New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2017-4142
Registrant Reference Number: USA-BAYERBAH-2017-US0031085
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: RHODE ISLAND
Unknown
PMRA Registration No. PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No. 11556-155
Product Name: Seresto Collar unknown
Other (specify)
CollarYes
Unknown
Site: Animal / Usage sur un animal domestique
Unknown
Animal's Owner
Dog / Chien
Unknown
1
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Skin
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
System
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown
Unknown
Died
Other / Autre
specify Unknown
(eg. description of the frequency and severity of the symptoms
On an unknown date in approximately 2016, a canine, with unknown signalment, in unknown condition, with no known concomitant medical conditions, had 1 Seresto Dog (unspecified) (Flumethrin-Imidacloprid) collar placed around the neck by the owner. On an unknown date post placement, in 2016, the dog died. No necropsy was performed. Due to the sensitive nature of the communication, specific relevant event details were not obtained, nor will such be sought. The reason for the initial call was to discuss the use of the product and not to report the death of the patient. No further information is expected. This case is closed.
Death
N - Unlikely Death is not expected following appropriate topical product application as it is inconsistent with products pharmacological profile. Oral exposure to the collar is not expected to cause serious signs either. An overdose of 5 collars around the neck was investigated in adult cats and dogs for an 8 months period and in 10 week old kittens and 7 week old puppies for a 6 months period without causing serious signs. No signs of anaphylaxis reported which would have occurred in close proximity to the collar application. Moreover, the reporter did not believe in product connection either as the reason for the initial call was to discuss the use of the product and not to report the death of the patient. Considering the known product profile and intent of the initial call, although some information is missing (e.g. time to onset, animal and product details, necropsy results), product involvement is deemed unlikely.