New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2016-2761
Registrant Reference Number: 2016KP079
Registrant Name (Full Legal Name no abbreviations): Bayer Inc
Address: 2920 matheson BLVD
City: Mississaugua
Prov / State: ON
Country: Canada
Postal Code: L4W 5R6
Domestic Animal
Country: UNITED STATES
Prov / State: UNKNOWN
Unknown
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. 11556-155
Product Name: Seresto Collar - unknown
Other (specify)
CollarYes
Other Units: collar
Site: Animal / Usage sur un animal domestique
Unknown
Other
Dog / Chien
Labrador Retriever
1
Male
Unknown
Unknown
Skin
>1 wk <=1 mo / > 1 sem < = 1 mois
Unknown / Inconnu
System
Unknown / Inconnu
No
No
Died
Treatment / Traitement
(eg. description of the frequency and severity of the symptoms
On an unknown date in approximately Apr2015, the dog developed unspecified systemic signs. He had unspecified blood work done and was diagnosed with Lyme Disease (abnormal test result). It is unknown what treatments, if any, where performed. On an unknown date in 2015, the dog passed away. It is unknown if a necropsy was performed. No further information expected. Case closed.
Death
The nature of systemic signs reported is unknown; however these signs could be related with later diagnosed Lyme disease. Lyme disease is a tick borne bacterial disease. In this case, no ticks seen on dog. As per the labelled claim of efficacy of the product, attachment of single ticks and even sucking of blood and thus transfer of tick borne diseases cannot be excluded while the collar is worn, especially when infestation pressure is high. Thus, infection with tick borne diseases despite wearing a collar can occur exceptionally and is consistent with the products claimed efficacy as addressed in the product information. Death is unexpected as inconsistent with products pharmacological profile. Oral exposure to the collar is not expected to cause death either. The product has a high margin of safety. No signs of anaphylaxis reported which would have occurred in close proximity to the collar application. Rather, death was likely an outcome of the Lyme disease. Moreover, the owner did not believe in product involvement either as reason for the initial call was to discuss the efficacy of the product and not to report the death of the patient. Overall, in spite of the limited information (animal and product details, unknown if necropsy was performed and unknown time to onset), sufficient information exists to rule out the product involvement. Thus, product relation is unlikely.