Pathophysiology of canine diabetes

The Decline and Fall of Materia Medica and the Rise of Pharmacology and Therapeutics in Veterinary Medicine

Materia Medica is a Latin term, relating to the history of pharmacy. It describes the sources (vegetable, animal and mineral), nature, preparation, and properties of substances or mixtures of substances, which were used as remedies for the treatment of diseases. Bourgelat authored the first veterinary Materia Medica book. This review describes the evolution and ultimate downfall of Materia Medica concepts and practices. Its survival for more than two millennia reflected the impact of religion and dogmas on therapy. The consignment of Materia Medica to history was signified by publication of the first modern book of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics by Meyer Jones in 1953. Previously, the dominance of Materia Medica was linked to an hippiatry culture, which was shared with farriers and quacks. The Pasteurian and pharmacological revolutions of the second half of the nineteenth century led to its gradual abandonment. This review explains why the existence of authentically active substances, such as opioid analgesics, cardiotonics and general anesthetics either were not used for those actions or were badly prescribed, in part because of historical precedence and in part from lack of pathophysiological knowledge to justify rational use. The modern concept of dosage, in particular inter-species differences, was not understood. There were also major dogmas, supporting false indications, such as failure to recognize pain as a symptom to be treated, whereas inflammation was only a disease symptom involving excess of activity of the blood system, which had to be vigorously addressed by bleeding and purging. This review covers a well-defined period, ranging from Bourgelat, who wrote the first book of Materia Medica for veterinary studies to the first edition of Meyer Jones textbook in 1953, which marked the end of Materia Medica and the beginning of pharmacology in veterinary medicine.

Mechanisms and outcomes of drug- and toxicant-induced liver toxicity in diabetes

Increase dincidences of hepatotoxicity have been observed in diabetic patients receiving drug therapies. Neither the mechanisms nor the predisposing factors underlying hepatotoxicity in diabetics are clearly understood. Animal studies designed to examine the mechanisms of diabetes-modulated hepatotoxicity have traditionally focused only on bioactivation/detoxification of drugs and toxicants. It is becoming clear that once injury is initiated, additional events determine the final outcome of liver injury. Foremost among them are two leading mechanisms: first, biochemical mechanisms that lead to progression or regression of injury; and second, whether or not timely and adequate liver tissue repair occurs to mitigate injury and restore liver function. The liver has a remarkable ability to repair and restore its structure and function after physical or chemical-induced damage. The dynamic interaction between biotransformation-based liver injury and compensatory tissue repair plays a pivotal role in determining the ultimate outcome of hepatotoxicity initiated by drugs or toxicants. In this review, mechanisms underlying altered hepatotoxicity in diabetes with emphasis on both altered bioactivation and liver tissue repair are discussed. Animal models of both marked sensitivity (diabetic rats) and equally marked protection (diabetic mice) from drug-induced hepatotoxicity are described. These examples represent a remarkable species difference. Availability of the rodent diabetic models offers a unique opportunity to uncover mechanisms of clinical interest in averting human diabetic sensitivity to drug-induced hepatotoxicities. While the rat diabetic models appear to be suitable, the diabetic mouse models might not be suitable in preclinical testing for potential hepatotoxic effects of drugs or toxicants, because regardless of type 1 or type2 diabetes, mice are resistant to acute drug-or toxicant-induced toxicities.

Current understanding of feline diabetes: part 1, pathogenesis

Type-1 diabetes, resulting from immune-mediated destruction of beta cells, appears to be rare in cats. Type-2 diabetes, characterised by inadequate insulin secretion and impaired insulin action, is the most common form of diabetes in cats. Other specific forms of diabetes constitute a substantial minority of cases. The most common is pancreatic destruction from pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Less frequent causes are insulin resistance from other endocrinopathies including acromegaly. Diabetes in cats is characterised by variable loss of insulin secretory capacity and insulin resistance. Glucose toxicity, islet amyloid-deposition, and pancreatitis contribute to further loss of beta cells and failure of insulin secretion. A significant number of cats undergo remission of their diabetes, usually 1-3 months after good glycaemic control is instituted. Obesity, old age, and Burmese breed are recognised risk factors for the development of diabetes in cats.

Physiology of the endocrine pancreas

The endocrine pancreas is composed of nests of cells called the islets of Langerhans, which comprise only about 20% of pancreatic cell mass and secrete insulin, glucagon, somatostatin, and pancreatic polypeptide. Insulin is anabolic, increasing storage of glucose, fatty acids and amino acids, while glucagon namely stimulates hepatic glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis, and ketogenesis. Somatostatin acts as a paracrine agent to inhibit both insulin and glucagon release, and, therefore, to modulate their output. This article explores factors controlling release of these hormones, as well as the way in which they affect fuel metabolism in the whole animal.

Management of the uncomplicated canine diabetic

Managing the uncomplicated canine diabetic may still be a challenging endeavor. Client education is the most important treatment to provide. The client must understand the technique of drug handling and administration, the importance of diet in treating the animal, how to handle an emergency situation, and, most importantly, the disease itself. The clinician must realize that although "tight" glycemic control is the optimal goal; the reality is often a compromise of mild hyperglycemia with resolution of clinical signs. When regulation cannot be maintained it is necessary to investigate the causes of insulin resistance.