Flea and heartworm prevention

[Biomajir]

So I know that in vet school I will get the chance to get free heartworm and flea prevention. Right now I use advantage multi for my cat and interceptor and frontline for the dog. Does anyone know a better combination for the dog? I haven't used any of the oral medications and really don't know how well they work. I live in Oklahoma where there are fleas and mosquitoes year round so I need something really good. There really is no issue with what I use now, but I wonder if there is something easier.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[1Vista1Grey]

not so much somethin easier, but I have been hearing something about advantix covering more insects than Frontline, although I dont know if it is more effective. Frontline, however, doesnt do anything for mosquitoes, but I think Advantix does. This was something I just heard about though, I havent had a chance to look it up. BUt I really like interceptor!

 

[1Vista1Grey]

O, and there is an oral flea medication. I cant remember the name, but we used to use it on the wolves in Texas and they didnt really seem to have a flea problem (and there were fleas EVERYWHERE) or any adverse reactions.

 

[dyachei]

O, and there is an oral flea medication. I cant remember the name, but we used to use it on the wolves in Texas and they didnt really seem to have a flea problem (and there were fleas EVERYWHERE) or any adverse reactions.

Are you thinking of Comfortis?

 

[1Vista1Grey]

YES!! it was on the tip of my tongue, I was just about to go look it up. Thank you

 

[sumstorm]

Advantix is toxic to cats, so if you have cats that groom or cuddle with your dogs, you might want to avoid it. However, I have used it with cats in the house without issue.

 

[TSUJC]

For the dog, I would suggest sentinel. I takes care of heartworms, intestinal parasites and has an insect growth regulator so it helps with flea control.

 

[twelvetigers]

We have had good results with Comfortis. Frontline can be a bit too mild during the summer months - sometimes it's needed every 3 weeks, rather than every 4. But if you have ticks, the only other option is the collar (PrevenTick?) which works well I hear. I have a fenced backyard and so I don't worry about ticks.

We usually do Iverhart for the HWP because it covers a few things extra compared to Heartgard, and it's a touch cheaper. Do not, under any circumstances, trust Advantix 100% for HWP in Oklahoma - you NEED a sure thing.

Also, if you have cats that go outside, please remember that we do have cytauxzoon in Oklahoma, and it kills dozens of cats in our area every year. Be careful.

This is a bit off topic to the OP, sorry. To answer your question, I've heard that Comfortis works well. You might try it out sometime.

 

[sumstorm]

I have a fenced backyard and so I don't worry about ticks.

The ticks in Oklahoma respect a fence?

Can we trade the ticks on the east coast for those?

I'm sure you know I am just kidding. The worst tick season I ever experienced was in....NYC. We would walk the dogs down streets with single trees and end up with multiple ticks! I could never figure it out. The dogs were living in concrete paradise...at the time we weren't even walking in parks or such...just concrete/brick buildings on one side, sidewalk, and streeets.

 

[twelvetigers]

Haha. Well, there are no ticks in my backyard, for one reason or another. It's a privacy fence... but ticks are industrious. Maybe there's enough of a concrete/road barrier, plus a golf course using pesticides nearby... who knows.

 

[TSUJC]

I use Comfortis in addition to sentinel on both my dogs, it is great stuff but the only downfall is that it won't take care of ticks. I have more of a flea issue so it works well for me.

Like twelvetigers said Iverheat plus is much less expensive and contains the same ingredients as Heartgard plus (ivermectin/pyrantel). Recently, they have come out with Iverheart Max and it has (ivermectin/pyrantel pamoate & praziquantel) so it will takes care of cestodes too!! My masters degree is in parasitology so I get discounted Sentinel from the company but if I didn't, I would definitely use Iverheart Max (much more bang for your buck).

 

[1Vista1Grey]

For the dog, I would suggest sentinel. I takes care of heartworms, intestinal parasites and has an insect growth regulator so it helps with flea control.

Just please dont use Sentinel as your sole flea control. It only stops them from reproducing, so you can pick up new fleas anywhere you go, and since you work with animals you can bring them home on you even if your animal doesnt leave the house.

 

[KKibo]

interceptor/comfortis for the dog revolution for the cat

don't use advatix on the dog if you have a cat.

If you are worried about ticks, comfortis has "off-label" protection from ticks for about two weeks.

 

[Robert007]

I personally use Frontline/Sentinel for my dog because its provides the greatest variety of protection. He goes everywhere with me like camping and outdoors. I think Comfortis is a very good product as well. I just had a meeting where a Comfortis rep talked about their product. It works slightly faster than frontline. I think throwing in Capstar before frontline/sentinel adds extra comfort for the dog. Also at home care is important for controlling fleas. Products like siphitrol can be used to spray in and outside the house.

 

[david594]

What? No one is using the Hartz Ultraguard Pro Flea and tick drops for their cats? Only $18 for a three month supply from petco!

Clearly everyone here has eat one too many free lunches from their Bayer/Merial/Pfizer reps..

On a more realistic note, anyone using Promeris? Or Proheart 6 since it has been reintroduced?

 

[twelvetigers]

Promeris is stinky.

 

[david594]

For anyone on VIN do a search for "flea product comparison charts" There are a couple great charts on there with information comparing all the different available products.

 

[dyachei]

What? No one is using the Hartz Ultraguard Pro Flea and tick drops for their cats? Only $18 for a three month supply from petco!

Clearly everyone here has eat one too many free lunches from their Bayer/Merial/Pfizer reps..

On a more realistic note, anyone using Promeris? Or Proheart 6 since it has been reintroduced?

Anecdotally, I have heard bad things about Promeris. Our school had a free lunch where they gave out a 3 month supply of product to each student and those that tried it were not impressed by the products at all. I think it was mostly an effectiveness issue (lasted a shorter duration than other commonly used products), but I hear it is odorous as well.

 

[1Vista1Grey]

A friend of mine said his cat had a major skin reaction to promeris. Hair loss, irritation, thickening of the skin..

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I wouldn't touch Proheart with a twenty foot pole, I don't care whether it has been reintroduced. They have already proven their unwillingness to pull their products if necessary and their entire testing and approval process is shady, a lot of warning signs were ignored and I feel that I cannot trust them even with a re release. If they product goes for a few years (years plural, one year is not enough because of it's current scant use) with no reactions, then I *might* consider it "ok" but I'd still not recommend it.

 

[chris03333]

not so much somethin easier, but I have been hearing something about advantix covering more insects than Frontline, although I dont know if it is more effective. Frontline, however, doesnt do anything for mosquitoes, but I think Advantix does. This was something I just heard about though, I havent had a chance to look it up. BUt I really like interceptor!

Advantix can kill your cat if it gets any of the dogs dose on it. I would not recommend using it in a house w/cats (unless you board the dog for the time to give it and a couple of days after.

 

[rugbychick16]

I wouldn't touch Proheart with a twenty foot pole, I don't care whether it has been reintroduced. They have already proven their unwillingness to pull their products if necessary and their entire testing and approval process is shady, a lot of warning signs were ignored and I feel that I cannot trust them even with a re release. If they product goes for a few years (years plural, one year is not enough because of it's current scant use) with no reactions, then I *might* consider it "ok" but I'd still not recommend it.

I agree. When the rep gave a luncheon and talked about how safe Proheart was now, it sounded like a bunch of propaganda, and he avoided answering most of the questions students asked about its safety now

 

[TSUJC]

I wouldn't touch Proheart with a twenty foot pole, I don't care whether it has been reintroduced. They have already proven their unwillingness to pull their products if necessary and their entire testing and approval process is shady, a lot of warning signs were ignored and I feel that I cannot trust them even with a re release. If they product goes for a few years (years plural, one year is not enough because of it's current scant use) with no reactions, then I *might* consider it "ok" but I'd still not recommend it.

I am not trying to start a debate or be offensive but I have to disagree, many of the issues that people have with ProHeart are unjustified. I work with two of the top veterinary parasitologist in the US. Both are responsible for the majority of peer reviewed articles regarding Dirofilaria and other filarial nematodes. Neither individual have a problem recommending ProHeart because it is an effective product with a safety profile similar or superior to monthly oral prevention (this has been verified by independent researchers).

Moxidectin (the active ingredient in proheart) is in clinical trials for the treatment of onchocerciasis in humans and is scheduled for release by 2012. Compliance is the hardest part of heartworm prevention, the benefits of Proheart far out weighs the risk it brings to the dogs. I know most of us are good about giving our pets preventative every month, unfortunately the general public is not as good about treating their pets. Being from a heartworm endemic area, I see at least 10 dogs a week that are positive for the parasite but cannot be treated due to the toxicity of the arsenitcal drug used for treatment.

Ivermectin sensitivity is reported in all breeds and kills hundreds of animals every year. Additionally, P-glycoprotein mutations affect more than 35% of collie-like breeds and does significantly more harm than ProHeart could ever imagine...but heartgard continues to be the #1 seller. Vaccine-associated sarcomas are linked to various feline vaccines but we still continue to vaccinate against Rabies and FeLK. Unlike vaccines, ProHeart was voluntarily taken off the market in 2004 and re-introduced once confirmed safe. However, it was not taken off the market internationally and has been used since 2001 to prevent HW disease internationally with few adverse reactions being reported.

I have given ProHeart to my animals over the last 4 years, after it was recalled in 2004 the clinic I worked continued to use it in their own animals with no problems. The only reason I do not use it currently is because it lacks protection against intestinal parasites. If a vet is doing their job, they should be documenting where they administer injections... therefore if there is a reaction, the agent can be removed surgically. The drug is released slowly and it can be removed.


Sorry about the rant but I see too many animals die of heartworms. ProHeart is a cheaper alternative with a better compliance rate. Simply put, I don't think it is far to simple rule out a drug that could have extremely beneficial effects.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Other points of view are always welcome, don't worry about starting a war

My issue lies more with the fact that issues regarding Proheart were ignored by the company for so long. It isn't so much that I do not trust moxidectin, I do not trust the company to put forth a truly safe product. Unfortunately, they make a lot of things.

I am not suggesting that people either choose Proheart or not treat their dogs.

Of course the risk of heartworm in an untreated dog outweighs the risk of a Proheart reaction, no one is arguing that.

I'm not ruling it out as a potential preventative. Like I said, if I saw it safe on the market now for a few years, I would consider it effective and safe, but my own knowledge of the hullabaloo surrounding its recall would make me wary of actually recommending it over and above other monthly medications.

Ivermectin toxicity mostly kills animals because owners are uneducated by their veterinarians and go buy bulk ivermectin (like the horse dose and try to do the math for dogs to save money) ad dose it improperly, or dose their own products improperly, and many of those reports are sketchy. Current ivermectin treatments on the market for dogs are not concentrated enough to kill a dog with the average ivermectin sensitivity: that is one of the many reasons why ivermectin based products have been reported to be less effective, the dose is becoming too low.

And vaccine related sarcomas are so ridiculously rare that there is NO reason to stop vaccinating cats...much more rare that proheart reactions or reactions to any other med or vaccine...the risk of acquiring the disease is many, many times higher than the risk of a vaccine related sarcoma.

If we had an alternative to those, then sure, to minimize the already minute risk of sarcoma, I'd use it. But we don't. we DO have alternatives to proheart. it is a matter of continually educating clients to increase compliance, not choosing a riskier drug. Because that is a slippery slope IMO.
It is our job as veterinarians to provide the safest drug to the animal and to educate clients, not to give up on clients as being idiots and give them the easiest alternative that may have more side effects/risks associated.

 

[TSUJC]

Like I said, if I saw it safe on the market now for a few years, I would consider it effective and safe, but my own knowledge of the hullabaloo surrounding its recall would make me wary of actually recommending it over and above other monthly medications.

I understand what you are saying but it has been used safely internationally for a number of years. Fort Dodge voluntarily took the drug off the market only in the US. Other countries have been using it successfully since 2001.

The adverse events reported to the FDA are considered unfiltered, meaning that the reports are submitted without regard to cause and effect. Example: A 10 year old Yorkie was treated with ProHeart 6. Eight months after the injection, the dog was diagnosed with lymphoma in its right eye and other internal issues (anorexia, lethargy, vomiting). The owner euthanized the dog, declined a necropsy and reported to the FDA that ProHeart was responsible for the problems seen in the dog 8 months after treatment.

Incidences like this are what I meant when I said that the claims are unjustified. I think that it is important to know the truth behind the claims before we blame every illness on the drug. As a veterinarian, it is your personal choice to use this drug or an alternative drug. I just wanted others on the forum to know that the ProHeart can be used successfully with a safety profile equal to oral anthelmintics. Ultimately, it is a professional decision and it never hurts to hear both sides.

 

[sumstorm]

It is our job as veterinarians to provide the safest drug to the animal and to educate clients, not to give up on clients as being idiots and give them the easiest alternative that may have more side effects/risks associated.

I am not going to debate safety or such of pro-heart, but when I lived in Louisiana, a shockingly high percentage of dogs had heartworms. When the county shelter finally started testing for HW, somewhere around 80% of dogs over 1 year of age were infected. This shelter had some of the highest intake rates in the country. Every drug and every treatment has a trade-off, whether in dogs or humans. Vets, patients, and clients all deserve to have an educated opportunity to weigh the risk against the benefit. I know a lot of people who are willing to accept a 1-5% increase of death for themselves to not suffer the discomfort of their own disease....or the convenience of less frequent treatment (consider the osteo treatments for women.) I doubt that is different when they are considering their pets. Also, for stock dogs, where dosages would be given in the field, the risk of vomitting of meds is a real concern, and injectibles are preferred, and the less frequent, the better.

Even with all of that, obviously I care about my dogs, they receive excellent care. I have had life get hectic (family member hospitalized/die, relocation across country, etc.) and failed to dose appropriatly. I can honestly say, during the 6 month period where I did a 4 moves (4 states), including court hearings for an eviction, rebuilding an entire house, 2 major searches for murder victims, a 14 hour relocation, and multiple trips to the midwest (grandfather had a heart attack), with dogs (12 hours one way) I severly neglected heartworm prevention for my dogs. Why? I had a years worth of dosage's issued. They were packed accidentally by movers on the same day I had a court summons. Our belongins stayed in storage for 4 months. Vet wouldn't re-issue due to filling the current script (or rather his staff wouldn't, he was on vacation, by the time he came back, I was out of state.) None of my dogs were treated for 7 months (hard to find heartguard in hundreds of boxes so kindly marked 'misc.') I would have gladly taken the risk of pro-heart then leave my dogs exposed during the summer in areas where heartworm exposure is a very high risk. Guess that makes me a really horrible, uneducated owner only interested in the easiest alternative. A general idiot.

 

[ri23]

I understand what you are saying but it has been used safely internationally for a number of years. Fort Dodge voluntarily took the drug off the market only in the US. Other countries have been using it successfully since 2001.

The adverse events reported to the FDA are considered unfiltered, meaning that the reports are submitted without regard to cause and effect. Example: A 10 year old Yorkie was treated with ProHeart 6. Eight months after the injection, the dog was diagnosed with lymphoma in its right eye and other internal issues (anorexia, lethargy, vomiting). The owner euthanized the dog, declined a necropsy and reported to the FDA that ProHeart was responsible for the problems seen in the dog 8 months after treatment.

Incidences like this are what I meant when I said that the claims are unjustified. I think that it is important to know the truth behind the claims before we blame every illness on the drug. As a veterinarian, it is your personal choice to use this drug or an alternative drug. I just wanted others on the forum to know that the ProHeart can be used successfully with a safety profile equal to oral anthelmintics. Ultimately, it is a professional decision and it never hurts to hear both sides.

Definitely agree with this statement. Also, as was pointed out Europeans and Australians swear by it. Australians have a year long, as well as a 6 month version. They have never had any safety issues with the product.

With the number of people that forget to give the monthly preventative, I think that this is a great alternative.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

And I repeat.....my problem mainly lies in the company's initial reactions, the bumbling start to the recall, how just as many reactions were possibly ignored as well as those counted, the possible intimidation and discrediting of a federal employee(s) involved in the investigation (worst IMO), etc...they *say* they have reformulated it to have fewer residues but....it is a matter of trust in the company for me. Everyone has their own opinion.

And as for my concerns with the actual medication (re: safe on the market for a few years comment), are we 100% sure that the drug made internationally is the same formulation as here? Are the residue restirctions the same? Quality control? No one can say. Maybe the formulations made in the overseas plants were made to a higher standard. It is certainly possible.

 

[sumstorm]

they *say* they have reformulated it to have fewer residues but....it is a matter of trust in the company for me. Everyone has their own opinion.

And as for my concerns with the actual medication (re: safe on the market for a few years comment), are we 100% sure that the drug made internationally is the same formulation as here? Are the residue restirctions the same? Quality control? No one can say. Maybe the formulations made in the overseas plants were made to a higher standard. It is certainly possible.

Actually, they *SAY* they haven't changed the formulation:

Has the product changed since the voluntary recall?
[FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light]• ProHeart 6 has not changed since the voluntary recall, other than a change in the supplier of one of the components of the diluent.
..
As for quality control in terms of incident reporting, the WHO is a reasonable system :

Each of these countries has a mandatory adverse event reporting system. In each country, the incidence rate for adverse events is deemed "Very Rare" using the World Health Organization (WHO) categories for adverse event reports. Of those events, the majority are allergic in nature, which is consistent with the pattern recognized with many pharmaceuticals.

Above quoted from:
Each of these countries has a mandatory adverse event reporting system. In each country, the incidence rate for adverse events is deemed "Very Rare" using the World Health Organization (WHO) categories for adverse event reports. Of those events, the majority are allergic in nature, which is consistent with the pattern recognized with many pharmaceuticals.

Out of curiosity, if you know so much about it, why do you think it has been reformulated?

Either way, what you said was:

It is our job as veterinarians to provide the safest drug to the animal and to educate clients, not to give up on clients as being idiots and give them the easiest alternative that may have more side effects/risks associated.

Which suggests that vets who are willing to use pro heart are unwilling to educate clients, think clients are idiots, and are dangerous for their patients because they don't consider the effects/risks. It also suggests that clients who are willing to learn about the difference and still feel pro heart is the best option for them and their pets are endangering thier pets for the sake of simple convenience. I can likely find something each and every person does that puts their pets at a great risk of something to improve other options. IE my SAR dogs are at greater risk of injury for human life. The typical house pet is at risk of issues such as behavior and obesity in relation to sedentary lifestyles. We all make judgement calls every day, balancing the pros and cons for ourselves and our pets, and as vets, for our patients, our clients, our business, and our licence.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I did not mean it had been reformulated in terms of the main ingredients. The moxi formula has not changed. The amount of residue/qc has changed i.e. method of formulation changed. Or that is what I have read.

And wow, you are jumping to conclusions in order to make my arguement seem offensive..... I did not say all vets that recommend proheart are lazy, nor all clients willing to use it. That's quite a ridiculous straw man arguement and you are putting words in my mouth

I meant that vets that recommend proheart INSTEAD OF using client education simply because their clients are not as compliant (as opposed to in ADDITION to, or if after education and explanation compliance remains nonexistant, THEN i could see the benefit of suggesting a long term Tx rather than risk hw dz. But for the average client that maybe doesn't understand why it is so imp to give monthly, maybe misses a few mo, I would rather sit dowm and talk with them about the mechanisms of how the med works and why it is imp to give monthly, rather that "Ok, take proheart instead. To me, it is akin to saying "Ok your dog has skin allergies, put him on Science Diet z/d" as opposed to "well, let's find out what exactly he is allergic to, let's dicsuss what could possibly be in your home, etc". I have heard of as well as seen vets jump to prescribing proheart just because their clients miss a few months, and that bothers me. It is not a medication to be taken lightly given its history. Is it an alternative? Yes, but not in as many cases as you would think. It is a benefit vs drawback decision, and everyone leans one way or the other. That is my opinion.

And again, still, since there have been fewer reported incidents in other countries, I wonder if the formulation method in other plants internationally is different that that is why we saw so many rxns. I have found no information to support or to the contrary, but it makes me nervous because if they slack in qc here, who is to say they are not slacking in qc in other products, or that this increase in qc will stay?

 

[shep4]

I use Advantix for flea and tick and heartguard, but it's pretty much what you are doing now....

 

[alliecat44]

If ProHeart is so much safer now, any comments on the hoops veterinarians and clients have to jump through just to have an animal receive the injection? These are new requirements since the drug came back on the market. Or any comment on why the FDA would require so much waiver-signing and certification for vets who administer the drug if it's perfectly safe?

Great links from Ft. Dodge describing the process and rationale:

http://www.proheart6dvm.com/ (the FAQ was partially quoted here by sumstorm)

http://www.proheart6dvm.com/docs/risk_map_03_09.pdf

 

[Caninerepro]

As an owner of Collie-type breeds all I will say is that, while not with my own dogs -- would NEVER us Heartgard, I HAVE SEEN DOGS KILLED BY HEARTGARD dosed as labeled. Beyond that I think it is a fine product if you are sure your dog does not have the mutation. For me, it is just not worth the risk.

 

[TSUJC]

If ProHeart is so much safer now, any comments on the hoops veterinarians and clients have to jump through just to have an animal receive the injection? These are new requirements since the drug came back on the market. Or any comment on why the FDA would require so much waiver-signing and certification for vets who administer the drug if it's perfectly safe?

I think it is for the sole purpose of preventing the unjustified claims against the drug. Owners cannot come back and make a claim under the premise that they did not know the risks/side effects. All drugs have risks, most vets require a anesthesia release so I would compare it to that.

 

[alliecat44]

I think it is for the sole purpose of preventing the unjustified claims against the drug. Owners cannot come back and make a claim under the premise that they did not know the risks/side effects. All drugs have risks, most vets require a anesthesia release so I would compare it to that.

The FDA usually doesn't care about how much a company pays out for "unjustified" claims.

Have you read the process that must occur for a veterinarian to prescribe ProHeart? It's a lot more involved than an anesthesia release form.

To my knowledge, there hasn't been a drug of ANY class released publicly for which the FDA has required veterinarians to complete a one-hour "tutorial" before they enroll in a program in order to prescribe the drug.

 

[kiki1983]

My doggie uses Interceptor for htwms, and we've been using comfortis for nearly a year now. I love the oral form of flea protection, but I think once our box is up in 2 months we will be switching back to Advantage. As you know, when giving a client a box of Comfortis for the first time, you warn them that they need to feed the dogs before giving the pill and that one known side effect has been vomitting...if they vomit within the first hour you need to repill them, but if it's been 1.5-2 hours or longer they should have absorbed the pill. And, the side effect (vomitting) tends to go away after the first 2-3 months.

Anywho, for some reason, my dog has had the opposite happen to him....as said before, he has been on comfortis nearly a year now...he was fine and held the pill down (as long as we did not do htwm and flea pills the same day)...but the past 2 months, he has vomitted everytime within 2 hours....I just feel bad doing that to him...so, if he continues to do that for the last 2 pills we will go back to Advantage.

 

[ccrose3]

Bumping this thread a bit since I was perusing this forum and thought I'd chime in...

I use Frontline Plus and Interceptor for my dogs. Since I live in a flea- and tick-infested area, I administer Frontline every 3 weeks in the summer. One of my dogs also receives Comfortis in addition to the Frontline. One of my cats receives Frontline and Interceptor since she has a bad reaction to Revolution. The other cat receives Revolution, and I add Frontline a week after the Revolution dose during the summer months. I work at a full-service vet clinic and a non-profit spay/neuter clinic (where I constantly get fleas on me), so in addition to the climate working against us I have to be very conscientious of what works for my dogs.

I used to use Advantix on the dogs to ward off mosquitos, and kept my dogs and cats separate for about 5 days, but after noticing that the mosquitos would get on them after a week anyway decided to just use something else. Instead, I purchased some pet-friendly products that I spray on my fence and in my yard, and it seems to help a bit. I didn't have as much success with Advantage, but during the summer it's not an option anyway since my dogs swim a lot.

I've only found an individual flea on one of my dogs on two separate occasions, but have since put that one on the Comfortis, and she hasn't had the problem since. She has bad flea allergies so the individual sporadic fleas were still too much to allow. Haven't had problems with the vomiting as of yet, but I do always give it with a full meal.

Hope this helps!

 

[THEOSU2012]

Hey There,

I used to use Interceptor and Frontline Plus. However this year at The Ohio State University, the company reps wouldn't offer Interceptor. I don't know why they wouldn't offer Interceptor to students though. I wasn't that excited about having to switch but I ended up going to Sentinel.

Since I have a purebred 9 year old Smooth Collie, I am very cautious about flea and heartworm prevention.

I have a great relationship with the Merial rep, who is always pushing me that Heartguard is a great product. And I agree with her. There are lots of great heartworm products out there, but not all of them are right for my animal.

I also keep a supply of Frontline Plus but have not yet had to use the supply because Sentinel has worked pretty well for me.

Good luck!

 

[HopefulAg]

Ok so any opinions on BioSpot? My parents brought this home as a cheaper alternative to Advantage. I know nothing about it and a Google search yields the usual 'it killed my dog' stuff. Same stuff Googling Frontline and Advantage will get you.

I've never heard of the stuff before. They got it from the feed store when buying food.

 

[StealthDog]

There is a nice Veterinary Partner article about the OTC topicals here.

 

[Pandacinny]

Biospot is not nearly as effective as advantage or frontline in my experience. I say this as someone whose parents tried it for a whole summer on their boxer in tick infested southern Maryland. She was COVERED, it was gross. She also had fleas, which was also gross. We switched to Frontline and she hasn't had an issue since, though YMMV.

 

[twelvetigers]

Don't they sell Biospot at Wal-Mart? That's usually a bad sign...

 

[ccrose3]

The consensus at the clinic I work for is that it doesn't work very well, if at all, and that it is not any safer than the other "off the shelf" products, as the company would like to make people believe. I've seen several animals come in covered in fleas that were on it. I have yet to hear a positive review from a client or anyone else that's used it.

 

[HopefulAg]

Cool deal, I'll have them return it then.

They got the regular Advantage for the dogs, but picked up BioSpot for the cats since we have three of them and they wanted to save money.

 

[ccrose3]

Cool deal, I'll have them return it then.

They got the regular Advantage for the dogs, but picked up BioSpot for the cats since we have three of them and they wanted to save money.

One thing you might try to use to save money is buying the big dog size meds and dosing them out, if you're comfortable with that. I have done this for many years with my cats and it's worked fine. On the Revolution you have to of course have a vet that is willing to Rx the bigger dose.

Saves me tons of money. I do the same thing (dosing out of the biggest size) for my dogs.

If you do this make sure you shake the container or vial very well between drawing up each dose so as to mix the active and inactive ingredients thoroughly. Hope that helps!

 

[twelvetigers]

We dose out the Frontline at the clinic for the <22 lb dogs, 23-44 lb dogs, and cats. We put it in droppers (like the ones that always come with HW snap tests) and sell it that way.

So, I know the dosages there... I'd rather not post them on the internet, though. I'm not sure I trust Joe Schmoe to measure amounts correctly.

 

[ccrose3]

I went ahead and removed the dosages from my last post... didn't think about it being used improperly. What do you mean about the Revolution dose being pretty far out there? That's the dose that it's sold at for cats. I know you can use smaller doses than that, but the vet has specifically advised against it due to the conditions in our area, etc. (For reasons other than flea control).

I worked for a non-profit clinic where dosing out was standard practice, and the doses I posted were what we used. The full service clinic I work for now doesn't do this, but they confirmed the doses are correct.

One of my coworkers who is from up north said the doses they used for Revolution and Advantage were smaller, so perhaps the area has something to do with it. Many of our clients have to administer flea prevention every three weeks or even use additional products for it to be effective.

 

[ccrose3]

The adult cat dose as its sold is 0.75mL of 60mg/mL = 45mg dose.

The large dog concentration is 120mg/mL x 0.75mL = 90mg dose.

So your talking about twice the labeled dose. Does't mean much though as its a prescription med being used off label anyways, so its up to you and your vet to determine what doses are most appropriate for your animal from a safety and an efficacy point of view.

Hm, that's something to think about then. I'm not sure why they would dose it out that way, but wouldn't hurt to ask. Perhaps I misunderstood or wasn't clear in my question to the vet I work for now, or there's something else I'm not understanding as to the reasoning.

Thanks for the information. I'll ask again to clarify and will post what I find out.

 

[alliecat44]

Technically speaking, unless you're in a shelter environment, "dosing out" drugs like this is illegal. (I'm referring to dividing up a larger animal's dose into several smaller aliquots.) Just FYI.

 

[david594]

Technically speaking, unless you're in a shelter environment, "dosing out" drugs like this is illegal. (I'm referring to dividing up a larger animal's dose into several smaller aliquots.) Just FYI.

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

Is dosing out revolution any different than the off-label use of any other prescription medication?

I know advantage being an OTC med falls under different regulations(EPA?) that prohibit using outside of labeled instructions.

Just found it from the UC David Shelter website:

Frequently Asked Questions about external parasite control

Is it okay to split large-dog size packages of Advantage, Frontline, Promeris or Revolution and use them on multiple smaller animals?

This is an attractive option for shelters because it is cost-saving, and may allow shelters to treat large numbers of animals with products that would otherwise be unaffordable. This approach is widely used, and appears to be safe and effective. However, using Advantage, Frontline or Promeris in this way is actually illegal, although it is acceptable to use this method with Revolution. This is because Advantage, Frontline and Promeris are considered pesticides rather than medications, and, as such, are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rather than the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Unlike the FDA, the EPA does not allow for use of products in any manner other than exactly as product label describes. The splitting of large sizes of Revolution to use on multiple smaller animals is off-label, but is acceptable as long as it is done under the direction or supervision of a veterinarian.