Comparison of two shampoos as sole treatment for canine bacterial overgrowth syndrome.

Two antibacterial shampoos for the treatment of canine bacterial overgrowth syndrome (BOGS) were compared in a prospective controlled clinical trial. Forty dogs with clinical signs (pruritus, erythema and excoriations without pustules and/or collarettes) and cytological findings compatible with bacterial overgrowth were treated twice weekly with 3 per cent chlorhexidine shampoo (3 per cent CHX) or 2.5 per cent benzoyl peroxide shampoo (2.5 per cent BPO) and evaluated every two weeks for up to six weeks until cytological cure. Pruritus, erythema, greasy seborrhoea, malodour, excoriations, secondary hair loss, lichenification, hyperpigmentation and lesion extent were each scored on a 0 to 3 severity scale and combined to calculate an aggregate score. Among the 34 dogs with good compliance to treatment, reduction of cocci counts of at least 90 per cent was recorded in 11 of 18 dogs after 3 per cent CHX and nine of 16 dogs after 2.5 per cent BPO, with no significant difference between the two products (P=0.98). Lesion score was significantly reduced in both groups (63.48 (34.45)) per cent with 3 per cent CHX v 54.45 (33.61) per cent with 2.5 per cent BPO, P=0.36) and time to cytological cure was not significantly different between groups (P=0.13), at the end of the treatment. In the present study, 3 per cent CHX and 2.5 per cent BPO were similarly effective in the treatment of canine BOGS.

Therapeutic efficacy of topical hydrocortisone aceponate in experimental flea-allergy dermatitis in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment efficacy of a topical spray containing hydrocortisone aceponate (HCA) on dogs with flea-allergy dermatitis (FAD). DESIGN: A controlled clinical study was conducted on dogs with experimentally induced FAD. Sixteen laboratory beagles with mild to moderate clinical signs were divided into two groups. The test group received HCA by topical spray once daily for 7 days, while the control group did not. Pruritic events (time and frequency) were videotaped and then scored. Clinical signs (erythema, papules, excoriation and alopecia) present on four anatomical regions were monitored and their severity directly assessed. RESULTS: After 2 days, pruritus was reduced by 94% in the treatment group and by 24% in the control group (P = 0.014) in cumulative time, and by 86% versus 34% (P = 0.034) in frequency. The HCA spray also resulted in significant improvements in overall clinical signs: 23% versus 0% in the control group (P = 0.0006) on day 3 and 43% versus 15% in the control group (P = 0.0006) on day 7. During the 7-day trial, no drug-related adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Topical treatment with HCA showed a rapid and potent antipruritic effect on dogs with FAD. HCA also demonstrated significant overall therapeutic effects on FAD-associated skin lesions.

Efficacies of osaterone and delmadinone in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in dogs.

A multicentre randomised clinical trial was performed to compare the therapeutic potential of osaterone acetate with that of delmadinone acetate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in dogs. The osaterone was administered orally at 0.25 mg/kg bodyweight once a day for seven days to 73 dogs. The delmadinone was administered by a single intramuscular or subcutaneous injection at 3 mg/kg bodyweight to 69 dogs. During the 180-day trial, the dogs were monitored five times for their clinical signs and prostate volume. The two drugs were similarly effective in reducing the clinical signs and inducing complete clinical remission, and both induced a similar level of minor, mostly transitory adverse effects. Osaterone reduced the volume of the prostate glands of the dogs significantly more quickly than delmadinone.

Qualitative assessment of human exposure to consumption of injection site residues.

The recent adoption of the guideline on injection site residues in food producing animals by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) raised the question on the risk specifically related to injection site consumption. As noted in this guideline, residues at injection sites commonly deplete erratically. For the calculation of withdrawal time, treating residues at the injection site like those that occur in other tissues is questionable. An assessment of the risk related to the consumption of a whole or part of an injection site during a year was performed using a probabilistic approach. The risk assessment was modelled on the regimen of a 7-day antibiotic treatment, and was calculated on the scale of the European Union (EU) as a whole or of each European country. Our analysis indicated a maximal risk of 4 days of injection site consumption during a year in the EU. It also indicated that 37% of consumers would never eat an injection site in the same period. These results suggest that the risk of injection site consumption belongs more appropriately to an acute exposure risk than to a chronic one which is usually posed by the residues present in other edible tissues.

Critical review on the withdrawal period calculation for injection site residues.

This review concerns a statistical method for calculating withdrawal period for injection site residues. A recently adopted Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use/European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Product (CVMP/EMEA) guideline recommends to apply the same method for the calculation of withdrawal period for injection site residues as for other edible tissues. For reasons in this study developed below, this approach is deemed to be inappropriate for the injection site residues. The injection site residues often violate regression assumptions with regard to homoscedasticity (same variance in residue concentrations for different slaughter times) and linearity (of the mean depletion curve in log(e)-scale). The currently recommended method cannot adequately handle these aspects. An alternative pragmatic method taking into account the last slaughter time with all data below the reference threshold, combined with a safety span, is proposed for injection site residues. A nonparametric approach for calculating the withdrawal period is also presumed to be a sound alternative. The references commonly used are the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) and the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Unfortunately these references are not relevant to the acute risk exposure associated with injection site consumption. The use of alternative references, such as the Acceptable Single Dose Intake (ASDI) or the Acute Reference Dose (ARD) are thought to be more appropriate.