Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2011-2241
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: PROSAR Case#: 1-25879409
Nom du titulaire (nom légal complet, aucune abbréviation): The Hartz Mountain Corporation
Adresse: 400 Plaza Drive
Ville: Secaucus
État: New Jersey
Pays: USA
Code postal /Zip: 07094-3688
Incident chez un animal domestique
Pays: UNITED STATES
État: TEXAS
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. 2596-83
Nom du produit: UltraGuard Flea Tick Collar for Cats
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. 2724-504-2596
Nom du produit: UltraGuard Plus Drops for Cats
Liquide
Autre (préciser)
pet collarOui
Inconnu
Site: Animal / Usage sur un animal domestique
Non
Propriétaire de l'animal
Cat / Chat
Domestic shorthair
1
Homme
3
11
lbs
Cutanée
Unknown / Inconnu
<=30 min / <=30 min
Système
Persisted until death
Non
Non
Mort
Treatment / Traitement
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
1-25879409-The reporter, a pet owner, indicates his animal was exposed to two insecticidal products. The first contained the active ingredients etofenprox and methoprene, the second the active ingredient tetrachlorvinphos. The pet owner stated she applied the first product a topical flea and tick drop for cats (the etofenprox/methoprene product) to her three year eleven pound male domestic shorthair cat ten days prior to her initial contact with the registrant. The pet owner indicated the animal began drooling and foaming at the mouth immediately following application. The pet owner did nothing to address the signs the first day but the day following application she washed the product off her animal. She then decided to apply the second product, a flea and tick collar for cats, to her animal (the tetrachlorvinphos product). The animal was reported to have become lethargic the day after application (two days following the application of the topical flea and tick drops). The pet owner removed the collar and took the animal to the veterinarian. She indicted the pet had a seizure and died on the veterinarians exam table. She did not offer treatment or diagnostic information if available and indicated the animals remains had already been disposed. The veterinarian had offered a necropsy but she had declined. The pet owner was advised the signs seen would not be expected when products are used according to the label. Using multiple overlapping insecticidal is discouraged by the registrant.
Mort