Experimental infections are required by current guidelines for investigating the efficacy of anthelmintics in dogs and cats. Recently, alternatives to experimental infections and the sacrificing of research dogs and cats have been evaluated, and novel conceptual investigations and methods of examination have been explored. Several of these approaches could potentially be used in efficacy studies for anthelmintics in dogs and cats. Here, we provide food for thought towards using new tools for evaluating the efficacy of anthelmintics in companion animals, for promoting the value of field trials, and for updating the existing guidelines for the efficacy testing of anthelmintics in dogs and cats. Present guidelines for the efficacy evaluation of anthelmintics in dogs and cats require both field and experimental studies and the determination of worm burden upon treatment after necropsy. A number of alternative assessment techniques in vivo, some already used as primary endpoints and some requiring further validation, can be considered as suitable parameters for efficacy evaluation in experimental and field settings. New laboratory and clinical diagnostic methods are proposed to substitute the post mortem worm count in experimentally infected dogs and cats. More weight should be attributed to efficacy studies under natural conditions, as they reflect more reliably the clinical scenarios of daily small-animal practice and, if conducted properly, provide more realistic information compared to experimental studies. Current guidelines on anthelmintic efficacy testing in dogs and cats require updating and adaptation according to the most recent scientific knowledge in response to animal welfare requirements (3R principles).

The 3Rs Concept: Time to Change How We Evaluate the Efficacy of Anthelmintics in Companion Animals

Traversa, Donato;
2018-01-01

Abstract

Experimental infections are required by current guidelines for investigating the efficacy of anthelmintics in dogs and cats. Recently, alternatives to experimental infections and the sacrificing of research dogs and cats have been evaluated, and novel conceptual investigations and methods of examination have been explored. Several of these approaches could potentially be used in efficacy studies for anthelmintics in dogs and cats. Here, we provide food for thought towards using new tools for evaluating the efficacy of anthelmintics in companion animals, for promoting the value of field trials, and for updating the existing guidelines for the efficacy testing of anthelmintics in dogs and cats. Present guidelines for the efficacy evaluation of anthelmintics in dogs and cats require both field and experimental studies and the determination of worm burden upon treatment after necropsy. A number of alternative assessment techniques in vivo, some already used as primary endpoints and some requiring further validation, can be considered as suitable parameters for efficacy evaluation in experimental and field settings. New laboratory and clinical diagnostic methods are proposed to substitute the post mortem worm count in experimentally infected dogs and cats. More weight should be attributed to efficacy studies under natural conditions, as they reflect more reliably the clinical scenarios of daily small-animal practice and, if conducted properly, provide more realistic information compared to experimental studies. Current guidelines on anthelmintic efficacy testing in dogs and cats require updating and adaptation according to the most recent scientific knowledge in response to animal welfare requirements (3R principles).
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11575/99618
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact