severe mites--need Dex dose quick

Post Reply
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
Celebrate!!!

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
Celebrate!!!

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.

Post Reply