What Happened When 6 Greyhounds With Hard-to-Treat Hookworm Tried Para Pro
Case Study overview
This case study looks at what happened when six racing greyhounds with hookworm that no longer responded to any registered worming product were given Para Pro, APN’s multi-botanical formula.
It is written for a general audience: the science behind it is real, but this document explains it in plain terms, alongside a clear account of what the results can and cannot prove.
This case study was conducted alongside a registered vet.
The problem these dogs had
Hookworm that no longer responds to standard worming treatment is a known and growing issue in Australian racing greyhounds. It has been documented across all three of the main types of registered wormers.
Six dogs from one kennel had tested positive for hookworm eggs for 6 to 12 months straight, despite being kept on registered worming treatments the whole time. Nothing was working.
What was tested?
The dogs went through two rounds of testing, 15 days apart. In each round, a dog was given either Para Pro (7.5g twice daily for 7 days) or Simparica Trio, a registered worming product, following the label directions.
Three of the dogs switched between the two products across the two rounds, so each of those dogs acted as its own comparison.
One dog stayed on Simparica Trio the whole time as a steady comparison point.
Before and after each round, a stool sample was tested to count hookworm eggs (measured as eggs per gram, or EPG).
A lower number after treatment means fewer eggs, which points to the treatment having an effect.
What happened
Here is every result from the trial.
| Dog | Round | Treatment | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tilly | 1 | Simparica Trio | 1400 | 1400 | No change |
| Cindy | 1 | Para Pro | 950 | 300 | Down 68% |
| Connor | 1 | Simparica Trio | 400 | 400 | No change |
| Franky | 1 | Simparica Trio | 900 | 1200 | Went up |
| Jarrah | 1 | Para Pro | 4900 | 0 | Down 100% |
| Hunter | 1 | Para Pro | 200 | 0 | Down 100% |
| Tilly | 2 | Para Pro | 1400 | 300 | Down 79% |
| Cindy | 2 | Simparica Trio | 300 | 850 | Went up |
| Connor | 2 | Simparica Trio | 400 | 700 | Went up |
| Franky | 2 | Para Pro | 1200 | 50 | Down 96% |
Adding this all up
● Para Pro was used 5 times. Every single time, egg counts went down, by 68%, 79%, 96%, 100% and 100%. On average that is an 89% drop. Combined across all 5 dogs, average egg counts fell from 1,730 to 130, a 92.5% reduction.
● Simparica Trio was used 5 times during this trial. Not one of those uses reduced egg counts. Two stayed the same and three went up. Combined across all 5 uses, average egg counts rose from 680 to 910.
● The 3 dogs who tried both products flipped direction depending on which one they were on. Tilly and Franky did not respond to Simparica Trio but then responded to Para Pro. Cindy responded to Para Pro, then did not respond when switched back to Simparica Trio. This held regardless of which product came first.
What this suggests
The pattern was consistent: every time a dog was given Para Pro, its egg count fell. Every time a dog was given Simparica Trio in this trial, it did not.
Because three dogs were compared against themselves on both products, factors like age and general health were the same for each dog across both rounds, so they do not explain why the results flipped when the product changed. The lack of response to Simparica Trio also lines up with what is already known about drug resistance in this population of dogs.
How much we can trust these results
THIS IS A SMALL, EARLY OBSERVATION, NOT A PROVEN RESULT
Only 6 dogs were involved, and only 3 could be compared against themselves. With numbers this small, the maths (a statistical test called a sign test) cannot produce a result that counts as statistically significant, no matter how good the outcome looks. That is just a fact of working with so few dogs, not a flaw specific to this trial.
Dogs were not randomly assigned to a product, and nobody involved was blinded to which product a dog was on.
The exact species of hookworm was not confirmed with lab culture or DNA testing, only by egg counts.
The lab's exact counting method (the multiplication factor used to calculate EPG) is not on record, so we cannot calculate a confidence range around these numbers.
Two of the dogs (Jarrah and Hunter) were only tested in round one.
A falling egg count is a helpful sign, but it is not the same as proof that all the adult worms are gone.In short: these results are promising enough to justify a proper, controlled study. On their own, they do not prove that Para Pro treats or cures hookworm.
Was it safe for the dogs?
A vet examined every dog before each egg count, at every check-in. No side effects were seen by the vet or reported by the owners. That said, the only monitoring was a clinical check; there was no bloodwork or other lab testing for safety. So this tells us the product was well tolerated by six dogs over seven days, not that it has a fully established safety profile.
Important fine print
This case study was written by Dr. Roz, who owns Australian Pet Nutrition, the company that makes and sells Para Pro. That is worth knowing when weighing up these results.
Regulatory status: Para Pro is not registered with the APVMA (Australia's regulator for veterinary chemical products) as a treatment for hookworm. Nothing in this document is a treatment or cure claim. These are early observations in six dogs, not evidence of proven efficacy, and anyone wanting to use this content for marketing purposes should get regulatory advice first.