A systematic review of randomized controlled trials for prevention or treatment of atopic dermatitis in dogs: 2008–2011 update

Abstract

Background -The management of atopic dermatitis (AD) in dogs relies mainly on the use of interventions to reduce pruritus and skin lesions.Objectives -To provide a critical analysis of recent clinical trials reporting the efficacy and safety of interventions for canine AD.Methods -Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published, presented or completed between 2008 and 2011, which enrolled dogs with AD. The search was done using electronic databases, reviewing published meeting abstracts and sending queries to professional email lists. Trials reporting the efficacy of interventions aimed at treating, preventing or reducing glucocorticoid usage in atopic dogs were selected.Results -Twenty-one RCTs were included. We found further moderate-quality evidence of efficacy and safety of oral glucocorticoids and ciclosporin for treatment of canine AD. There was additional moderate-quality evidence of the efficacy of a topical glucocorticoid spray containing hydrocortisone aceponate. Low-quality evidence was found for the efficacy and safety of injectable recombinant interferons, a budesonide leave-on conditioner, a ciclosporin topical nano-emulsion and oral fexofenadine. There is low-quality evidence of efficacy of oral masitinib, with a need for monitoring for protein-losing nephropathy. Finally, we uncovered low-quality evidence of efficacy of a commercial diet as a glucocorticoid-sparing intervention and of a glucocorticoid spray as a flare-delaying measure. Very low-quality evidence was found for the efficacy of other interventions.Conclusions and clinical importance -Topical or oral glucocorticoids and oral ciclosporin remain the interventions with highest evidence for efficacy and relative safety for treatment of canine AD.

Efficacy and safety of oclacitinib for the control of pruritus and associated skin lesions in dogs with canine allergic dermatitis

“…Previously reported clinical trials have been conducted in different target populations, predominantly in dogs with atopic dermatitis, without the inclusion of cases with other causes of allergic dermatitis, and have used different measures to assess efficacy (predominantly CADESI) . However, the proportion of dogs that achieved a >50% reduction in pruritus in this study is comparable to or better than the proportion of atopic dogs that improved to this extent following treatment with topical hydrocortisone aceponate, topical triamcinolone, systemic glucocorticoids and systemic ciclosporin …”

“…Dermatological problems are the second most common reason for dogs to present to veterinary practices . These frequently include pruritic conditions, such as parasitic infestations and allergic skin diseases …”

Ciclosporin 10 years on: indications and efficacy

“…Overall results from the trials show that around one- to two-thirds of dogs will show a 50 per cent or more reduction in pruritus and lesion scores within four to eight weeks. A recent systematic review of RCTs for treatments of canine AD concluded that there were now multiple, high-quality RCTs that show the efficacy of oral ME ciclosporin given at a starting dose of 5 mg/kg for the management of canine AD (Olivry and Bizikova 2013). There was no difference demonstrated in efficacy between oral ciclosporin and prednisolone and oral ciclosporin and methylprednisolone for the management of canine AD with both lesional scores and pruritus responding to treatment (Olivry and others 2002a, Steffan and others 2004a, Kovalik and others 2011).…”

In VitroEffects of Some Botanicals with Anti-Inflammatory and Antitoxic Activity

“…Such evidence may shed new light on the misunderstood scenario resulting from the increasing emergence of inflammatory diseases in humans, dogs, and cats [84–89]. Moreover, it has been suggested that tetracycline, in particular OTC, could take part in this scenario and could represent harmful compounds for human health and animals fed meat derived from intensive livestock [25–30, 33, 90].…”