Treatment of proteinuria in dogs with telmisartan: A retrospective study

Response and survival of dogs with proteinuria (UPC > 2.0) treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) are a recommended treatment for glomerular proteinuria. Frequency of response to ACEi and the association of achieving proposed urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPC) targets on survival is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine response rates to ACEi therapy and whether a positive response is associated with improved survival.

ANIMALS

Eighty-five dogs with proteinuria (UPC > 2.0).

METHODS

Retrospective study including dogs (UPC > 2.0) prescribed an ACEi for treatment of proteinuria. Baseline creatinine, albumin, cholesterol, UPC, and systolic blood pressure were recorded, and cases reviewed to track UPC. Treatment response was defined as achieving a UPC of <0.5 or reduction of ≥50% from baseline within 3 months. Outcome data were collected to determine overall and 12-month survival.

RESULTS

Thirty-five (41%) dogs responded to ACEi treatment. Treatment response was statistically associated with both median survival time (664 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 459-869] for responders compared to 177 [95% CI: 131-223] for non-responders) and 12-month survival (79% responders alive compared to 28% non-responders). Baseline azotemia or hypoalbuminemia were also associated with a worse prognosis, with odds ratios of death at 12 months of 5.34 (CI: 1.85-17.32) and 4.51 (CI: 1.66-13.14), respectively. In the 25 dogs with normal baseline creatinine and albumin, response to treatment was associated with 12-month survival (92% responders alive compared to 54% non-responders, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

When the UPC is >2.0, achieving recommended UPC targets within 3 months appears to be associated with a significant survival benefit. Response to treatment is still associated with survival benefit in dogs with less severe disease (no azotemia or hypoalbuminemia).

Dogs with leishmaniosis: how are we managing proteinuria in daily practice? A Portuguese questionnaire-based study

Background

Proteinuria is a common finding in dogs with leishmaniosis. Although antileishmanial therapeutic protocols are widely implemented, little information is available on which treatments are most adequate for identifying proteinuria in patients with canine leishmaniosis (CanL), especially regarding the use of immunosuppressants. The aim of this study was to explore the current paradigm regarding the antiproteinuric approach adopted by veterinary practitioners in Portugal to treat dogs with CanL.

Methods

A questionnaire-based study was developed using Google Forms®. The questionnaire presented a number of different hypothetical scenarios of CanL, and the topics surveyed included the general features of the respondents and the protocols preferred by these respondents to manage proteinuria in the presented scenarios, including choice of therapeutic drugs, appropriate diet and use of immunosuppressants, in dogs with immune-mediated glomerulonephritis. The questionnaire was internally prevalidated and diffused online over a 2-month period through Portuguese veterinary social networking groups, and data were collected for descriptive analysis.

Results

A total of 86 veterinary practitioners responded to the survey. When exposed to theoretical scenarios of proteinuria in dogs with CanL at stages IIb, III and IV (LeishVet guidelines), 16.3%, 62.8% and 93.8% of the respondents, respectively, answered that they would treat it. The dog was started on a renal diet as therapy by 28.6%, 83.3% and 97.4% of respondents, respectively. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were prescribed by 100%, 85.2% and 78.9% of respondents as first-choice drugs for CanL at stages IIb, III and IV, respectively, with ACEI used in monotherapy by 64.3%, 40.7% and 46.1%. In comparison, protocols using ACEI in combination with other compounds were chosen by 7.1%, 33.3% and 39.5% of respondents, and combination therapy which did not include ACEI was the choice of 0.0%, 12.9% and 14.5%. Regarding immunosuppressants, 44.2% of the respondents answered they would prescribe them, with 97.4% electing for prednisolone and 5.3% choosing mycophenolate mofetil.

Conclusions

Among the veterinary practitioners who responded, proteinuria treatment was considered since stage IIb CanL, although implementation of a therapeutic approach was more evident in advanced CanL stages. ACEI were the first-choice drugs, particularly for the treatment of stage IIb CanL; in advanced stages, a combination of antiproteinuric drugs was more often used. Immunosuppressant use was controversial, although when applied, prednisolone was the preferred choice. These findings reinforce the small body of evidence that supports the use of such drugs and the need to further explore their role in CanL.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13071-022-05222-w.

Treatment of proteinuria in dogs with telmisartan: A retrospective study

Background

Use of telmisartan for the treatment of proteinuria in dogs has not been thoroughly investigated.

Hypothesis/Objectives

Telmisartan can be effective for the treatment of proteinuria in dogs.

Animals

Forty‐four client‐owned dogs with proteinuria.

Methods

Retrospective study. Dogs diagnosed with clinically relevant proteinuria (nonazotemic dogs with a urine protein‐to‐creatinine ratio [UPC] ≥2 and azotemic dogs with UPC ≥0.5) were separated into 3 groups: telmisartan alone, with benazepril, or with mycophenolate. The UPC was recorded before treatment and at subsequent follow‐ups (1, 3, 6, and 12 months, as available). Response to treatment was categorized as complete (UPC ˂0.5), partial (UPC decreased by ≥50% but still ≥0.5), or no response (UPC decreased by <50%). Serum creatinine and potassium concentrations and arterial pressure also were recorded.

Results

In the telmisartan group, treatment response (UPC ˂0.5 or decreased by ≥50%) was observed in 70%, 68%, 80%, and 60% of dogs at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow‐up, respectively. No significant changes were noted in serum creatinine or potassium concentrations, or in arterial blood pressure at all follow‐up times. Adverse effects consisted of mild self‐limiting gastrointestinal signs in 5 dogs. Two dogs developed clinically relevant azotemia that required discontinuation of the treatment before the first follow‐up.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Telmisartan can be considered for treatment of proteinuria in dogs, alone or in combination with other treatments for proteinuria.