Biology, diagnosis and treatment of Malassezia dermatitis in dogs and cats Clinical Consensus Guidelines of the World Association for Veterinary Dermatology

The objective of this document is to provide the veterinary community and other interested parties with current information on the ecology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of skin diseases associated with Malassezia yeasts in dogs and cats

Treatment of canine atopic dermatitis: 2015 updated guidelines from the International Committee on Allergic Diseases of Animals (ICADA)

Background: In 2010, the International Task Force on Canine Atopic Dermatitis (now International Committee on Allergic Diseases of Animals, ICADA) published the first consensus guidelines for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in dogs. This is the first 5-year minor update of this document. Results: The treatment of acute flares of AD should involve the search for, and then elimination of, the cause of the flares, bathing with mild shampoos, and controlling pruritus and skin lesions with interventions that include topical and/or oral glucocorticoids or oclacitinib. For chronic canine AD, the first steps in management are the identification and avoidance of flare factors, as well as ensuring that there is adequate skin and coat hygiene and care;this might include more frequent bathing and possibly increasing essential fatty acid intake. The medications currently most effective in reducing chronic pruritus and skin lesions are topical and oral glucocorticoids, oral ciclosporin, oral oclacitinib, and, where available, injectable recombinant interferons. Allergen-specific immunotherapy and proactive intermittent topical glucocorticoid applications are the only interventions likely to prevent or delay the recurrence of flares of AD. Conclusions: This first 5-year minor update of the international consensus guidelines for treatment of AD in dogs further establishes that the treatment of this disease is multifaceted, and that interventions should be combined for a proven (or likely) optimal benefit. Importantly, treatment plans are likely to vary between dogs and, for the same dog, between times when the disease is at different stages

A proposed medication score for long-term trials of treatment of canine atopic dermatitis sensu lato

Background: The use of concurrent medications is necessary in trials of treatment of canine atopic dermatitis. Our aim was to use the best available evidence to construct and then to validate a medication score (MS) formula that will estimate the impact of concurrent medications on trial outcomes. Methods: Trials of 15 interventions were scrutinized to find those that were consistent in terms of specific medication, administration route and dosage regimen. A MS was constructed in five steps, starting from assigning a score of 1 for each day on oral prednisone, prednisolone or methylprednisolone at 0.5–1.0 mg/kg. The MS score was validated using the clinical records of 35 dogs with atopic dermatitis that had been treated for a period of 12 ± 2 weeks with six of these medications and compared with a previously published non-validated MS. Results: A MS could be assigned to eight treatments, six of which had been administered to the 35 dogs. A positive correlation was seen with the previously published MS and a negative correlation with changes in lesional and pruritus scores. Conclusion: This MS may be a useful tool in new studies evaluating the efficacy of treatments in canine atopic dermatitis. © 2021 British Veterinary Associatio

Comparable efficacy of a topical 0.0584% hydrocortisone aceponate spray and oral ciclosporin in treating canine atopic dermatitis

This study compared the efficacy of a 0.0584% hydrocortisone aceponate (HCA) spray (Cortavance \uae; Virbac SA) and ciclosporin (Atopica \uae; Novartis Animal Health) in canine atopic dermatitis in a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Dogs received HCA (two sprays/100cm 2; n=24) or ciclosporin (5mg/kg; n=21). Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI)-03, pruritus (visual analog scale with grade descriptors) and owner scores (5-point scales) were recorded every 28days for 84days. Intention-to-treat data were analysed. CADESI-03 and pruritus significantly decreased over time (P<0.0001), but there was no difference between the treatment groups (P=0.91 and P=0.52, respectively). Similar proportions of HCA- and ciclosporin-treated dogs achieved 6550% reductions in CADESI-03 and pruritus scores at 28days (CADESI-03 58.3 and 57.1%, P=0.76; pruritus 33.3 and 38.1%, P=1.0), 56days (CADESI-03 70.8 and 81.0%, P=1.0; pruritus 62.5 and 57.1%, P=1.0) and 84days (CADESI-03 75 and 85.7%, P=0.72; pruritus 65.2 and 57.1%, P=0.76). The CADESI-03 and pruritus scores were close to equivalence (0.47 and 0.51, respectively). By 84days, every-other-day or twice-weekly therapy was achieved in 13 of 24 HCA- and 12 of 21 ciclosporin-treated dogs (P=0.85). There were no significant differences in scores for efficacy (P=0.82), tolerance (P=0.62) and ease of administration (P=0.25). Scores for tolerance (0.49) and administration (0.46) were close to equivalence. The score for efficacy favoured HCA (0.68). Mild adverse events were noted in six of 21 ciclosporin and none of 24 HCA dogs (P=0.008). Five HCA-treated dogs and three ciclosporin-treated dogs were prematurely withdrawn (P=0.7). In conclusion, HCA and ciclosporin proved equally effective in treating canine atopic dermatitis for up to 84days