Southern Italy. J Vet Med B. 2006, 53: 295-298.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Foglia Manzillo V, Di Muccio T, Cappiello S, Scalone A, Paparcone R, Fiorentino E, Gizzarelli M, Gramiccia M, Gradoni L, Oliva G: Prospective study on the incidence and progression of clinical signs in naïve dogs naturally infected by Leishmania infantum. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013, 7: e2225-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Killick-Kendrick R, Killick-Kendrick M, Focheux C, Dereure J, Puech MP: Protection of dogs from the bites of phlebotomine sandflies by deltamethrin collars for the control of canine leishmaniasis. Med Vet Entomol. 1997, 11: 105-111.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Brianti et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement