兽研背景
跳蚤和蜱虫感染会损害犬的福利，在农村环境中还可能具有公共卫生意义。
目的
描述自然感染犬单次局部施用氟虫腈、氯菊酯、增效醚和吡丙醚（PROTECH）后，体外寄生虫感染及相关临床症状的时间变化。
方法
这项前瞻性、无对照的探索性现场研究纳入了墨西哥尤卡坦州Tahdziú的44只私人拥有的犬。犬在第0天接受一次局部施用，并在第15天和第30天重新评估。约5分钟的全身体格检查记录体外寄生虫的存在或缺失。对现场记录的皮肤病变和瘙痒数值评分以及观察到的不良事件进行了总结。
结果
在仅有跳蚤感染的犬中（n = 18），阳性率从第0天的18/18降至第15天和第30天的0/18。在仅有蜱虫感染的犬中（n = 11），阳性率分别从11/11降至0/11和1/11。在混合感染中（n = 15），阳性率从15/15降至3/15和2/15。所有亚组的平均病变和瘙痒评分也下降。未观察到不良反应。
结论
单次施用后，体外寄生虫阳性率和临床症状至第30天出现明显的时间性下降。由于研究缺乏对照，且使用了未经验证的临床评分，这些发现仅为描述性和探索性的；它们不能确立因果治疗效应或比较疗效。
[内容请查看原文]
引言
跳蚤和蜱虫是犬常见的体外寄生虫，可引起瘙痒、皮炎、失血和福利下降。它们还可能携带具有兽医或人兽共患重要性的病原体。在农村社区，由于获得兽医诊疗和预防产品的机会有限，且犬持续暴露于未治疗动物和污染环境，持续控制体外寄生虫尤其具有挑战性（1–7）。
尤卡坦州Tahdziú是一个以玛雅语为主的农村社区，获得兽医服务和常规体外寄生虫预防的机会有限（8）。这些条件为记录自然再感染压力下治疗后时间模式提供了相关环境。然而，无对照的前后评估无法区分治疗相关变化与自然变异、季节效应、环境条件、畜主做法或均值回归。仅测量体外寄生虫负荷也无法确立对病原体感染或疾病传播的影响。
这项探索性现场研究的目的是描述自然感染犬单次局部施用氟虫腈、氯菊酯、增效醚和吡丙醚后30天内跳蚤和蜱虫感染状态、皮肤病变评分、瘙痒评分及观察到的耐受性的变化。
[内容请查看原文]
材料与方法
研究地点和期间。这项前瞻性、无对照的现场研究于2023年3月至5月在墨西哥尤卡坦州Tahdziú进行。该社区获得兽医服务的机会有限，参与犬通常未接受常规预防性体外寄生虫控制（8）。随访期间犬仍留在其通常的家庭和环境中；因此，环境再感染压力未受控制或量化。
[内容请查看原文]
动物
便利样本纳入44只私人拥有的犬，不论品种、性别、年龄或健康状况。在解释程序后获得所有畜主的书面知情同意。畜主完成了一份结构化流行病学问卷，涉及品种、年龄、性别、体况、饲养方式、家庭其他动物、环境卫生、既往抗寄生虫使用、兽医就诊和疫苗接种史。未进行先验样本量或效力计算；纳入由社区活动期间可获得的犬决定。因此，所得仅跳蚤（n = 18）、仅蜱虫（n = 11）和混合感染（n = 15）亚组被视为探索性。
在第0天、第15天和第30天，每只犬在畜主和兽医戴手套保定下接受约5分钟的全身体视诊和触诊检查。系统检查头部和耳部、颈部、背侧和腹侧躯干、腋窝和腹股沟区域、四肢、指间区域和尾部区域的被毛和皮肤；可见体外寄生虫记录为存在或缺失。所有犬使用相同的检查时长以标准化搜索力度。体外寄生虫使用已发表的分类检索表进行形态学分类（9, 10）。原始现场记录未保留适合分析的定量寄生虫计数或物种级分布；因此，结果按感染类别报告，而非寄生虫负荷或物种。皮肤病变和瘙痒在每次访视时记录为数值现场评分。现存研究记录包含汇总平均评分，但不包含原始评分标准、条目级标准或个体评分。这些指标未基于正式验证的皮肤病学或瘙痒工具。评估者未设盲，评估者培训或观察者间一致性均未记录。因此，临床评分仅作为描述性探索性结局呈现。所有犬保持其惯常的饲喂和管理方式，并处于自然暴露环境中。
[内容请查看原文]
治疗
第0天，所有外寄生虫阳性犬均接受了一次PROTECH局部滴剂单次给药，该产品含氟虫腈10.0 g、氯菊酯40.0 g、胡椒基丁醚3.0 g和吡丙醚10.0 g，辅料加至100 ml（PROTECH，México，S.A. de C.V.，墨西哥）。根据体重和标签说明，将产品直接施用于肩胛间区至耳根之间背中线处的皮肤。
[内容请查看原文]
统计分析
分析为探索性。基线特征以描述性方式总结。由于寄生虫状态在同一批犬中反复测量，基线-随访的二分类比较采用双侧精确McNemar检验而非Fisher精确检验进行审核。这些检验可根据报告的配对总数重建，因为每只犬在基线时均为阳性且随访完整。皮肤病变和瘙痒结局仅以汇总均值和随时间变化的百分比报告。尽管原始报告包含在JMP Matched Pairs平台生成的p值，但这些p值已被删除，因为个体水平数据集和精确非参数程序已无法用于独立重建。未预先设定多重性校正。未报告缺失观察。寄生虫阳性的可重复分析使用文章中报告的配对总数进行；原始分析在JMP 8.0版（SAS Institute Inc.，Cary，NC，USA）中完成。
[内容请查看原文]
结果
共纳入44只犬并完成全部三次评估：27只雄性、17只雌性；42只混种犬、1只腊肠犬和1只拉布拉多寻回犬。13只归类为大型、28只为中型、3只为小型。平均年龄为3.3 ± 2.5岁。治疗后未观察到不良反应。由于亚组样本量小且为探索性设计，未强调基线感染与人口学变量之间的关联。
在仅跳蚤亚组中，阳性率从第0天的18/18只犬（100%；95% CI，82.4–100）降至第15天和第30天的0/18（0%；95% CI，0–17.6）（与第0天各比较的精确McNemar p < 0.001）。平均皮肤病变评分相对于基线在第15天下降63.3%，第30天下降88.8%。平均瘙痒评分分别下降39.9%和98.1%（表1）。临床评分变化为描述性，因为个体水平观察数据无法用于验证。
Table 1. Flea positivity, skin-lesion scores, and pruritus scores after PROTECH treatment ( n = 18).
| Outcome | Day 0 | Day 15 | Day 30 | P : D0 vs D15 | P : D0 vs D30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flea-positive | 18/18 (100%; 95% CI 82.4–100) | 0/18 (0%; 95% CI 0–17.6) | 0/18 (0%; 95% CI 0–17.6) | < 0.001 * | < 0.001 * |
| Skin-lesion score, mean | 271.83 | 99.77 (−63.3%) | 30.33 (−88.8%) | Not reported | Not reported |
| Pruritus score, mean | 5.72 | 3.44 (−39.9%) | 0.11 (−98.1%) | Not reported | Not reported |
在仅蜱亚组中，阳性率从第0天的11/11只犬（100%；95% CI，74.1–100）降至第15天的0/11（0%；95% CI，0–25.9）和第30天的1/11（9.1%；95% CI，1.6–37.7）。与第0天的精确McNemar比较得出第15天p < 0.001，第30天p = 0.002。第30天的阳性发现可能代表再感染或一只犬的持续感染。平均皮肤病变评分在第15天和第30天分别下降61.5%和89.1%，平均瘙痒评分分别下降59.7%和80.6%（表2）。这些评分变化为描述性。
Table 2. Tick positivity, skin-lesion scores, and pruritus scores after PROTECH treatment ( n = 11).
| Outcome | Day 0 | Day 15 | Day 30 | P : D0 vs D15 | P : D0 vs D30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tick-positive | 11/11 (100%; 95% CI 74.1–100) | 0/11 (0%; 95% CI 0–25.9) | 1/11 (9.1%; 95% CI 1.6–37.7) | < 0.001 * | 0.002 * |
| Skin-lesion score, mean | 159.18 | 61.36 (−61.5%) | 17.36 (−89.1%) | Not reported | Not reported |
| Pruritus score, mean | 5.63 | 2.27 (−59.7%) | 1.09 (−80.6%) | Not reported | Not reported |
在混合感染亚组中，阳性率从第0天的15/15只犬（100%；95% CI，79.6–100）降至第15天的3/15（20.0%；95% CI，7.1–45.2）和第30天的2/15（13.3%；95% CI，3.7–37.9）。与第0天的精确McNemar比较在两次随访中均得出p < 0.001。平均皮肤病变评分在第15天下降56.2%，第30天下降81.5%（表3）。这些评分变化为描述性。
Table 3. Mixed-infestation positivity, skin-lesion scores, and pruritus scores after PROTECH treatment ( n = 15).
| Outcome | Day 0 | Day 15 | Day 30 | P : D0 vs D15 | P : D0 vs D30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mixed-infestation positive | 15/15 (100%; 95% CI 79.6–100) | 3/15 (20.0%; 95% CI 7.1–45.2) | 2/15 (13.3%; 95% CI 3.7–37.9) | < 0.001 * | < 0.001 * |
| Skin-lesion score, mean | 200.93 | 88.06 (−56.2%) | 37.13 (−81.5%) | Not reported | Not reported |
| Pruritus score, mean | 6.80 | 3.66 (−46.2%) | 1.93 (−71.6%) | Not reported | Not reported |
混合感染亚组的平均瘙痒评分相对于基线在第15天下降46.2%，第30天下降71.6%。由于未纳入未治疗组或阳性对照药组，这些时间性改善不能完全归因于该产品。
[内容请查看原文]
讨论
这项探索性、无对照的现场研究记录了单次局部用药后跳蚤和蜱虫阳性率及相关临床症状的显著时间性下降。观察期间犬只仍处于其通常的农村环境。然而，前后对照设计不能证明是PROTECH导致了这些变化，研究结果不应被解读为疗效证明。
此处观察到的时间模式与氟虫腈-氯菊酯制剂的对照研究报道相符（11, 12），但不能与那些设计得出的估计值直接比较。在本研究中，所有仅感染跳蚤的犬在第15天和第30天均为阴性；所有仅感染蜱虫的犬在第15天均为阴性，而一只犬在第30天为阳性。后一观察结果与持续的环境暴露、再感染或持续存在相符。由于未测量环境寄生虫丰度、家庭处理、天气、与未处理动物接触、畜主做法和季节变化，其贡献无法与治疗后模式区分开来。
在30天现场随访期间未观察到不良反应。这一发现支持入组犬的短期观察耐受性，但样本量太小，无法排除不常见的不良事件，且没有可用的未处理对照组。
aggregated病变和瘙痒评分随体外寄生虫阳性率下降而下降。这种时间关系在临床上合理，因为跳蚤和蜱虫暴露可促进炎症性和超敏反应相关皮肤病（13–16）。然而，评分细则和个体观察记录未保留，量表未经验证，评估者未设盲，评估者间信度未测量。因此，原始评分相关P值已被删除，剩余的均值和百分比变化应仅作为描述性探索性观察解读。
该制剂将杀成虫化合物与胡椒基丁醚和昆虫生长调节剂吡丙醚联合使用（17）。这些机制为观察到的下降提供了生物学合理性。然而，机制合理性不能替代对照比较的必要性，本研究并非旨在估计每种活性成分的独立贡献。
跳蚤和蜱虫可携带具有兽医和人兽共患重要性的病原体，包括立克次体和巴尔通体菌种（18–28）。本研究未检测体外寄生虫、犬或人的病原体，也未测量媒介感染、暴露或传播结局。因此，降低人兽共患风险仍是有效体外寄生虫控制规划的潜在意义，而非本研究证明的结局。
基于社区的体外寄生虫控制规划可改善服务不足环境中犬的福利，尤其是当治疗与畜主教育、重复预防、接触动物治疗和环境管理相结合时（23, 28–33）。未来研究应包括未处理或活性对照纽、预先设定的样本量计算、标准化定量寄生虫计数、物种水平鉴定、经过验证的临床量表、设盲的训练有素评估者、评估者间信度评估、去标识个体水平数据的安全保存，以及若需检验One Health效应时的病原体结局。
[内容请查看原文]
局限性
本研究没有阴性对照或活性对照纽，使用便利样本且无预先功效计算，感染亚组样本量小。季节变化、自然变异、均值回归、畜主行为和未测量的环境再感染压力可能促成了观察到的变化。寄生虫负荷在限时检查后记录为存在或不存在；定量计数和物种水平分布未保留。病变和瘙痒测量为未验证的现场评分，其原始细则、个体观察、评估者设盲和评估者间信度均不可用。原始分析后的数据归档过程中未保存个体水平文件；仅保留汇总表和软件输出。因此，评分分析无法独立重建。这些局限性严重限制了因果推断、可重复性和普适性。
[内容请查看原文]
结论
自然感染犬单次局部应用PROTECH后，至第30天跳蚤和蜱虫阳性率出现显著时间性下降， aggregated皮肤病变和瘙痒评分降低。未观察到不良反应。这些无对照的前后观察为初步和描述性；不能证明产品导致了下降或显示比较疗效。需要使用经过验证的结局和可重复的个体水平数据进行对照研究。
查看英文原文▾
Background
Flea and tick infestations impair canine welfare and may have public-health relevance in rural settings.
Objective
To describe temporal changes in ectoparasite infestation and associated clinical signs after a single topical application of fipronil, permethrin, piperonyl butoxide, and pyriproxyfen (PROTECH) in naturally infested dogs.
Methods
This prospective, uncontrolled exploratory field study enrolled 44 privately owned dogs in Tahdziú, Yucatán, Mexico. Dogs received one topical application at Day 0 and were reassessed on Days 15 and 30. An approximately 5-min whole-body examination documented ectoparasite presence or absence. Field-recorded numerical skin-lesion and pruritus scores and observed adverse events were summarized.
Results
Among dogs with flea-only infestation (n = 18), positivity decreased from 18/18 at Day 0 to 0/18 at Days 15 and 30. Among tick-only dogs (n = 11), positivity decreased from 11/11 to 0/11 and 1/11, respectively. In mixed infestations (n = 15), positivity decreased from 15/15 to 3/15 and 2/15. Mean lesion and pruritus scores also declined in all subgroups. No adverse reactions were observed.
Conclusions
A single application was followed by marked temporal reductions in ectoparasite positivity and clinical signs through Day 30. Because the study lacked a comparator and used non-validated clinical scores, the findings are descriptive and exploratory; they do not establish a causal treatment effect or comparative efficacy.
[内容请查看原文]
Introduction
Fleas and ticks are common ectoparasites of dogs and can cause pruritus, dermatitis, blood loss, and reduced welfare. They may also carry pathogens of veterinary or zoonotic importance. Sustained ectoparasite control is particularly challenging in rural communities where access to veterinary care and preventive products is limited and dogs remain exposed to untreated animals and contaminated environments (1–7).
Tahdziú, Yucatán, is a pre-dominantly Maya-speaking rural community with limited access to veterinary services and routine ectoparasite prevention (8). These conditions provide a relevant setting in which to document temporal patterns after treatment under natural reinfestation pressure. Nevertheless, an uncontrolled before-and-after evaluation cannot distinguish a treatment-associated change from natural variation, seasonal effects, environmental conditions, owner practices, or regression to the mean. Measuring ectoparasite burden alone also cannot establish an effect on pathogen infection or disease transmission.
The objective of this exploratory field study was to describe changes in flea and tick infestation status, skin-lesion scores, pruritus scores, and observed tolerability during 30 days after a single topical application of fipronil, permethrin, piperonyl butoxide, and pyriproxyfen in naturally infested dogs.
[内容请查看原文]
Materials and methods
Study site and period. The prospective, uncontrolled field study was conducted from March to May 2023 in Tahdziú, Yucatán, Mexico. The community has limited access to veterinary services, and participating dogs generally did not receive routine preventive ectoparasite control (8). Dogs remained in their usual households and environments throughout follow-up; therefore, environmental reinfestation pressure was not controlled or quantified.
[内容请查看原文]
Animals
A convenience sample of 44 privately owned dogs was enrolled irrespective of breed, sex, age, or health status. Written informed consent was obtained from all owners after the procedures had been explained. Owners completed a structured epidemiologic questionnaire concerning breed, age, sex, body condition, housing, other household animals, environmental hygiene, previous antiparasitic use, veterinary visits, and vaccination history. No a priori sample-size or power calculation was performed; enrollment was determined by the dogs available during the community campaign. The resulting flea-only (n = 18), tick-only (n = 11), and mixed-infestation (n = 15) subgroups were therefore considered exploratory.
At Day 0, Day 15, and Day 30, each dog underwent an approximately 5-min whole-body visual and manual examination under gloved restraint by owners and veterinarians. The coat and skin were inspected systematically over the head and ears, neck, dorsal and ventral trunk, axillary and inguinal regions, limbs, interdigital areas, and tail region; visible ectoparasites were recorded as present or absent. The same examination duration was used for all dogs to standardize search effort. Ectoparasites were classified morphologically using published taxonomic keys (9, 10). The original field records did not retain quantitative parasite counts or a species-level distribution suitable for analysis; consequently, results are reported by infestation category rather than parasite burden or species. Skin lesions and pruritus were recorded as numerical field scores at each visit. The surviving study records contain the aggregated mean scores but not the original scoring rubric, item-level criteria, or individual scores. These measures were not based on formally validated dermatological or pruritus instruments. Evaluators were not blinded, and neither evaluator training nor interobserver agreement was documented. The clinical scores are therefore presented only as descriptive exploratory outcomes. All dogs remained under their customary feeding and husbandry practices and in their naturally exposed environments.
[内容请查看原文]
Treatment
At Day 0, all ectoparasite-positive dogs received a single topical spot-on application of PROTECH, containing fipronil 10.0 g, permethrin 40.0 g, piperonyl butoxide 3.0 g, and pyriproxyfen 10.0 g, with excipients q.s. to 100 ml (PROTECH, México, S.A. de C.V., Mexico). The product was applied directly to the skin along the dorsal midline between the interscapular region and the base of the ears according to body weight and label instructions.
[内容请查看原文]
Statistical analysis
Analyses were exploratory. Baseline characteristics were summarized descriptively. Because parasite status was repeatedly measured in the same dogs, baseline-vs.-follow-up binary comparisons were reviewed using two-sided exact McNemar tests rather than Fisher's exact test. These tests could be reconstructed from the reported paired totals because every dog was positive at baseline and follow-up was complete. Skin-lesion and pruritus outcomes are reported only as aggregated means and percentage changes over time. Although the original report contained p-values generated in the JMP Matched Pairs platform, those p-values were removed because the individual-level dataset and exact non-parametric procedure are no longer available for independent reconstruction. No multiplicity adjustment was pre-specified. No observations were reported missing. Reproducible analyses of parasite positivity were performed using the paired totals reported in the article; the original analyses were conducted in JMP version 8.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
[内容请查看原文]
Results
A total of 44 dogs were enrolled and completed all three evaluations: 27 males and 17 females; 42 mixed-breed dogs, one Dachshund, and one Labrador Retriever. Thirteen were classified as large, 28 as medium, and three as small. Mean age was 3.3 ± 2.5 years. No adverse reactions were observed following treatment. Associations between baseline infestation and demographic variables were not emphasized because of the small subgroup sizes and exploratory design.
In the flea-only subgroup, positivity declined from 18/18 dogs (100%; 95% CI, 82.4–100) at Day 0 to 0/18 (0%; 95% CI, 0–17.6) at both Day 15 and Day 30 (exact McNemar p < 0.001 for each comparison with Day 0). Mean skin-lesion scores declined by 63.3% at Day 15 and 88.8% at Day 30 relative to baseline. Mean pruritus scores declined by 39.9% and 98.1%, respectively (Table 1). Clinical-score changes are descriptive because individual-level observations were unavailable for verification.
Table 1. Flea positivity, skin-lesion scores, and pruritus scores after PROTECH treatment ( n = 18).
| Outcome | Day 0 | Day 15 | Day 30 | P : D0 vs D15 | P : D0 vs D30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flea-positive | 18/18 (100%; 95% CI 82.4–100) | 0/18 (0%; 95% CI 0–17.6) | 0/18 (0%; 95% CI 0–17.6) | < 0.001 * | < 0.001 * |
| Skin-lesion score, mean | 271.83 | 99.77 (−63.3%) | 30.33 (−88.8%) | Not reported | Not reported |
| Pruritus score, mean | 5.72 | 3.44 (−39.9%) | 0.11 (−98.1%) | Not reported | Not reported |
In the tick-only subgroup, positivity declined from 11/11 dogs (100%; 95% CI, 74.1–100) at Day 0 to 0/11 (0%; 95% CI, 0–25.9) at Day 15 and 1/11 (9.1%; 95% CI, 1.6–37.7) at Day 30. Exact McNemar comparisons with Day 0 yielded p < 0.001 at Day 15 and p = 0.002 at Day 30. The Day 30 positive finding may represent reinfestation or persistence in one dog. Mean skin-lesion scores declined by 61.5 and 89.1%, and mean pruritus scores by 59.7 and 80.6%, at Days 15 and 30, respectively (Table 2). These score changes are descriptive.
Table 2. Tick positivity, skin-lesion scores, and pruritus scores after PROTECH treatment ( n = 11).
| Outcome | Day 0 | Day 15 | Day 30 | P : D0 vs D15 | P : D0 vs D30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tick-positive | 11/11 (100%; 95% CI 74.1–100) | 0/11 (0%; 95% CI 0–25.9) | 1/11 (9.1%; 95% CI 1.6–37.7) | < 0.001 * | 0.002 * |
| Skin-lesion score, mean | 159.18 | 61.36 (−61.5%) | 17.36 (−89.1%) | Not reported | Not reported |
| Pruritus score, mean | 5.63 | 2.27 (−59.7%) | 1.09 (−80.6%) | Not reported | Not reported |
In the mixed-infestation subgroup, positivity declined from 15/15 dogs (100%; 95% CI, 79.6–100) at Day 0 to 3/15 (20.0%; 95% CI, 7.1–45.2) at Day 15 and 2/15 (13.3%; 95% CI, 3.7–37.9) at Day 30. Exact McNemar comparisons with Day 0 yielded p < 0.001 at both follow-ups. Mean skin-lesion scores declined by 56.2% at Day 15 and 81.5% at Day 30 (Table 3). These score changes are descriptive.
Table 3. Mixed-infestation positivity, skin-lesion scores, and pruritus scores after PROTECH treatment ( n = 15).
| Outcome | Day 0 | Day 15 | Day 30 | P : D0 vs D15 | P : D0 vs D30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mixed-infestation positive | 15/15 (100%; 95% CI 79.6–100) | 3/15 (20.0%; 95% CI 7.1–45.2) | 2/15 (13.3%; 95% CI 3.7–37.9) | < 0.001 * | < 0.001 * |
| Skin-lesion score, mean | 200.93 | 88.06 (−56.2%) | 37.13 (−81.5%) | Not reported | Not reported |
| Pruritus score, mean | 6.80 | 3.66 (−46.2%) | 1.93 (−71.6%) | Not reported | Not reported |
Mean pruritus scores in the mixed-infestation subgroup declined by 46.2% at Day 15 and 71.6% at Day 30 relative to baseline. Because no untreated or active-comparator group was included, these temporal improvements cannot be attributed exclusively to the product.
[内容请查看原文]
Discussion
This exploratory uncontrolled field study documented marked temporal reductions in flea and tick positivity and associated clinical signs after a single topical application. The observations were made while dogs remained in their usual rural environments. However, the before-and-after design does not establish that PROTECH caused the changes, and the findings should not be interpreted as proof of efficacy.
The temporal pattern observed here is compatible with reports from controlled studies of fipronil-permethrin formulations (11, 12), but it is not directly comparable with estimates from those designs. In the present study, all flea-only dogs were negative at Days 15 and 30; all tick-only dogs were negative at Day 15, while one dog was positive at Day 30. The latter observation is compatible with ongoing environmental exposure, reinfestation, or persistence. Because environmental parasite abundance, household treatment, weather, contact with untreated animals, owner practices, and seasonal change were not measured, their contributions cannot be separated from the post-treatment pattern.
No adverse reactions were observed during the 30-day field follow-up. This finding supports short-term observed tolerability in the enrolled dogs, but the sample was too small to exclude uncommon adverse events and no untreated comparator was available.
Aggregated lesion and pruritus scores declined alongside ectoparasite positivity. This temporal relationship is clinically plausible because flea and tick exposure can contribute to inflammatory and hypersensitivity-associated skin disease (13–16). However, the scoring rubric and individual observations were not retained, the instruments were not validated, evaluators were not blinded, and interobserver reliability was not measured. The original score-related p-values were therefore removed, and the remaining mean values and percentage changes should be interpreted only as descriptive exploratory observations.
The formulation combines adulticidal compounds with piperonyl butoxide and the insect growth regulator pyriproxyfen (17). These mechanisms provide biological plausibility for the observed reductions. Mechanistic plausibility, however, does not replace the need for a controlled comparison, and the present study was not designed to estimate the independent contribution of each active ingredient.
Fleas and ticks can carry pathogens of veterinary and zoonotic importance, including Rickettsia and Bartonella species (18–28). The present study did not test ectoparasites, dogs, or humans for pathogens and did not measure vector infection, exposure, or transmission outcomes. Therefore, reduced zoonotic risk remains a potential implication of effective ectoparasite-control programs, not an outcome demonstrated by this study.
Community-based ectoparasite-control programs may improve canine welfare in underserved settings, particularly when treatment is combined with owner education, repeated prevention, treatment of in-contact animals, and environmental management (23, 28–33). Future studies should include untreated or active comparator groups, pre-specified sample-size calculations, standardized quantitative parasite counts, species-level identification, validated clinical scales, blinded trained evaluators, interobserver-reliability assessment, secure retention of de-identified individual-level data, and pathogen outcomes if One Health effects are to be tested.
[内容请查看原文]
Limitations
The study had no negative-control or active-comparator group, used a convenience sample without an a priori power calculation, and included small infestation subgroups. Seasonal change, natural variation, regression to the mean, owner behavior, and unmeasured environmental reinfestation pressure may have contributed to the observed changes. Parasite burden was recorded as presence or absence after a time-limited examination; quantitative counts and species-level distributions were not retained. The lesion and pruritus measures were non-validated field scores, and their original rubric, individual observations, evaluator blinding, and interobserver reliability were unavailable. The individual-level file was not preserved during data archiving after the original analysis; only summarized tables and software outputs remain. Consequently, the score analyses cannot be independently reconstructed. These limitations substantially restrict causal inference, reproducibility, and generalizability.
[内容请查看原文]
Conclusion
A single topical application of PROTECH was followed by marked temporal reductions in flea and tick positivity and by lower aggregated skin-lesion and pruritus scores through Day 30 in naturally infested dogs. No adverse reactions were observed. These uncontrolled before-and-after observations are preliminary and descriptive; they do not establish that the product caused the reductions or demonstrate comparative efficacy. Controlled studies using validated outcomes and reproducible individual-level data are required.