Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How ivermectin and doramectin stay in dog blood after oral
By Gokbulut, Cengiz et al.·Published in Veterinary parasitology·2006·Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparative plasma dispositions of ivermectin and doramectin following subcutaneous and oral administration in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs was given either ivermectin or doramectin to see how well these medications worked when given by mouth or as an injection under the skin. The study found that ivermectin worked better when taken orally, reaching higher levels in the blood more slowly, while both medications showed similar results when injected. This means that both ivermectin and doramectin can be effective for treating parasite infections in dogs, whether given as a pill or an injection.
People also search for: dog parasite treatment ivermectin vs doramectin · oral vs injectable ivermectin for dogs · how to treat dog parasites
Abstract
This study evaluates the comparative plasma dispositions of ivermectin (IVM) and doramectin (DRM) following oral and subcutaneous administration (200 microg/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 microg/kg bodyweight. The other two groups (Groups III and IV) received subcutaneously injectable solutions at the same dose rate. Blood samples were collected between 1h 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 (C(max): 116.80+/-10.79 ng/ml) with slower absorption (t(max): 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 (C(max): 86.47+/-19.80 ng/ml, t(max): 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 (C(max): 66.80+/-9.67 ng/ml and 54.78+/-11.99 ng/ml, respectively) with slower absorption (t(max): 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 ((t(1/2lambda(z)) 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.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16280198/