Subscribe to VETERINARY PRACTICE NEWS   SUBSCRIBER SERVICES    Bookmark and Share
VPN Logo   
 Home   About Us   Contact Us
8:42 AM   April 18, 2014
Your E-mail:
 

 
Bookmark and Share
Why Heartworm Preventive Sales Should Not Go Over the Counter

By Dwight Bowman, M.S., Ph.D.

The current monthly oral and topical heartworm preventives, as well as ProHeart6, the injectable six-month formulation for dogs, are all members of the same pharmaceutical class: the macrocyclic lactones. These are compounds or chemical derivatives of compounds produced by various soil-dwelling species of actinomycete bacteria within the genus Streptomyces.

Ever since the introduction to small animal veterinary medicine of the first member of the class, ivermectin (as Heartgard), these compounds have become the mainstay of heartworm prevention in the United States and around the world.

These are amazing compounds with efficacy at remarkably low doses against internal and external parasites. With the exception of the well-known blood-brain barrier problem in certain collie breeds, this drug class poses almost no significant safety concerns. These compounds have moved heartworm prevention from the world of the daily into the monthly (or semi-annual with ProHeart6) and, either on their own or in formulations with other products, also provide concurrent protection against internal parasite infections.

All in all, from the point of view of the dog and cat, health care now is similar to that of people after World War II when penicillin and related antibiotics jumped onto the scene and provided a remarkable method of combating bacteria. Life is good!

The safety of the molecules and their great efficacy are unfortunately lulling people into a sense of complacency. All practicing veterinarians know of a colleague who treats heartworm-infected dogs with the simple administration of a monthly preventive. All veterinarians have argued with clients or themselves about the need to annually test animals that are on year-round (or even soundly prescribed seasonal) prevention.

Veterinarians who treat heartworm cases with Immiticide are aware of the recommendation to treat dogs first with a monthly preventive (usually ivermectin), and thus are aware that the medications can be safely administered to microfilaremic dogs.

And if you read the labels for the canine products Heartgard Plus, Interceptor, Sentinel, Revolution, Iverhart Max and Advantage Multi, you will see that they all say they are safe for dogs with circulating microfilariae.

Thus, there are those who argue that there is no reason to check a dog before beginning a preventive program, because it is not dangerous for the dog, it will “slowly kill” the adult heartworms over a number of months, and any microfilaremia will eventually resolve after the adult worms are removed.

If the above arguments are true, if you can treat existing infections with a monthly product, if you do not have to check heartworm status before you start preventive and if annual checks are pointless because the worms will ultimately be killed by the product anyway--then, why not just sell heartworm preventives over the counter?

Make the products available in Target and Wal-Mart. There are people out there who firmly believe that this is what should be done and that veterinarians are positioning themselves between the products and consumers simply to make money.

I would argue, however, that the products should not be used off-label as described above and that it is critical for veterinarians to remain directly involved in heartworm prevention and verification of product efficacy.

In 1992, I presented at the meeting of the American Heartworm Society marketing work that had been done on the use of milbemycin oxime versus ivermectin in a study supported by Ciba Geigy, now Novartis. The reason for the work was that, in the field, it was being stated that ivermectin was not microfilaricidal, therefore Knott’s tests could be used for the annual heartworm check in dogs on Heartgard while antigen tests were required for dogs on Interceptor.

By giving the two different products to a number of dogs with naturally acquired heartworm infections that were both antigen- and microfilaria-positive, it was shown that both products were microfilaricidal. This basically meant that for verification of efficacy of either heartworm preventive, it was necessary to run an antigen test.

The results have been verified by other researchers utilizing the exact same experimental design.

However, the aspect of the work that was always of greater interest to me was that, in all the studies done with these products, 10 to 20 percent or more of the dogs remained microfilaremic for a year or more after the product was first administered.

I found this horribly worrisome, because it seemed to me that this would be a perfect means of selecting for anthelmintic-resistant microfilariae.

Ever since I did the work, this idea has been a maggot burrowing about in my brain, surfacing now and again to bother me anew.

For a long time, others said that heartworms would never develop resistance because the life cycle is too long, there is a significant amount of refugia in the environment that would produce genetic backcrosses to dilute any resistance genes, and there is no direct proof of resistant microfilariae occurring in dogs.

However, I have continued to worry and to express my concern.

Now I have met practitioners who tell me that they are treating every heartworm-positive dog in shelters where they work in Florida by just starting them on a monthly preventive before adoption. So, if 10 to 20 percent of these dogs on monthlies still have circulating microfilariae–microfilariae which are produced by female worms exposed to ivermectin monthly or living in its presence in the bloodstream–are we not in a position where a lot of worms are in constant contact with these products?

If you wanted to create a strain of bacteria resistant to an antibiotic, you would grow it in the presence of the antibiotic, and transfer the colonies that grew onto a new plate. My argument is that this is exactly what we are doing with heartworms in dogs.

We are using these dogs as giant petri dishes to select for microfilariae that thrive in the presence of macrocyclic lactones. Then, we are using mosquitoes as our bacterial loops to pick up those potentially resistant microfilariae for the purpose of transferring them to a new plate.

Here the counter-argument is always raised that with backcrossing from worms in the surrounding “refugia” that are not seeing product (dogs not on treatment, coyotes, etc.), we will see a dilution of any brewing resistance. However, this does not always happen with nematodes; we have some pretty convincing evidence from horse strongyles and sheep trichostrongyles that backcrossing does not significantly reduce fitness for survival (or else we have selected for other fitness genes as well as the resistance genes).

Once the resistance switch is flipped, the worms stay resistant even after the pressure of regular chemotherapy with the compound of interest is removed.

My argument is simply this: There is no reason to play the game. We have an excellent adulticide in Immiticide. There is no good reason to use a monthly as an adulticidal treatment. It is only after Immiticide therapy that we should give dogs the preventive or elevated doses of macrocyclic lactones to clear microfilariae.

This potential resistance scenario should have remained a simple academic exercise that I played out in my head, not something that is happening in the real world. Unfortunately, it is happening in the real world.

So, my recommendation is this: Veterinarians should take full ownership, stewardship and responsibility for heartworm preventives. These products should be used for prophylaxis as intended, not for treatment of existing infections. We need to make certain that product being sold over the Internet is ONLY being given to dogs that have already tested negative for infection.

Dogs should be checked annually to verify that we have not already foolishly created a genie that is trying to get out of the bottle. (In some countries in the world, veterinarians are often not as involved in the administration of these products.) Veterinarians need to stay fully involved and make sure these molecules are functioning just like they should be.

This isn’t asking too much. Simply, veterinarians should take charge and uphold good medicine and stewardship to protect against product failures caused by our own improper use of these compounds. <HOME>

Dwight Bowman, M.S., PhD., is a professor of parasitology at Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine.

 Give us your opinion on
Why Heartworm Preventive Sales Should Not Go Over the Counter

Submit a Comment

Industry Professional Site: Comments from non-industry professionals will be removed.

Reader Comments
Though I agree with the article in general,there is also a matter of people who cannot afford the high cost of vet prescribed meds.Wouldn't, after heartworm testing,less expensive meds be better then none?As a succesfull breeder of field trial Beagles for many years,I have used liquid ivermectin with good results at a fraction of the cost.
Roy, White River Jct., VT
Posted: 6/26/2012 3:20:15 AM
With the comments by Amanda this should eventually kill off the worm, by not allowing the eggs to mature and breed, if these products were sold over the counter, wouldn't more people invest in them thus cutting down the exposure we have where so many pet owners won't take their dogs in for testing, prevention, and treatment because it is so expensive through a vet. In other words, by having more dogs on the preventative, would that not also cut the worm population and control the situation better than now where only a few (in comparison to the dog population) vet their dogs regularly for heartworms....
Millie, Balch Springs, TX
Posted: 5/25/2012 1:19:20 PM
OK. What I am wondering is that we all know ivermectin kills microfilariae. We also know ivermectin does nothing to keep adult heartworms from reproducing so wouldn't it stand to reason that YES...a dog will indeed test positive for microfilariae right up until the last female heartworm dies? And since the life span is at least 2 years depending on what you read(I've read up to 7 years) that you'd continue to see positive test results? What's missing from the article is the amount of time it takes a microfilariae to grow up and become immune to ivermectin. That's the ENTIRE premise of monthly preventative. Wouldn't it also stand to reason that if you constantly remove the microfilariae the adults will eventually die off?
If that's not the case...why do we waste our money on Heartguard every month?
Amanda, Winter Haven, FL
Posted: 9/18/2010 7:27:06 AM
View Current Comments

Click here to subscribe

Subscriber Services

See all veterinary videos
Featured Vet Grooming Video 
Video Button
Facebook
BROUGHT TO YOU BY Veterinary Practice News

Copyright ©   I-5 Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved.
Our Privacy Policy has changed.
PRIVACY POLICY/YOUR CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS.
Terms of Use | Guidelines for Participation

Gold Standard

*Content generated by our loyal visitors, which includes comments and club postings, is free of constraints from our editors’ red pens, and therefore not governed by I-5 Publishing, LLC’s Gold Standard Quality Content, but instead allowed to follow the free form expression necessary for quick, inspired and spontaneous communication.