Small Animal/Exotics 20TH ANNIVERSARY Compendium April 1999

Highlights and Horizons in

Flea Control Michael W. Dryden, DVM, PhD

Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology
College of Veterinary Medicine
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas

F
leas and the diseases they transmit have tormented humans and their pets
for hundreds if not thousands of years. Historically, the most serious hu-
man disease transmitted by fleas was bubonic plague or the Black Death of
the Middle Ages, which is estimated to have killed one quarter to one third of
the known population. Fortunately the most common flea species infesting do-
mesticated dogs and cats, the cat flea Ctenocephalides felis, is not a biologic vector
of the plague bacillus. Although it does not transmit plague, C. felis is the cause
of severe irritation to humans and animals, can serve as the vector of typhuslike
rickettsia, is the intermediate host for filarid and cestode parasites, and is respon-
sible for the production of allergic dermatitis and anemia. The association be-
tween fleas and what was called summer eczema was first made by Kissileff in Michael Dryden
19381 and is today known as flea allergy dermatitis.
For years, veterinarians and pet owners have fought to control fleas on dogs
A New Era of Research
and cats, but despite their importance to both humans and their pets, scant in-
Overwintering and
formation regarding the biology of fleas infesting dogs and cats was available be-
Delayed Development
fore 1980. A review of the pre-1980 literature reveals inconsistent data on the
The first concerted effort in inves-
life cycle of C. felis and inappropriate extrapolations on the biologic characteris-
tigating the biology of C. felis was
tics and behaviors of other flea species. It is now apparent that these discrepan-
conducted in the early 1980s by Dr.
cies contributed to poorly designed control regimens, inappropriate treatment,
Michael Rust of the University of
and delays in new product development. During the past 20 years, many of the
California at Riverside. His research
unknowns and misconceptions concerning the biologic effect of fleas on pets
efforts explored the environmental pa-
have been investigated. These advances in our knowledge of flea biology, cou-
rameters that allowed survival of the
pled with advances in product development, have dramatically changed flea con-
trol measures.

ENDIU 1981 1983 1986 1987 1989

MP 1980 1983
Research on
environmental
Effects of
insect growth
C. felis
resistance to

19
Flea larval

1985
behavior
Host permanence
M’

of C. felis

20th

CO

parameters affecting regulators on malathion studied established

1981
S

C. felis development C. felis documented

1 9 7

ANNIVERSARY
9 - 1
9 9 9

1979 began at the

University of California
at Riverside
1982
development
reported

1984
19
 Compendium April 1999
immature stages of C. felis. A study
conducted by Silverman and Rust2
determined that no life stage could
survive exposure to freezing tempera-
tures for more than a few minutes,
thereby substantiating that C. felis
could not survive outdoors during
the winter in cold climates. This
finding was relevant because veteri-
narians had often questioned how
cat fleas could survive the winter in
northern climates.
Further research conducted by Sil-
verman and Rust3 determined that
the pupae and preemerged adult with-
in the cocoon were responsible for
the longevity of C. felis and that the
development of pupae and emer-
gence of fleas could be delayed for up
to 6 months. In addition, research
conducted by Dryden and Broce4 in
1995 showed that urbanized rac-
coons and opossums maintained
populations of C. felis throughout the
winter. All of these studies therefore
identified several mechanisms by
which C. felis could survive cold tem-
peratures.
Treatment on Premises
Before 1990, attempts at control-
ling adult and immature fleas in
home environments involved appli-
cation of residual insecticides to the
carpet; however, these efforts often
produced poor results. Studies con-
ducted between 1987 and 1993 found
that application of insecticides to
carpets had minimal impact on the
life cycle of C. felis.
In 1987, Byron5 determined that
larvae exhibit positive geotaxis and
negative phototaxis, resulting in lar-
vae development at the base of carpet
98719901992
1993
First
1995 1998
International
1994
Lufenuron approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug
1991
Symposium on Administration
Ectoparasites
19891993 1997
of Pets,
Lexington,
986 Kentucky
20TH ANNIVERSARY
fibers. Therefore, most indoor adul-
ticide treatments failed because they
did not reach the base of carpet
fibers, where larvae develop into
adult fleas. In addition, in 1993
Dryden and Reid6 determined that
pupae survived insecticide-treated
households because of poor penetra-
tion of the carpet and because insec-
ticide residue at the top of the carpet
could take several hours to destroy
newly emerging fleas, thereby giving
adult fleas ample time to find a dog
or cat.
The development of insect growth
regulators that could effectively kill
flea larvae in carpets markedly en-
hanced efforts to control fleas. In
1983, Olsen7 reported that residual
deposits of methoprene provided
75% to 100% reduction in larval de-
velopment. However, this report
lacked widespread distribution and
received minimal acceptance by the
veterinary community. Additional
research in the mid-1980s and early
1990s determined that indoor appli-
cations of methoprene, fenoxycarb,
and pyriproxyfen to carpets did pre-
vent larval development and adult
emergence for several months.
Host Association and Its Impact
on Product Development
Before the late 1980s, it was be-
lieved that after C. felis fed on its
host, it left the host to digest the
bloodmeal and deposit eggs in the
cracks and crevices of the home. In
1989, however, it was determined
that the adult C. felis is actually a
semipermanent ectoparasite that is
metabolically incapable of sustaining
egg production once removed from
1995
Urban wildlife
recognized as cold-weather
Imidacloprid and
fipronil introduced in the
and reservoir hosts
of C. felis
Small Animal/Exotics
OWNERS’ OUTLOOK
■ Pesky Critters Meet Their Match.
Veterinarians are apparently
successfully educating companion
animal owners on the value of
controlling flea infestations on
their pets and in their homes. In
1991, veterinarians’ total share of
the flea control market was only
16%, with most flea products
being purchased at retail outlets.
According to the American Animal
Hospital Association 1998 Pet
Survey, veterinarians controlled
60% of the flea product market
in 1998. Before 1991, data on
consumer buying habits were not
compiled for flea control products.
■ Nine Lives and Counting.
Like their human counterparts,
cats seem to be living longer
than they used to. According
to the American Veterinary
Medical Association Center for
Information Management, a
majority of cats in U.S. households
in 1996 were younger than 6 years
of age (62.6%); but the percentage
of household cats that was 6 years
of age or older increased from
28.5% of all cats in 1987 to
37.4% in 1996.
■ People Power. According to a
1998 Pet Survey conducted by
the American Animal Hospital
Association, pet owners are very
loyal to their veterinarians. When
asked what they liked best about
their veterinarians, the most
frequently cited characteristics
were empathy and good rapport
with pets (82%), followed closely
by trust and knowledge. Business
dealings (e.g., payment plans) were
cited least frequently.
1996
1998
Pet owners purchased
$740 million of flea
United States products from
U.S. veterinary clinics
1999
Compendium April 1999
its host. 8 This finding had a pro-
found effect on the development of
flea products. Because reproduction
was tied to the host, topical or sys-
temic formulations specifically tar-
geting reproduction could break the
life cycle.
The late 1980s and early 1990s saw
the marketing of topical insect growth
regulators and systemic insect devel-
opment inhibitors (e.g., lufenuron)
that prohibited flea reproduction.
The development of highly effective,
easy-to-apply, monthly topical and
systemic products dramatically al-
tered flea control. Before these prod-
ucts were introduced, flea control in-
volved treating both the pet and its
environment. However, several stud-
ies conducted between 1995 and
19979–12 demonstrated that these top-
ical and systemic products could ef-
fectively eliminate existing flea popu-
lations without the need to treat the
environment.
Shift in Consumer
Buying Habits
In the mid-1990s, millions of dol-
lars were spent advertising a once-a-
month oral flea medication (lufen-
uron) that could be purchased only
through a veterinarian. This product
had a dramatic effect on flea control,
consumer buying habits, and veteri-
nary medicine. In 1994, U.S. pet own-
ers purchased $150 million worth of
flea control products from veterinari-
ans. After the approval of lufenuron
in 1994, that amount more than dou-
bled to $360 million. Then in 1996,
two highly effective topical adulti-
cides, imidacloprid and fipronil,
were also introduced and marketed
vigorously in the United States. In
1998, U.S. pet owners purchased an
20TH ANNIVERSARY
estimated $740 million worth of flea
control products from veterinary
clinics.
Future Trends
The trend toward veterinary-only
spot-on topical, oral, and injectable
formulations will likely continue.
Many pet owners now consider flea
control to be medicine and purchase
products primarily from veterinary
clinics rather than over-the-counter
from retail stores. Although flea con-
trol had for years been conducted in
a reactive fashion, the new highly ef-
fective and easy-to-administer prod-
ucts lend themselves to a more pre-
ventive approach by attacking C. felis
infestation before the flea season is in
full swing.
Long-term product stewardship,
however, will need to be addressed in
the future. Apparently, the decreased
efficacy of many older products can
be partially attributed to insecticide
resistance; of the species of fleas test-
ed, C. felis is resistant to the greatest
number of different categories of in-
secticides. However, limited research
has been conducted on resistant
strains of C. felis.
The first insecticide-resistance se-
lection studies were not conducted
on the cat flea until 1986. Collart
and Hink13 were able to produce 12-
fold resistance to malathion in a labo-
ratory-field hybrid strain after contin-
uous selection for eight generations.
Unfortunately, the extent or preva-
lence of insecticide resistance in pop-
ulations of C. felis has not been deter-
mined. Research must be conducted
to assess the clinical ramifications of
resistance and which integrated or ro-
tational programs should be adopted
to delay the onset of insecticide resis-
tance and prolong product life.
Small Animal/Exotics
References
1. Kissileff A: The dog flea as a causative agent
in summer eczema. JAVMA 93:31, 1938.
2. Silverman J, Rust MK: Influence of tem-
perature and humidity on survival and de-
velopment of the cat flea, Ctenocephalides
felis (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). J Med Ento-
mol 18:78–83, 1981.
3. Silverman J, Rust MK: Extended longevity
of the preemerged adult cat flea
(Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) and factors stim-
ulating emergence from the pupal cocoon.
Ann Entomol Soc Am 78:763–768, 1985.
4. Dryden DW, Broce AB: Urban wildlife as
reservoirs of cat fleas, Ctenocephalides felis.
Proc Am Assoc Vet Parasitol Annu Conf:
July, 1995.
5. Byron DW: Aspects of the biology, behav-
ior, bionomics, and control of immature
stages of the cat flea Ctenocephalides felis fe-
lis (Bouche) in the domicillary environ-
ment. PhD dissertation. Blacksburg, VA,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, 1987, p 135.
6. Dryden MW, Reid BL: Insecticide suscep-
tibility of cat flea (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae)
pupae. J Econ Entomol 89:421–427, 1996.
7. Olsen A: Annual Report. Lyngby, Den-
mark, Danish Infestation Laboratory, 1983.
8. Dryden MW: Host association, on-host
longevity and egg production of Cteno-
cephalides felis felis. Vet Parasitol 34:117–
122, 1989.
9. Postal JR, Jeannin PC, Consalvi P: Field
efficacy of a mechanical pump spray for-
mulation containing 0.25% fipronil in the
treatment and control of flea infestation
and associated dermatological signs in dogs
and cats. Vet Dermatol 6:153–158, 1995.
10. Jacobs DE, Hutchinson MJ, Fox MT, Krie-
ger KJ: Comparison of flea control strate-
gies using imidacloprid or lufenuron on
cats in a controlled simulated home. Am J
Vet Res 58:1260–1262, 1997.
11. Paul A, Jones C: Comparative evaluation
of imidacloprid and lufenuron for flea
control on dogs in a controlled simulated
home environment. Compend Contin Educ
Pract Vet 19(5 Suppl):35–37, 1997.
12. Dryden MW, Perea HR, Ulitchny M:
Control of flea populations on naturally
infested pets and in private residences with
either topical imidacloprid spot applica-
tion or combination of oral lufenuron and
pyrethrin spray. Proc Am Assoc Vet Para-
sitol Annu Conf :July, 1997.
13. Collart MG, Hink WE: Development of
resistance to malathion in the cat flea (Siphon-
aptera: Pulicidae). J Econ Entomol 79:
1570–1572, 1986.