Frontline as a weight based formula?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Fredsel - 20 May 2005 22:45 GMT

Can Frontline be applied on a weight based formula? As a medical
professional this is frequently used as a basis for dosage on humans.
For example, my dog is 13 lbs, the application is for dogs up to 22lbs
in 0.67 ml. This calculates to .395 ml for my dog per application. With
proper application this would render a significant savings. Can anyone
argue for or against this method?

Reply to this Message

Cheryl - 21 May 2005 00:29 GMT

> Can Frontline be applied on a weight based formula? As a medical
> professional this is frequently used as a basis for dosage on
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> significant savings. Can anyone argue for or against this
> method?

Fred, I don't see why it wouldn't work that way. It would require
finding the exact dose, though. I think the companies package it
that way to "dumb it down". Give you a vial that is safe for the
minimum weight.

I have always used dog versions of Advantage because you can divide
a large-dog packaged dose into many cat-sized doses based on the ML
value of the cat dose. But to divide cat-sized doses into the most
economic doses based on weight ... interesting. I'm not sure the
data is out there for that.

Signature

Cheryl

"The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited
breath."
- W.C. Fields

Reply to this Message

-L. - 21 May 2005 01:39 GMT

> Can Frontline be applied on a weight based formula? As a medical
> professional this is frequently used as a basis for dosage on humans.
> For example, my dog is 13 lbs, the application is for dogs up to 22lbs
> in 0.67 ml. This calculates to .395 ml for my dog per application. With
> proper application this would render a significant savings. Can anyone
> argue for or against this method?

It's perfectly fine to do so. Just don't mix dog and cat formulas of
"Frontline Plus" up ,as I *think* they are different*. Regular
Frontline is ok, though.

-L.
(*I may be wrong - I'm just too tired to look it up!)

Reply to this Message