Prospective study of bacterial overgrowth syndrome in eight dogs

Clinical efficacy of low-level laser therapy on localized canine atopic dermatitis severity score and localized pruritic visual analog score in pedal pruritus due to canine atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Canine atopic dermatitis is a genetically predisposed inflammatory skin disease often requiring multimodal treatment. There is a need to find further low-risk adjunctive therapies.

HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the localized effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the paws of dogs with atopic dermatitis using a localized canine atopic dermatitis severity score (LCADSS) and owner localized pruritic visual analog score (LPVAS) in comparison to treatment with a placebo.

ANIMALS

Thirty client-owned dogs with symmetrical pedal pruritus due to canine atopic dermatitis.

METHODS

Dogs were randomly assigned into two groups. In each group, one paw was treated with LLLT and one paw treated with a placebo laser (comparing either both fore- or hindpaws). Treatments were administered at 4 J/cm(2) (area from carpus/tarsus to distal aspect of digit 3) three times per week for the first 2 weeks and two times per week for the second 2 weeks. Scores were assessed for each paw at weeks 0, 2, 4 and 5.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in LCADSS or LPVAS between LLLT and placebo treatments between weeks 0 and 5 (P = 0.0856 and 0.5017, respectively). However, LCADSS and LPVAS significantly decreased from week 0 at weeks 2, 4 and 5 in both LLLT and placebo groups (P < 0.0001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Low-level laser therapy is not an effective localized treatment for pedal pruritus in canine atopic dermatitis.

Suggested guidelines for using systemic antimicrobials in bacterial skin infections (1): diagnosis based on clinical presentation, cytology and culture

Systemic antimicrobials are critically important in veterinary healthcare, and resistance is a major concern. Antimicrobial stewardship will be important in maintaining clinical efficacy by reducing the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. Bacterial skin infections are one of the most common reasons for using systemic antimicrobials in dogs and cats. Appropriate management of these infections is, therefore, crucial in any policy for responsible antimicrobial use. The goals of therapy are to confirm that an infection is present, identify the causative bacteria, select the most appropriate antimicrobial, ensure that the infection is treated correctly, and to identify and manage any underlying conditions. This is the first of two articles that will provide evidence-led guidelines to help practitioners address these issues. This article covers diagnosis, including descriptions of the different clinical presentations of surface, superficial and deep bacterial skin infections, how to perform and interpret cytology, and how to best use bacterial culture and sensitivity testing. Part 2 will discuss therapy, including choice of drug and treatment regimens.

Recognizing pyoderma: more difficult than it may seem

Although bacterial pyoderma is among the most commonly encountered dermatologic conditions in dogs, some cases present diagnostic challenges even to experienced clinicians. This article presents several unusual manifestations of pyoderma, including bullous impetigo, superficial spreading pyoderma, mucocutaneous pyoderma, and post-grooming furunculosis. Conditions mimicking pyoderma, including juvenile cellulitis, immunomodulatory-responsive lymphocytic-plasmacytic pododermatitis, and pemphigus foliaceus are also described. Diagnostic techniques used for diagnosing and characterizing pyoderma are also discussed.

The effectiveness of systemic antimicrobial treatment in canine superficial and deep pyoderma: a systematic review

AIM

To identify and evaluate existing evidence for the effectiveness of systemic antimicrobial treatments for naturally occurring superficial and deep canine pyoderma.

METHOD

Electronic searches of PubMed, MEDLINE and CAB Direct were carried out (25 May 2011) without date or language restrictions. Proceedings of ESVD/ECVD, AAVD/ACVD, NAVDF and WCVD annual congresses were searched. Unpublished studies were sought via the Veterinary Dermatology discussion list and Veterinary Information Network.

RESULTS

Seventeen full-length, peer-reviewed controlled trials reporting clinical outcomes of systemic antimicrobial treatment for canine pyoderma were identified. Outcomes specific to superficial or deep pyoderma were reported in nine and five studies, respectively. Five studies reported outcomes only for nondifferentiated pyoderma depth. Heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures made meta-analysis inappropriate. A good level of evidence was identified supporting the high efficacy of subcutaneously injected cefovecin in superficial pyoderma and for oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in deep pyoderma. A fair level of evidence was identified for moderate to high efficacy of oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, clindamycin, cefadroxil, trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole and sulfadimethoxine-ormetoprim in superficial pyoderma and oral pradofloxacin, oral cefadroxil and subcutaneously injected cefovecin in deep pyoderma. Eleven trials reported observations of adverse effects in treated pyoderma cases by intervention group; four dogs were withdrawn owing to the severity of adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for greater numbers of adequately sized, blinded, randomized controlled trials evaluating systemic antimicrobial interventions for canine pyoderma. Improved differentiation between superficial and deep pyoderma in outcome reporting, outcome measure standardization and association of outcomes with causative bacterial species and their resistance patterns are required.