Efficacy and blood sera analysis of a long-acting formulation of moxidectin against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) on treated cattle

Optimizing long-acting acaricide use for integrated tick management of Rhipicephalus australis-infesting cattle in New Caledonia

The tick Rhipicephalus australis, formerly known as Rhipicephalus microplus, is the most economically important ectoparasite of livestock in New Caledonia, affecting cattle health and production. Decades of control attempts based on the application of chemical acaricides have exerted a strong selective pressure on R. australis populations, some of which have evolved resistance to these treatments. Research to develop integrated tick control programs is now focused on decreasing applications of chemicals. This study reports the implementation of a method of pasture and herd management involving minimal strategic use of long-acting acaricides, here defined as those having substantial efficacy against larvae for several weeks. Diverse parameters concerning the utilization of long-acting acaricides in association with pasture and herd management on 21 New Caledonian farms over a 5-year period were analyzed to optimize their strategic use. Longer larval acaricidal effect was achieved with a commercial pour-on formulation of fluazuron than with a commercial injectable (subcutaneous) formulation containing 3.15% ivermectin. Pasture and herd management allowed an increase in the delay between a long-lasting acaricide application and the subsequent acaricide treatment from 11.0 weeks to 17.7 weeks. However, if ticks were detected and reported by producers on the day of a long-acting acaricide application, the delay to the following treatment was reduced from 18.5 weeks to 11.2 weeks. The impact of a long-acting acaricide treatment on larval populations in pastures was greatest with a stocking rate of 5 animals per hectare grazing during 1 week. These results provide science-based evidence to cattle producers for adaptive integrated tick management in order to delay the development of acaricide resistance.

Efficacy of a water-based botanical acaricide formulation applied in portable spray box against the southern cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae), infesting cattle

Ectoparasitism result in annual losses to livestock producers estimated to reach billions of dollars in tropical and subtropical parts of the world where the southern cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, is established because this invasive pest is also a vector of pathogens causing bovine babesiosis and anaplasmosis. Reintroduction of R. microplus could be economically devastating for the cattle industry in the United States. Novel technologies are necessary to manage populations of R. microplus that are resistant to multiple classes of synthetic chemicals widely used as acaricides to control ticks infesting livestock, and to mitigate the environmental impact of these synthetic acaricides. Bioassays with a water-based formulation of a commercially available botanical acaricide (Essentria® IC3) at 6.25 % against a laboratory strain of R. microplus was 100 % lethal against unfed larvae, and 94 % mortality was recorded against engorged female ticks. These results prompted documentation of efficacy on infested cattle using an acaricide delivery system mimicking field conditions, which is required to consider the use of a product by integrated tick management programs. Twelve tick naïve cattle were artificially infested with unfed larvae on days -19, -12 and -5. On day -2, ticks from the left-side of the body of each animal were manually counted. Depending on pre-treatment tick counts the animals were assigned into three separate treatment groups: i) water (untreated control); ii) coumaphos 0.3 % in water (positive control); and iii) botanical acaricide 6.25 % in water. Five days after the last infestation, cattle were doused in a spray box and moved to individual stalls to collect tick data for calculation of treatment efficacy. The percentage control, based on the reproduction of surviving engorged female ticks after treatment with the 6.25 % Essentria in water-based spray was 70 % against R. microplus. Coumaphos treatment had a mean percent control of 100 %. Whereas this application of Essentria® IC3 cannot be recommended as a stand-alone method to eradicate R. microplus, the 6.25 % botanical acaricide water-based spray could be part of integrated tick management to control populations of R. microplus resistant to organophosphates like coumaphos and other classes of commercially available synthetic acaricides.

A systematic review of moxidectin as a treatment for parasitic infections in mammalian species

Moxidectin (MOX) is a macrocyclic lactone approved worldwide for the treatment of both endo- and ecto-parasites in many mammalian species. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of MOX as a treatment against parasites in a range of mammalian species. An electronic literature search was performed for publications to the 1^st September 2020. A total of 205 papers were retrieved and screened against all required criteria; hence, 35 were papers were reviewed in this study. The level of evidence and methodological quality was analysed, where a total of 13 publications were categorised as a 'randomised control trial', seven were categorised as a 'non-randomised control trial' and 15 as an 'experimental control trial'. The overall methodological quality of the publications was considered low, low to moderate, moderate, moderate to high and high in ten, four, twelve, five and a further four, respectively. We assessed the treatment and possible toxicity of MOX in 13 mammalian species, six investigations reported adverse effects to MOX in a small percentage of individuals. The authors reported observed reactions that were typically mild symptoms that did not require additional therapies, and/or resolved themselves. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of MOX treatment in a larger number of species, particularly in wildlife.

Moxidectin and the avermectins: Consanguinity but not identity

The avermectins and milbemycins contain a common macrocyclic lactone (ML) ring, but are fermentation products of different organisms. The principal structural difference is that avermectins have sugar groups at C13 of the macrocyclic ring, whereas the milbemycins are protonated at C13. Moxidectin (MOX), belonging to the milbemycin family, has other differences, including a methoxime at C23. The avermectins and MOX have broad-spectrum activity against nematodes and arthropods. They have similar but not identical, spectral ranges of activity and some avermectins and MOX have diverse formulations for great user flexibility. The longer half-life of MOX and its safety profile, allow MOX to be used in long-acting formulations. Some important differences between MOX and avermectins in interaction with various invertebrate ligand-gated ion channels are known and could be the basis of different efficacy and safety profiles. Modelling of IVM interaction with glutamate-gated ion channels suggest different interactions will occur with MOX. Similarly, profound differences between MOX and the avermectins are seen in interactions with ABC transporters in mammals and nematodes. These differences are important for pharmacokinetics, toxicity in animals with defective transporter expression, and probable mechanisms of resistance. Resistance to the avermectins has become widespread in parasites of some hosts and MOX resistance also exists and is increasing. There is some degree of cross-resistance between the avermectins and MOX, but avermectin resistance and MOX resistance are not identical. In many cases when resistance to avermectins is noticed, MOX produces a higher efficacy and quite often is fully effective at recommended dose rates. These similarities and differences should be appreciated for optimal decisions about parasite control, delaying, managing or reversing resistances, and also for appropriate anthelmintic combination.