A case of superficial suppurative necrolytic dermatitis of miniature schnauzers with identification of a causative agent using patch testing

Murayama, Nobuo; Midorikawa, Kuniaki; Nagata, Masahiko

doi:10.1111/j.1365-3164.2008.00708.x

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dogs may have concurrent systemic signs including pyrexia or lethargy. Scott et al reported 2 cases of SSND of 101 dogs with adverse drug reactions, and Murayama et al confirmed shampoo as an etiologic agent of SSND by patch testing in a Miniature Schnauzer …”

Section: Common Clinical Patterns Associated With Drug Allergiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skin testing (prick testing, patch testing, or intradermal testing) has been used in human patients to diagnose various allergic responses in sensitized patients . There are a limited number of reports of patch testing being performed in veterinary medicine . Prick testing and intradermal testing are used to evaluate immediate reactions caused by IgE allergic reaction, and are evaluated within 24 hours, whereas for delayed reactions both intradermal testing (IDT) or patch testing are options, and require readings up to 72 hours.…”

Section: How To Recognize and Diagnose Adrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions Targeting the Skin in Dogs and Cats

Voie

Campbell

Lavergne

2012

Veterinary Internal Medicne

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can be dose dependent or idiosyncratic. Most idiosyncratic reactions are believed to be immune-mediated; such drug hypersensitivities and allergies are unpredictable. Cutaneous reactions are the most common presentation of drug allergies. In veterinary medicine it can be difficult to assess the true prevalence of adverse drug reactions, although reports available suggest that they occur quite commonly. There are multiple theories that attempt to explain how drug allergies occur, because the pathogenesis is not yet well understood. These include the (pro)-hapten hypothesis, the Danger Theory, the pi concept, and the viral reactivation theory. Cutaneous drug allergies in veterinary medicine can have a variety of clinical manifestations, ranging from pruritus to often fatal toxic epidermal necrolysis. Diagnosis can be challenging, as the reactions are highly pleomorphic and may be mistaken for other dermatologic diseases. One must rely heavily on history and physical examination to rule out other possibilities. Dechallenge of the drug, histopathology, and other diagnostic tests can help to confirm the diagnosis. New diagnostic tools are beginning to be used, such as antibody or cellular testing, and may be used more in the future. There is much yet to learn about drug allergies, which makes future research vitally important. Treatment of drug allergies involves supportive care, and additional treatments, such as immunosuppressive medications, depend on the manifestation of the disease. Of utmost importance is to avoid the use of the incriminating drug in future treatment of the patient, as subsequent reactions can be worse, and ultimately can prove fatal.

show abstract

Section: Common Clinical Patterns Associated With Drug Allergiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How To Recognize and Diagnose Adrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions Targeting the Skin in Dogs and Cats

Voie

Campbell

Lavergne

2012

Veterinary Internal Medicne

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, in veterinary medicine, there are only few reports about the use of skin tests as diagnostic tools for ADRs. In 2008, Murayama described PT to identify an allergic reaction to ingredients of a shampoo in a miniature schnauzer ( 20 , 45 ). Apart from this, PT proved useful as an aid to choose the ingredients of an elimination diet in dogs with adverse food reaction ( 27 ), and IDT is widely used to identify offending environmental allergens in dogs with atopic dermatitis ( 30 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions in Dogs Treated with Antiepileptic Drugs

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders in dogs and life-long treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AED) is frequently required. Adverse events of AED targeting the skin are only rarely reported in veterinary medicine and the true incidence and spectrum of cutaneous reactions in epileptic dogs remains unknown. In this study, we hypothesized that cutaneous reactions commonly occur in epileptic dogs and are related to AED treatment. A retrospective case review of 185 dogs treated for epilepsy identified 20.0% with simultaneous appearance of dermatologic signs. In a subsequent prospective case investigation (n = 137), we identified newly appearing or distinct worsening of skin lesions following initiation of AED therapy in 10.9% of dogs treated for epilepsy (95% CI 6.8–17.7%). Cutaneous lesions were classified as probably drug-induced in 40.0% of these cases. Patch testing and intradermal testing were further investigated as potential diagnostic methods to confirm AED hypersensitivity. They were of high specificity but sensitivity and positive predictive value appeared inappropriate to recommend their routine use in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…The aetiology is unknown; however, a cutaneous adverse drug reaction, or exposure to allergens or a b immunogens in shampoos is suspected. [1][2][3][4] Diagnosis is based on clinical findings, histopathological features and the history of known chemical exposure. A long-acting (eight month), rapid onset flea and tick collar containing 10% imidacloprid and 4.5% flumethrin in a matrix polymer (Seresto, Bayer HealthCare LLC; Shawnee Mission, KS, USA) slowly and continuously releases active ingredients from the site of contact and disperses over the entire skin surface according to a concentration gradient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical signs typically develop within 48–72 h postapplication of product. The aetiology is unknown; however, a cutaneous adverse drug reaction, or exposure to allergens or immunogens in shampoos is suspected 1‐4 . Diagnosis is based on clinical findings, histopathological features and the history of known chemical exposure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%