4.5 Article

The therapeutic efficacy of two antibabesial strategies against Babesia gibsoni

期刊

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
卷 186, 期 3-4, 页码 159-164

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.11.073

关键词

Atovaquone; Azithromycin; Clindamycin; Babesiosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various combination strategies for treating Babesia gibsoni have been described. However, relapses after administering some combinations of antibabesial drugs and the presence of drug-resistant B. gibsoni still pose significant challenges to veterinarians. To compare the efficacy of a combination of clindamycin, diminazene, and imidocarb (CDI) to that of a combination of atovaquone and azithromycin (AA) for the treatment of B. gibsoni and to correlate drug efficacy with B. gibsoni mutations, 30 client-owned dogs with natural B. gibsoni infections were collected in the study. 17 dogs were treated with M. and 13 dogs were treated with CDI combination. Hematological parameters were recorded on the day that the dogs were presented for treatment and during treatment. To detect the parasitic DNA, the B. gibsoni 185 rRNA gene was amplified, and to analyze the mutations, the cytochrome b (CYTb) gene was sequenced. The therapy duration for all of the dogs that recovered was 23.3 +/- 7.8 days in the AA group and 41.7 +/- 12.4 days in the CDI group. Nine of the 17 dogs in the AA group and 11 of the 13 dogs in the CDI group completely recovered. Seven dogs in the AA group and 2 dogs in the CDI group relapsed after treatment. The M121I mutation in the B. gibsoni CYTb gene was detected in all of the samples that were collected from AA-relapsed and AA-nonremission dogs. The dogs in the CDI group exhibited higher recovery rates and lower relapse rates during treatment for B. gibsoni infection. In addition, the detected M121I mutation was associated with AA treatment. The CDI combination is a promising alternative treatment strategy for B. gibsoni. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据