4.5 Article

Toxicity of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to Gyps vultures: a new threat from ketoprofen

期刊

BIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 339-341

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0818

关键词

Gyps; vultures; toxicity; ketoprofen; diclofenac; NSAIDs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three Gyps vulture species are on the brink of extinction in South Asia owing to the veterinary non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac. Carcasses of domesticated ungulates are the main food source for Asia's vultures and birds die from kidney failure after consuming diclofenac-contaminated tissues. Here, we report on the safety testing of the NSAID ketoprofen, which was not reported to cause mortality in clinical treatment of scavenging birds and is rapidly eliminated from livestock tissues. Safety testing was undertaken using captive non-releasable Cape griffon vultures (Gyps coprotheres) and wild-caught African white-backed vultures (G. africanus), both previously identified as susceptible to diclofenac and suitable surrogates. Ketoprofen doses ranged from 0.5 to 5 mg kg(-1) vulture body weight, based upon recommended veterinary guidelines and maximum levels of exposure for wild vultures (estimated as 1.54 mg kg(-1)). Doses were administered by oral gavage or through feeding tissues from cattle dosed with ketoprofen at 6 mg kg(-1) cattle body weight, before slaughter. Mortalities occurred at dose levels of 1.5 and 5 mg kg(-1) vulture body weight (within the range recommended for clinical treatment) with the same clinical signs as observed for diclofenac. Surveys of livestock carcasses in India indicate that toxic levels of residual ketoprofen are already present in vulture food supplies. Consequently, we strongly recommend that ketoprofen is not used for veterinary treatment of livestock in Asia and in other regions of the world where vultures access livestock carcasses. The only alternative to diclofenac that should be promoted as safe for vultures is the NSAID meloxicam.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据