Table 2.

Representative summary of the results obtained in different studies on the efficacy of a single treatment with macrocyclic lactones to control Rhipicephalus microplus ticks on cattle. DPT: Days post-treatment with efficacy greater than 90%. FRP: Reproductive parameters of females. ET: Experimental trial with artificial infestation. FT: Field trial with natural infestation.

Drug and type of trial	DPT with efficacy a > 90%	Effect on FRP	Reference
Ivermectin (200 μg/kg injectable): ET	28	Yes	Cramer et al. (1988a)
Ivermectin (200 μg/kg pour on): ET	No	Yes	Cramer et al. (1988b)
Ivermectin (500 μg/kg pour on): ET	No	Yes	Cramer et al. (1988b)
Ivermectin (200 μg/kg injectable): FT	12–28c	–	Caproni et al. (1998)
Ivermectin (200 μg/kg injectable): ET	19	Yes	Bulman et al. (2000)
Ivermectin (500 μg/kg pour on): ET	No	Yes	Davey and George (2002)
Ivermectin (200 μg/kg injectable): ET	7	Yes	Davey et al. (2005)
Ivermectin (200 μg/kg injectable): ET	no	Yes	Pereira (2009)
Ivermectin (630 μg/kg injectable): FT	56c	–	Arieta-Román et al. (2010)
Ivermectin (630 μg/kg injectable): ET	14	Yes	Davey et al. (2010)
Ivermectin (630 μg/kg injectable): FT	15c	Yes	Lopes et al. (2013)
Ivermectin (630 μg/kg injectable): FTb	49c	–	Cruz et al. (2015)
Ivermectin (630 μg/kg injectable): ET	21	Yes	Cuore et al. (2016)
Ivermectin (630 μg/kg injectable): FT	21c	Yes	Nava et al. (2019)
Doramectin (200 μg/kg injectable): ET	21	Yes	Gonzales et al. (1993)
Doramectin (200 μg/kg injectable): FT	8–28c	–	Muñiz et al. (1995)
Doramectin (200 μg/kg injectable): FT	28c	–	Caproni et al. (1998)
Doramectin (200 μg/kg injectable): ET	21	Yes	George and Davey (2004)
Doramectin (500 μg/kg pour-on): ET	No	Yes	George and Davey (2004)
Doramectin (200 μg/kg injectable): ET	28	Yes	Pereira (2009)
Doramectin (700 μg/kg injectable): FT	40c	Yes	Lopes et al. (2013)
Moxidectin (500 μg/kg pour-on): ET	No	Yes	Davey and George (2002)
Moxidectin (200 μg/kg injectable): FT	7–28c	–	Aguilar-Tipacamu and Rodriguez-Vivas (2003)
Moxidectin (200 μg/kg injectable): ET	7	Yes	Davey et al. (2005)
Moxidectin (1000 μg/kg injectable): FT	70c	–	Arieta-Román et al. (2010)
Moxidectin (1000 μg/kg injectable): ET	42	Yes	Davey et al. (2011)
Moxidectin (1000 μg/kg injectable): FT	40c	Yes	Lopes et al. (2013)
Eprinomectin (500 μg/kg pour-on): ET	No	Yes	Davey and George (2002)
Eprinomectin (500 μg/kg pour-on) ET	28	Yes	Aguirre et al. (2005)
Eprinomectin (1000 μg/kg pour-on) FT	23c	Yes	Lifschitz et al. (2016)
Eprinomectin (200 μg/kg injectable) FT	5–23c	Yes	do Nascimento et al. (2020)
Abamectin (200 μg/kg injectable) ET	Nod	Yes	Bridi et al. (1992)
Abamectin (200 μg/kg injectable) ET	No	Yes	Pereira (2009)

^aThe formulae and parameters used to calculate the efficacy are different between experimental and field studies. Briefly, the efficacy calculated in experimental studies is based on the effect of a drug to preclude the development of larvae into engorged females, and to inhibit the reproductive capacity of females. The number of days expresses the protective period against larval re-infestation. The therapeutic efficacy used to evaluate a treatment under field conditions refers to the reduction in the number of attached ticks (usually semi-engorged females) in treated animals in relation to a control group. There are also differences in susceptibility to the drugs among tick strains subjected of the treatments. Therefore, values are not strictly comparable.

^bCruz et al. (2015) treated field populations of R. microplus with other injectable (200 μg/kg) and oral (500 μg/kg) formulations of ivermectin, but they were classified as resistant. Therefore, data corresponding to resistant tick populations were not included in this table.

^cThe values in field tests refer to the days when values of efficay >90% were reached.

^dBridi et al. (1992) also test treatments of injectable abamectin at 100 μg/kg and 300 μg/kg, ante the results were not significantly different to those obtained at 200 μg/kg.