蚤不到的迷思2

[大敦寵物醫院]

阿kim : 謝謝戴醫生您的說明…
不過有沒有在更詳盡的說明啊 ..因為深怕壞了您的名譽(引述他人說法)
所以在補充2篇文章…以下我我回應的(如有錯誤請告知)..

深怕琪琪爸的文章有誤導他人可能..所以稍為筆戰一下(良性喔哈哈)
所以我先前文章有提到了…真的無效啦
不是原廠的問題而是台灣代理商的問題
你從代理商查到的不等於原廠喔…
在國外就是因為現在台灣代理的滴劑沒有這個效果所以原廠才又推出新的滴劑…而新的滴劑在國外上市2.3年了…台灣沒有正式進口…
都說是代理商的錯了..就是針對他提共的資訊有不實
您還查代理商的資料
事情不是又回到原點了嗎…建議您去原廠查一下吧
…..
再來是他人回應…
良性筆戰啊~~~說的好,我也來湊一腳

這兒有一百一十八萬個世界各地的網站,隨便點一個進去都是在賣蚤不到的,告訴您說~蚤不到可以防跳蚤和壁虱!
http://www.google.com.tw/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-49,GGLD:en&q=frontline+dog

壁虱的英文順便告訴阿肯~就是tick

這是蚤不到原廠網頁
http://frontline.us.merial.com/
第一句話~When it comes to fleas and ticks, there’s no room for compromise. That’s why more veterinarians choose FRONTLINE-the #1 recommendation of veterinarians for complete flea and tick protection for dogs and cats.

不知哪裡說蚤不到不能防壁虱?

阿肯您可不要壞了大敦戴醫師的名聲喔,人家蚤不到除了防蚤,也真的能防壁虱!!

大敦寵物醫療中心院長戴更基醫生 : 我很抱歉，沒有把話說得夠清楚，引起大家的討論，事情的緣由是這樣的：
在剛開始，台灣只有噴劑，效果卓越，後來廠商引進滴劑，飼主多數的反應是不如噴劑來得有效，而沒多久，在我們訂閱的獸醫雜誌上看到新的產品，也就是Fipronil Plus，敘述對壁蝨的效果，所以我就認為還是使用噴劑比較好，而文獻上對於兩者的效果來看，並不如廠商說得如此，賣東西的人總是說自己的東西最好，我不認為完全沒效，但是因為怕水的特性以及持久性來看，還是建議使用噴劑或是Fipronil Plus（有好的為何不使用呢？）如果台灣民眾一直支持Fipronil 滴劑，那麼何時才會有Fipronil Plus的進口呢？
長久下來，就習慣於說滴劑沒有效，而噴劑才有效，引起各位的誤會。不過請看看以下的文章

以下的文章摘錄自文獻：
Thirty-six dogs were used in the study and they were housed at three different sites. The dogs at each site were randomly assigned into 2 groups, I and II. Group I was treated with permethrin spot-on and group II was treated with fipronil spot-on. The dogs were treated 3 times at monthly intervals. Each dog were examined carefully daily and the number of biting ticks found on the dog was recorded. Most statistical analysis was performed, using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute Inc. SAS User’s Guide, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.).

For the entire 12 week treatment period, 53% (10/19) dogs treated with permethrin never had ticks whereas only 18% (3/17) dogs treated with fipronil had no ticks. Permethrin treated dogs were approximately 3 times as likely to have no ticks compared to fipronil treated dogs (Relative Risk, p=0.04). Over the 12 weeks period, 10 permethrin treated dogs had 0 ticks, 4 dogs had 1 tick and 5 had more than 1 tick. Among fipronil treated dogs, the distribution of 0, 1 or >1 tick, was 3, 3, and 11 dogs, respectively. Overall permethrin was significantly better in reducing the number of ticks on infested dogs. On average, permethrin treated dogs had 1.1 ticks, whereas fipronil treated dogs had 2.8 ticks (p=0.02). None of the dogs in the study showed any signs of side effects due to treatment.

In conclusion, over a 3 months treatment period permethrin spot-on showed a better effectiveness compared with fipronil (Frontline(R) ) spot-on in reducing both the number of ticks on the dogs and the probability of having any tick.
如果您的英文不好，我簡單的把結果告訴你，以Fipronil連續使用三個月以後，只有18％的狗狗身上不再看到壁蝨，您認為早不到滴劑真得很有效的防治壁蝨嗎？我個人是懷疑廠商的數據。

以下是康乃爾大學的研究論文摘錄：
Procedure: Dogs were matched by body weight and randomly allocated, 8 per group, to untreated controls or to treatment with fipronil spray (2 groups) or fipronil/(S)-methoprene spot on (2 groups), applied either 7 or 28 days before challenge with B. burgdorferi-infected ticks. Tick counts were conducted 48 and 120 hours after challenge. Assessment of successful B. burgdorferi transmission was performed using serology and skin biopsies from tick attachment sites for culture and polymerase chain reaction assay.

Results: I. scapularis infestation and B. burgdorferi transmission was successful in all control dogs. Fipronil spray prevented all dogs from becoming infected with B. burgdorferi and was 100% and 99.6% effective against tick infestation 48 hours after challenge in dogs treated 7 or 28 days before challenge. When challenge occurred 7 days after treatment, fipronil/(S)-methoprene spot on was 100% effective against the tick infestation 48 hours after challenge and prevented infection with B. burgdorferi in all dogs. When the challenge was conducted 28 days after treatment, fipronil/(S)-methoprene spot on prevented all but 2 dogs from becoming infected with B. burgdorferi and was 97.6% effective against tick infestation 48 hours after challenge.

文中內容結果，我在此簡單說明：
即使使用更好的Fipronil Plus，超過28天以後，仍然會被壁蝨感染而引起疾病。
可以由此看出Fipronil plus 對壁蝨有28天的有效期，但是仍然沒有
噴劑來得好。因為噴劑有更長更有效的預防效果。

我們不是廠商的助賣員，所以不會把商品最好的部份拿出來說，我們只會從醫學角度來說，成千上萬個賣蚤不到的地方，如果說沒有效，還有人會買嗎？
在台灣，使用過的民眾的反應多數是不理想的，所以我覺得大家應該要求廠商進口Fipronil Plus，而不是一直賣Fipronil 給我們。

請比較兩者的差異，我們台灣為何老是要用人家以淘汰的產品？

[作者]

文章