51). The baseline EPG values in dogs in Group T were reduced from 450 (±159.09) to 48.12 (±48.12) on Day 28 ± 2 and to 0 on Day 56 ± 2, corresponding to an efficacy of 99.14 and 100% respectively (Table 1). Efficacy on Day 28 ± 2 (i.e. after a single administration PF-02341066 chemical structure of Advocate®) increased to 99.57% after data from the rescue treatment received by seven control dogs were included. In Group C no evident difference between mean EPG before (581.2 ± 112.77) and after (584.37 ± 114.46) treatment was demonstrated, with a corresponding

change of 1.74% from baseline. The difference between Group T and Group C with regard to the change in EPG from baseline was 502.60 on Day 28 ± 2 and 504.70 on Day 56 ± 2, which

is statistically significant (p < 0.01) ( Table 1). Neither AEs nor SAEs were recorded in any of the treated dogs. On Days -6 and -2 all the dogs in Group T and five in Group C showed various respiratory symptoms on clinical examination, i.e. repeated sneezing (n = 9 dogs), reverse sneezing (n = 2), nasal discharge (n = 4), epistaxis (n = 3), hypo-/anosmia (n = 3), cough (n = 4) and scratching of the nasal region (n = 1) ( Table 2). Clinical signs disappeared in seven of the eight symptomatic animals in Group T and in five animals which received the rescue treatment four weeks after the initial treatment had been given. The dog in Group T which received a second treatment Bay 11-7085 was still symptomatic on Day 28 ± 2 but had fully recovered on Day 56 ± 2 (Table 3). The presence of nasal PD0325901 chemical structure capillariosis in animals which were positive for C. boehmi eggs at the faecal examination was confirmed by endoscopic and/or molecular approaches carried out at both pre- and post-treatment evaluations. All dogs in Group T scored positive for adult stages of C. boehmi at rhinoscopy ( Fig. 2) and/or for eggs following nasal flushing, whereas all the eight

animals in Group C tested positive in molecular procedures applied to faecal samples where consent to the endoscopic procedure had not been given. Post-treatment rhinoscopy was performed for six dogs in Group T because the owners of two dogs did not give their consent to additional anaesthesia. The negative result of copromicroscopy was confirmed by the aforementioned genetic assays for these two animals and for the control animals which received rescue treatment. Of the eight dogs in Group T, seven were negative on endoscopy (n = 6) and in the confirmatory PCR (n = 1) conducted on Day 28 ± 2, while one dog that scored PCR-positive on Day 28 ± 2 was negative at the examination performed on Day 56 ± 2 ( Table 3). All seven dogs in Group C which were given rescue treatment scored negative on copromicroscopy and confirmatory PCR performed on Day 56 ± 2 (Table 3). Thus, a second administration of Advocate® was not necessary for these dogs.