BackgroundCanine atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, genetically predisposed, inflammatory and pruritic skin disease. The variation in clinical presentations, due to genetic factors, extent of the lesions, stage of the disease, secondary infections, as well as resemblance to other non-atopic related skin diseases, can complicate a diagnosis of canine AD. A sub-group of the International Committee for Allergic Diseases in Animals (ICADA) was tasked with the development of a set of practical guidelines that can be used to assist practitioners and researchers in the diagnosis of canine AD. Online citation databases and abstracts from international meetings were searched for publications related to the topic, and combined with expert opinion where necessary. The final set of guidelines was approved by the entire ICADA committee.ResultsA total of 81 publications relevant for this review were identified. The guidelines generated focus on three aspects of the diagnostic approach:Ruling out of other skin conditions with clinical signs resembling, or overlapping with canine AD.Detailed interpretation of the historical and clinical features of patients affected by canine AD.Allergy testing by intradermal versus allergen-specific IgE serum testing.ConclusionsThe diagnosis of canine AD is based on meeting clinical criteria and ruling out other possible causes with similar clinical signs. Flea combing, skin scraping and cytology should be performed, where necessary, as part of a thorough work-up. Elimination diet trials are required for patients with perennial pruritus and/or concurrent gastrointestinal signs. Once a clinical diagnosis of canine AD is made, allergy testing can be performed to identify potential causative allergens for allergen-specific immunotherapy.

A survey was made of the prevalence, diagnosis and treatment of dermatological conditions in small animals in general practice in the UK. Out of 3707 small animal consultations in general practice that were observed and recorded, 795 (21.4 per cent) involved animals that had a dermatological problem. In dogs and exotic species, pruritus was the most common presenting sign, accounting for 30 to 40 per cent of the dermatological consultations. In cats, cutaneous swellings were the most common presentation (36 per cent). A diagnosis or recommendation for treatment was made on the basis of the presenting clinical signs and physical examination alone in 576 (72 per cent) of the cases, and various diagnostic tests were performed in the other cases. In dogs, parasitic infestations, bacterial infections and neoplasia accounted for the majority of the diagnoses. In cats, parasites and bacterial infections were the most common. In exotic species, parasites accounted for over 80 per cent of the dermatological diagnoses. In dogs, the most common final diagnoses were otitis, pyoderma, anal sac impaction, flea infestation and atopic dermatitis. In cats, abscesses, flea infestation, and otitis were the most common diagnoses. In exotic species, the most common diagnosis was an unspecified mite infestation. Systemic antibiotics were prescribed in 196 cases (25 per cent), systemic glucocorticoids were prescribed in 162 cases (20 per cent) and treatment with an ectoparasiticide was prescribed in 167 cases (21 per cent).

Assessment of pruritus is critical in dermatological history taking, both for initial diagnosis and for monitoring treatment. Various methods of assessing pruritus in the dog have been described but none have been validated. In this study, four different pruritus scales were initially assessed: a 0-5 numerical scale; a scale containing six categories of pruritic behaviours; a scale with six basic descriptors of severity; and a visual analogue scale with severity descriptions at either end. One hundred and sixteen owners were asked to grade their dog's pruritus with each of the four scales given to them in a randomized order, and asked which they thought was easiest to use, which was most accurate in assessing their dog's pruritus level, and which two scales they would combine to make a superior scale. Pruritus scores from different scales were highly correlated with each other, but scores were significantly higher with the severity and numerical scales compared to the behaviour scale. Based on the clients' responses, a new scale was developed that combined features of the behaviour and severity-based scales with the visual analogue scale. When tested on 166 different owners, 98% thought it was easy to use and accurate in assessing their dog's pruritus level. In 44 dogs, independent scores obtained by two owners were highly correlated (R = 0.8; P < 0.0001), confirming the scale's repeatability. The new scale proved to be an easy and repeatable method for owners to determine the severity of pruritus in their dog.

A scale to assess the severity of pruritus in dogs was further validated. Comparison of the scale with one containing visible numerical markings demonstrated that owners were heavily influenced by the presence of numbers, resulting in a loss of the scale's ability to generate continuous data. The presence of a traditional visual analogue scale was therefore essential. The scale was tested on 713 owners who presented their dogs for veterinary attention. Pruritus scores in 408 dogs with skin disease covered the full range of possible values (0 to 10). In 305 dogs with no skin disease, 90 owners gave a score greater than zero. Comparison of the scores seen in pruritic dogs, and dogs with no evidence of skin disease, allowed a 'normal range' of 0-1.9 to be established. The scale was able to discriminate between conditions typically regarded as pruritic or non-pruritic. When the scale was assessed for its ability to detect changes in pruritus score following treatment, a median reduction of 4.4 points was observed. The scale was also used to determine what magnitude of response owners would expect following treatment of their pruritic dogs. Only 12% would have been satisfied with a 50% reduction, a figure that is typically quoted as a satisfactory response in clinical trials of anti-pruritic drugs. As a result, alternative methods of assessing clinical trials are proposed. This study has shown the scale to be a valuable tool for clinical assessment of patients, and for monitoring treatment responses in clinical trials.

The CADESI-4 is simpler to use and quicker to administer than its previous version. The ICADA recommends the CADESI-4 instead of the CADESI-3 to score skin lesions of AD in dogs enrolled in clinical trials.