severe mites--need Dex dose quick

Post Reply
kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:48 pm


It's ok, Chary, I haven't been attacked in several months so Im due.

Also, old people (Lynx) hate change, so I expected her to feel personally offended. She is, after all, the ivermectin queen!

Lynx, I have personal experience with oral ivermectin being ineffective in one of my daughter's pigs, Bosco. That is the ONLY reason I even posted. As I wrote earlier, (although it is quite apparent that people are not really reading) I had this info from the vet months ago. I did not post until I could try it on Bosco.


>>Well, the truth is it works orally <<.
Not on some pigs, Lynx, and unless you want to openly call me a liar, please read what I have been trying to say.

Bosco is my daughter's himi. She is married and on her own and doesn't live here.

Bosco had the typical mite V in the middle of his back. Also extremely sensitive to any touching, and almost went into seizures if you rubbed the fur on his back the wrong way. Mites, right? OK.

She dosed him orally, 5 weeks in a row. No change. OK, so I figured maybe it wasn't mites, and we treated him for lice and fungus, even though I could not see anything. I'm figuring, if the ivermectin didn't work, it must be something else.

After another 3 weeks, there was still no hair growth, he was just as sensitive, and he was starting to drop weight.

Thinking that perhaps my daughter did the ivermectin wrong, or missed a dose, or some other form of human error, I started Bosco back on ivermectin. I mixed the oral dosages. I dosed him myself every 7 days. For 5 treatments.

OK, now we are REALLY stumped, because he is the same. No improvement.

When Pebbles went to the vet, before her spay, Bosco was at my house because my kids were on vacation. All her pigs were here.

I told the vet I wanted an appt for Bosco, and explained the above to her. It was THEN that she told me that she had just read a new article that said that SOME pigs might be resistant to ORAL ivermectin, and that injections were recommended and proving very reliable in irradicating mites in these resistant pigs. I immediately asked about topical dosing, and she said she had no data on that, the article was about oral and injections ONLY. She named the vet and the article, but I was outside in the yard and did not write it down. And no, she still hasn't called.

OK, so I start Bosco on a TOPICAL series of ivermectin. I went and purchased the injectable kind to use topically. (As a side note, there was a female sow at 3lilpiggies that was having the same thing. Hairloss in one spot on her back, and oral ivermectin did not solve it. I told this topical story to her, and she treated the pig and her hair is all growing back.)

I dosed Bosco every 7 days for 5 treatments. He is MUCH less sensitive. He doesn't mind if you rub his fur the wrong way anymore. His hair is growing back, I think. He STILL has the telltale V on his back, so I am not completely sure the topical doses worked! It could be that he has developed a "habit" of biting off his hair. It could be that he actually damaged the hair follicles or something (no idea). Or it COULD be that he is highly resistant to ivermectin, and may need injections. I honestly don't know. I suppose time will tell, and if he again becomes sensitive, or loses more hair, I'll keep you all posted.

Those personal experiences with Bosco and Priscilla were what made me finally post that, PERHAPS, ORAL ivermectin may not be effective for SOME pigs.

I think it is ludicrous and asinine to say that I don't believe ivermectin is effective. I have never said, nor do I believe that. That is the only safe thing I know of to get rid of mites.

I'm sorry if some of you thought I posted irresponsibly. I felt, having gone through what I did with Bosco and Priscilla, I would tell you what my vet had told me.

>>before you shoot the vet that said ivermectin injections are the only way to be sure you've gotten the mites, for some pigs, he might be right, according to this new info from my vet <<

Chary, I said this because, frankly, Bosco still does not have hair in the V!! Period. And I don't know why. I HATE shots, I HATE the expense, but just to find out for sure, I may well go ahead and do ivermectin injections on him. I feel sorry for the pig if he has mites! It hurts. It's not right to let him suffer if he is the 1 in 1000 that topical and oral ivermectin will not help.

I'm not sure what else to do. I'm also not sure what to do with info I get, if it's new, because obviously I screwed this one up. I tried really hard not to scream and shout, I used words like "possibly, "maybe", "perhaps". Sheesh.

Give me options, people. How should I have reported this? AND WHERE IS THAT DAMN VET!!!!!!???

Paisley

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:40 pm


I'm sorry the link doesn't work for you, Lynx. Did you try the html link, too? I was having trouble myself with the pdf link so that is why I also included the html link.

I found many points of interest. I really don't want to quote any of them here, though, for fear of misinterpretation. It's better to read the whole text.

kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:58 pm


never mind. My post vanished, but now it's back.

Paisley

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:06 pm


I couldn't see your last post (the one before mine) until I posted, kleenmama. The board has been acting up for me all day.

kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:10 pm


I know! I thought that whole long thing was gone and I was about to say nasty words.

Still no vet call. Sigh.

Charybdis

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:08 pm


So you were using the horse paste before, not the injectable kind orally?

User avatar
Lynx
RESIST

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:09 pm


I'll tell you what bothers me about your post and your claim. Esp now that I've read the article (or much of it, though I need to try again). Your words are these:
SOME pigs might be resistant to ORAL ivermectin, and that injections were recommended and proving very reliable in irradicating mites in these resistant pigs.
...it COULD be that he is highly resistant to ivermectin...
It's that damn "resistant" word. Very inappropriate and misleading. If you read the article, it says (Paisley, correct me if I'm wrong and add your own interpretation of the article) that the amount of ivermectin in the blood determines its effectiveness and that guinea pigs have a very low amount of ivermectin in the blood when it is administered orally vs. administered by injection. They also say it is low topically but it persists (another variable, how long it is in the bloodstream) much longer. What might this mean? That the oral dose might be more effective at 0.5mg/kg. My problem is with your use of "resistant". There is no proof it is resistant at all. What the article implies is that the effective dose is lower and perhaps may not be as effective when given orally. Though as we all know, many of us have had success with an oral dose of 0.2mg/kg.

Another interesting piece of information from that article is that the ivermectin does get into the mother's milk. It is a much lower dose than if you were dosing the animal, but it is there. So indeed, the babies DO get some of the ivermectin if their mother is treated with it while nursing. If it is felt pups should not be treated until they are older, it would then be better to wait until the mother is not nursing before treating with ivermectin.

Charybdis

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:40 pm


I thought that was why we treated pregnant sows with mites--so that the Ivermectin would get to the babies.

kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:58 pm


Lynx, my VET used the word resistant. I did not make it up. That is the very word she used. She still didn't call back, so I'll try again tomorrow.

I did read and tried to understand what Paisley posted, and the links. Although I did understand that, most of that info is older than the last couple of months.

The way my vet made it sound when she talked to me just a couple months back was " I just read some new literature that shows some pigs might be resistant to oral ivermectin".

If, when she finally calls back, she gives me the article, I'll post it here. I'f I've misunderstood her words or intent, I will also post that so that we can clear this up.

Charybdis

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:03 pm


Ok, I read Paisley's article with difficulty. Science was never my strong point.

In the passage which talks about Ivermectin formulations, a distinction is made between injectable doses using, I presume, the 1% solution (in glycerol, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) and a less effective water formulation. It seems that the study showed that water-based formulations are less effective than the "straight" Ivermectin.

It appears, although I am not sure, that this study used a water-based formulation to dose these animals orally. Although I can't find any direct evidence in the article, it does not seem to me that the study used the INJECTABLE form of Ivermectin ORALLY, as we do. Horse paste is mentioned, and that may have been what was used orally (or something similar).

What I'm wondering if that variable (type of formulation of Ivermectin) was factored into the results pertaining to administration route.

Can someone who is more science-oriented than I try to figure that out? Did they use different formulations for different routes?

Charybdis

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:04 pm


KM, can you answer my question about whether or not you were using paste to dose orally?

Paisley

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:31 pm


I'll try to post some of my comments on the article tomorrow. I'm getting tired now so my brain is "fuzzy". Night all!

kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:33 pm


I'm sorry, Chary, I didn't see that question. Orally, I used the Zimecterin Horse paste, mixed with propylene glycol.

Topically, I used the injectable ivermectin.

I also wanted to add that I have no idea if any of the articles Paisley posted were the ones my vet was referring to.

User avatar
Lynx
RESIST

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:36 pm


Perhaps you could do a summary for lay people, Paisley?

If your vet used the word resistant, she may be the one in error. All I can say at the moment is that I really prefer doing it topically because it is so simple and quick.

kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:43 pm


I know, Lynx, you have always preferred the topical method. I, on the other hand, have always preferred the oral method. That is because I was using the Zimecterin Horse paste.

I'll call her again in the morning. I'm certain she used the word "resistant". She might have newer info than we have, I just don't know.

Bilbrey

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:10 pm


Now see... you can't tell me it wasn't a good thing that KM got the ball rolling on this issue. Aren't we all learning? And isn't that the point? So why all the silliness about not posting new unproven ideas? We can't stop the idiots from doing the wrong things with those ideas (they'll be doing the wrong things anyway), but as long as those of us with half a brain (minimum--heh heh) are using the ideas and new information to learn and improve our understanding... how can that be wrong? We have to examine these ideas as they come along--whe they're bogus, we can cover that, but when they're valuable, we can use them. This topic has been quite fruitful already and promises to bring even more insight.

Evangeline

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:14 pm


Well, that was sucky. Bilbrey, I think you haven't been here long enough to get an idea of the whole picture.

Paisley

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:16 pm


Here is a summary of the Ivermectin Pharmacokinetics study.

* “Pharmacokinetics” is the study of the bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs.

1) Ivermectin levels in blood plasma and milk of various animal species were studied.

2) Ivermectin’s effects are influenced by
a) its formulation
b) the route of administration (subcutaneous, oral, topical)
c) the species of animal it's administered to
d) the sex of the animal
e) the physiological status of the animal (lactating, etc.)

3) Antiparasitic efficacy is reflected by the blood plasma concentration levels of Ivermectin.

4) Ivermectin blood plasma levels increase with an increase in the dose administered.

5) Water-free injection formulations of Ivermectin have a longer duration of clinical efficacy.

6) In oral formulations, bioavailability of Ivermectin is greater when using a micelle* solution compared to an oral paste. * A “micelle” is a colloidal aggregate of surfactant molecules. (Micelle solutions of Ivermectin are given to horses via tubes that go up through the nose and into the stomach.)

7) There were significant differences in Ivermectin’s bioavailability and biological half-life between oral and subcutaneous administrations.

8) Ivermectin’s blood plasma concentrations were lower after oral administration so systemic bioavailability and duration of antiparasitic action was decreased.

9) Blood plasma concentration levels of Ivermectin were measurable for a longer period of time after a subcutaneous injection.

10) Food fed to animals after they received an oral administration of Ivermectin caused the Ivermectin to adsorb to the food. It is recommended that oral Ivermectin be given on an empty stomach.

11) Greatest bioavailability of Ivermectin is achieved first using subcutaneous administration, followed by oral then topical administration. However, Ivermectin residues were detected for a longer period of time after topical administration than after oral administration.

12) Ivermectin in blood plasma was 3x greater after subcutaneous administration at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg body weight than after topical
(pour-on) administration at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg body weight. However, because of its slow and continuous absorption, it is thought that Ivermectin would still be effective after topical administration.

13) Ivermectin was detected in the blood plasma of guinea pigs after a subcutaneous administration of a dose of 0.5 mg/kg body weight. (The maximum blood plasma concentration was 0.7 ng/ml, which was the smallest value of all the animal species investigated.)

14) Ivermectin is excreted into milk. However, the Ivermectin blood plasma levels of the suckling animals were very small. The indirect, oral ingestion of Ivermectin via the milk was considered negligible.

Bilbrey

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:57 pm


E: You're probably (or at least hopefully) right.

In any case, from my 'GL-novice' perspective, I'm still glad this came up, as it's been incredibly interesting so far. Thanks for breaking down that study, Paisley.

User avatar
Paravati
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:08 pm


Wow. I think some very important things were raised here, especially since I ALWAYS dose orally:

10) Food fed to animals after they received an oral administration of Ivermectin caused the Ivermectin to adsorb to the food. It is recommended that oral Ivermectin be given on an empty stomach.

14) Ivermectin is excreted into milk. However, the Ivermectin blood plasma levels of the suckling animals were very small. The indirect, oral ingestion of Ivermectin via the milk was considered negligible.

Post Reply
383 posts