ArticleJournal of veterinary science2025
Comparative pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence of nine oral ivermectin formulations in dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In vitro and in vivo acaricidal properties of orally delivered ivermectin against the blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceCanine heartworm disease remains a major global health issue. Despite the wide availability of ivermectin (IVM) formulations, pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence data are limited.
objectiveThis study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of eight oral IVM formulations (B-I) compared with the innovator product (A) in dogs.
methodsForty-five healthy dogs (mean body weight: 14.3 kg) were divided into nine groups (n = 5). Each received 6.2 µg/kg of IVM orally. Blood samples were collected up to 72 h post-dosing, and plasma IVM concentrations were quantified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using a one-compartment model. Bioequivalence was assessed non-compartmentally using 90% confidence intervals for maximum concentration (C
resultsAbsorption (Ka = 0.09-0.16 h⁻¹), elimination half-life (T1/2 = 4.89-14.97 h), and systemic exposure (C CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: All formulations achieved plasma concentrations sufficient for prophylaxis, but only B, C, and G satisfied bioequivalence criteria. Larger sample sizes and standardized evaluation guidelines are recommended for multi-formulation bioequivalence studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.