Background: Little is known about the efficacy of commonly used acid suppressants on intragastric pH in dogs. Objective: To compare the effect of oral famotidine, 2 formulations of omeprazole, and placebo on intragastric pH in dogs with a catheter-free, continuous pH monitoring system. Animals: Six healthy adult mixed-breed colony dogs. Methods: Utilizing a randomized, 4-way cross over, open-label study, dogs were administered famotidine PO (1.0-1.3 mg/ kg q12h), omeprazole tablet (1.5-2.6 mg/kg q24h), omeprazole reformulated paste (RP) (Gastrogard, 1.5-2.6 mg/kg q24h), and placebo for 7 days followed by a 10-day washout period. Radiotelemetric pH capsules were placed with gastroscopy assistance to continuously record intragastric pH for 4 days (days 4-7 of dosing). The percentage of time that intragastric pH was !3 and !4 was compared among treatment groups using repeated measures of analysis of variance. Tukey's Studentized range test was used to determine which groups were different with a 5 0.05.Results: Mean AE SD percent time intragastric pH was !3 and !4 was 22 AE 8% and 14 AE 6% for famotidine, 63 AE 14% and 52 AE 17% for omeprazole tablet, 54 AE 17% and 44 AE 18% for omeprazole RP, and 6 AE 6% and 5 AE 5% for placebo. Both omeprazole formulations significantly increased intragastric pH compared with famotidine and placebo, but omeprazole tablet and RP was not significantly different from each other.Conclusion: Oral omeprazole tablet and RP provide superior gastric acid suppression to famotidine, and should therefore be considered more effective for the treatment of acid related disorders in dogs.

BackgroundAcid suppressant drugs are a mainstay of treatment for cats with gastrointestinal erosion and ulceration. However, clinical studies have not been performed to compare the efficacy of commonly PO administered acid suppressants in cats.Hypothesis/ObjectivesTo compare the effect of PO administered famotidine, fractionated omeprazole tablet (fOT), and omeprazole reformulated paste (ORP) on intragastric pH in cats. We hypothesized that both omeprazole formulations would be superior to famotidine and placebo.AnimalsSix healthy adult DSH colony cats.MethodsUtilizing a randomized, 4‐way crossover design, cats received 0.88–1.26 mg/kg PO q12h fOT, ORP, famotidine, and placebo (lactose capsules). Intragastric pH monitoring was used to continuously record intragastric pH for 96 hours beginning on day 4 of treatment. Plasma omeprazole concentrations at steady state (day 7) were determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet detection. Mean percentage time that intragastric pH was ≥3 and ≥4 were compared among groups using ANOVA with a posthoc Tukey‐Kramer test (α = 0.05).ResultsThe mean percentage time ± SD that intragastric pH was ≥3 was 68.4 ± 35.0% for fOT, 73.9 ± 23.2% for ORP, 42.8 ± 18.6% for famotidine, and 16.0 ± 14.2% for placebo. Mean ± SD plasma omeprazole concentrations were similar in cats receiving fOT compared to those receiving ORP and in a range associated with acid suppression reported in other studies.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceThese results suggest that both omeprazole formulations provide superior acid suppression in cats compared to famotidine or placebo. Fractionated enteric‐coated OT is an effective acid suppressant despite disruption of the enteric coating.

In this blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial, 20 dogs with atopic dermatitis (AD) were given placebo (8 dogs) or misoprostol (12 dogs) at 5 micro g kg-1, orally, three times daily for 3 weeks. Administration of the active drug, but not of placebo, led to a significant decrease in lesional and pruritus scores. The median reduction from baseline of both scores was approximately 30%. Misoprostol therapy did not lead to decreases of dermal cell counts or skin tumour necrosis factor (TNF)alpha mRNA copy numbers that were significantly different from those of placebo. Skin TNFalpha protein production, assessed using indirect immunofluorescence, decreased or remained unchanged in dogs receiving misoprostol. In contrast, post treatment TNFalpha fluorescence scores were higher in all but two dogs given placebo. The changes from baseline of TNFalpha fluorescence scores did not correlate significantly with those of lesional or pruritus indices. These observations confirm the modest efficacy of misoprostol for treatment of canine AD and suggest that its mild anti-allergic effects are not associated with either inhibition of inflammatory cell emigration or TNFalpha production.

BackgroundShort‐term intravenous co‐administration of famotidine and pantoprazole is used by some veterinarians to treat gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill dogs. However, clinical studies have not evaluated the efficacy of combination acid suppressant treatment in dogs.Hypothesis/ObjectivesTo compare the effect of intravenous co‐administration of famotidine and pantoprazole to monotherapy with pantoprazole on intragastric pH in dogs. We hypothesized that single agent pantoprazole would be more effective than combination with famotidine.AnimalsTwelve healthy adult colony dogs.MethodsRandomized, 2‐way crossover design. All dogs received placebo (0.9% saline) for 24 hours followed by 1.0 mg/kg IV q12h pantoprazole or combination treatment with famotidine and pantoprazole for 3 consecutive days. Intragastric pH monitoring was used to continuously record intragastric pH for 96 hours beginning on day 0 of treatment. Mean percentage time (MPT) that intragastric pH was ≥3 and ≥4 were compared between groups using ANOVA with a posthoc Tukey‐Kramer test (α = 0.017).ResultsThe MPT ± standard deviation intragastric pH was greater than ≥3 and 4 were 79 ± 17% and 68 ± 17% for pantoprazole and 74 ± 19% and 64 ± 23% for combination treatment, respectively. There were no significant differences in MPT intragastric pH was ≥3 and 4 between groups. Pantoprazole administered alone achieved pH goals established for humans with acid‐related disorders.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceThese results suggest that short‐term combination treatment with famotidine and pantoprazole is not superior to pantoprazole alone for increasing intragastric pH in dogs.

No abstract