Elsevier

Veterinary Parasitology

Volume 135, Issues 3–4, 18 February 2006, Pages 347-354
Veterinary Parasitology

Comparative plasma dispositions of ivermectin and doramectin following subcutaneous and oral administration in dogs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.10.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This study evaluates the comparative plasma dispositions of ivermectin (IVM) and doramectin (DRM) following oral and subcutaneous administration (200 μg/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 μg/kg bodyweight. The other two groups (Groups III and IV) received subcutaneously injectable solutions at the same dose rate. Blood samples were collected between 1 h 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 (Cmax: 116.80 ± 10.79 ng/ml) with slower absorption (tmax: 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 (Cmax: 86.47 ± 19.80 ng/ml, tmax: 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 (Cmax: 66.80 ± 9.67 ng/ml and 54.78 ± 11.99 ng/ml, respectively) with slower absorption (tmax: 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 (t1/2λz) 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.

Introduction

Ivermectin (IVM) and doramectin (DRM) are members of avermectins and have a similar antiparasitic activity at extremely low dosage rates based on a common mode of action. Both chemicals are naturally derived 16-membered macrocyclic lactones (Takiguchi et al., 1980) produced by the soil dwelling actinomycetes, Streptomyces spp. Doramectin differs from IVM through substitution of a cyclohexyl group at the C-25 position (Fig. 1). They are highly effective against nematode and ectoparasitic arthropods in different host species. However, neither molecule is effective against trematodes or cestodes (Shoop et al., 1995).

The pharmacokinetic behaviour of avermectins and milbemycins are significantly affected by route of administration, formulation of the drug, and interspecies and interindividual variation (McKellar and Benchaoui, 1996). These anthelmintics are highly lipophilic substances, and are extensively distributed throughout the body and slowly eliminated from tissues such as liver and fat (Zulalian et al., 1994). Consequently, these compounds have large volumes of distribution (Lanusse et al., 1997). However, bioavailability of endectocides following oral administration may result in lower efficacy and it has been shown that subcutaneous administration of endectocides is a much more efficient route for administration in sheep, cattle and goats as compared to the oral route (Alvinerie, 1997, Gayrard et al., 1999, Laffont et al., 2001, Lespine et al., 2003). Although, a significant first-pass metabolism of IVM is not present in ruminant species (Prichard et al., 1985), oral administration confers relatively lower bioavailability of endectocides because of binding with the organic gut content in sheep (Hennessy et al., 2000) and cattle (Alvinerie et al., 1999).

Plasma dispositions of IVM and DRM have been studied in different animal species. In these studies, it has been demonstrated that DRM has a greater bioavailability and a longer persistence than IVM when administered by the same routes in sheep (Atta and Abo-Shihada, 2000, Barber et al., 2003), cattle (Toutain et al., 1997, Lanusse et al., 1997, Gayrard et al., 1999), horse (Gokbulut et al., 2001, Perez et al., 2002) and donkey (Gokbulut et al., 2005), suggesting that DRM elimination is slower than IVM.

Doramectin is relatively a newer avermectin, licensed for use cattle, sheep and swine, its extra-label use in dogs as an endectocide has been increasing in recent years. The pharmacokinetic behaviour of IVM has been investigated more extensively than that of DRM as IVM is so far the most widely used endectocide across animal species. However, there is a lack of information in the literature on the plasma pharmacokinetics of DRM in dogs. The present study describes the comparative plasma kinetic profile of IVM and DRM in dogs for a 40-day period following oral and subcutaneous administration at a dose of 200 μg/kg bodyweight.

Section snippets

Experimental animals

A total of 20 cross-bred bitches, 2–5 years old and weighing 15–30 kg were used in the study. For the duration of the study, the animals in each group were housed in appropriate pens and each dog was identified by natural markings. Water was supplied ad libitum and animals were fed once daily with an appropriate quantity of feed during the experiment period. This study was approved by Animal Ethic Committee of University of Adnan Menderes.

Treatments and sampling

The animals were allocated into four groups of five such

Results

The analytical procedures for the determination of IVM and DRM plasma concentrations were validated. The linear regression lines for IVM and DRM under the study in the range between 0.25 and 100 ng/ml showed correlation coefficients as 0.996 (IVM) and 0.999 (DRM). The mean extraction recoveries were 96.4% for IVM and 94.29% for DRM. The inter-assay precision of the extraction and chromatographic procedures for IVM and DRM showed coefficients of variations 4.75 and 5.53%, respectively. The

Discussion

The plasma pharmacokinetic profiles obtained following oral and subcutaneous administration of IVM and DRM were different in dogs when compared with the other animals. In ruminants and equine species, DRM produced greater bioavailability and longer persistence compared with IVM when administered by same route of administration (Toutain et al., 1997, Atta and Abo-Shihada, 2000, Barber et al., 2003, Lanusse et al., 1997, Gayrard et al., 1999, Gokbulut et al., 2005, Perez et al., 2002).

The

Conclusion

In conclusion, the present study indicated that oral and subcutaneous treatment of IVM and DRM at doses as high as 200 μg/kg did not cause any clinically detectable adverse affects in dogs. In contrast with ruminants and equine species, oral administration of IVM displayed a significantly higher plasma concentration than that of DRM, whereas no significant differences were observed on the pharmacokinetic parameters between both molecules after subcutaneous administrations. Considering the

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Scientific Research Committee of Adnan Menderes University (VTF-05005), Aydin, Turkey.

References (36)

  • M. Alvinerie

    Comparative pharmacokinetic properties of moxidectin and ivermectin in different animal species

    J. Vet. Pharmacol. Therp.

    (1997)
  • A.H. Atta et al.

    Comparative pharmacokinetics of doramectin and ivermectin in sheep

    J. Vet. Pharmacol. Therp.

    (2000)
  • S. Barber et al.

    The comparative serum disposition kinetics of subcutaneous administration of doramectin, ivermectin and moxidectin in the Australian Merino sheep

    J. Vet. Pharmacol. Therp.

    (2003)
  • S. Chiu et al.

    Absorption, tissue distribution, and excretion of tritium-labeled ivermectin in cattle, sheep, and rat

    J. Agric. Food Chem.

    (1990)
  • C.P. Daurio et al.

    Bioavailability of ivermectin administered orally to dogs

    Vet. Res. Commun.

    (1992)
  • D.V. Fink et al.

    Chemistry

  • C. Gokbulut et al.

    Plasma pharmacokinetics and faecal excretion of ivermectin, doramectin and moxidectin after oral administration in horses

    Equine Vet. J.

    (2001)
  • D.R. Hennessy et al.

    The behaviour of doramectin in the gastrointestinal tract, its secretion in bile and pharmacokinetic disposition in the peripheral circulation after oral and intravenous administration to sheep

    J. Vet. Pharmacol. Therp.

    (2000)
  • Cited by (49)

    • Vincristine and ivermectin combination chemotherapy in dogs with natural transmissible venereal tumor of different cyto-morphological patterns: A prospective outcome evaluation

      2020, Animal Reproduction Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      In this regard, it is hypothesized that the approach in the present study, of injecting vincristine when blood concentrations of ivermectin were at the steady state, might have induced a prior inhibition of P-gp in tumor cells when vincristine was injected, thus possibly resulting in effective vincristine concentrations inside tumor cells. Following ivermectin administration in dogs, the plasma concentrations were maximum 1.4 days after the treatment and the area under the concentration compared with time curve was greater than 300 ng/day/mL (Gokbulut et al., 2006; Eraslan et al., 2010). Ivermectin was also subsequently administered every 15 days until the end of the treatment period, maintaining a relatively consistent concentration with this treatment regimen throughout the chemotherapy period.

    • Toxicology of Avermectins and Milbemycins (Macrocyclic Lactones) and the Role of P-Glycoprotein in Dogs and Cats

      2018, Veterinary Clinics of North America - Small Animal Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      SC absorption is slower, with tmax being 32 to 36 hours in dogs44,46 and about 28 hours in cats.41 The elimination half-life after oral administration of ivermectin to dogs is 3.3 days,44,45 whereas after SC administration, the half-life is 3.2 days in dogs44 and 3.4 days in cats.41 One study evaluated the differences in pharmacokinetic parameters after SC injection of the same dosage of seven different ivermectin preparations in dogs.46

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text