Seja bem-vindo! Dia 26 de Outubro de 2017 a partir das 20H00 nosso Papo Vet é com o(s) Professor(es) Me. Alessandra Pereira, sobre Abordagem Diagnóstica E Terapêutica Do Prurido Em Gatos. Caso haja alguma dúvida, envie as perguntas ao vivo pelo nosso facebook.

1. Abordagem diagnóstica e
terapêutica do prurido em
gatos
M.V., Phd., AlessandraVieira Pereira
Rio de Janeiro- Brasil

2. Cães X Gatos
Gatos se lambem mais ( “Grooming”)
Infecções secundárias são menos frequentes
Alterações crônicas cutâneas são raras
Não deixam vestígios de pulgas
Diferentes apresentações clínicas
Triagem diagnóstica mais difícil

3. Se escondem para coçar!

4. Dermatopatias pruriginosas
Alergopatias
DAPE
HS alimentar
HS não induzida por
pulgas e alimentos
HS picada de mosquito
Outras causas
Demodiciose (D.gatoi)
Sarna notoédrica
Otoacaríase
Pediculose/
Lynksacaríase
Pênfigo Foliáceo

5. Clinical characteristics and causes of pruritu
a multicentre study on feline hypersensitivit
associated dermatoses
Stefan Hobi*, Monika Linek†, Genevie`ve
Marignac‡, Thierry Olivry§, Luc Beco¶, Claudia
Nett**, Jacques Fontaine††, Petra Roosje‡‡,
Kerstin Bergvall§§, Sveta Belova¶¶, Stefanie
Koebrich***, DidierPin†††,MarcelKovalik‡‡‡,
SabrinaMeury*,SylvieWilhelm*,1
and
ClaudeFavrot*,1
*Dermatology Department, Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine,
Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
†Tiera¨rztliche Spezialisten, Hamburg, Germany
‡Unite´ de Parasitologie, E´ cole Nationale Ve´te´rinaire d’Alfort,
Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France
to analyse 72 parameters c
cal, laboratory and treatme
large group of pruritic cats
cal areas. Of the 502 cats,
were made: flea HD (29%
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD (20%
which pruritus was a featu
consistent with a HD but w
food trial were not analyse
Most cats with nonflea HD e
with one or more of the fou
but none of these patterns
gnomonic for any specific
DOI: 10.
Clinical characteristics and causes of pruritus in cats:
a multicentre study on feline hypersensitivity-
associated dermatoses
Stefan Hobi*, Monika Linek†, Genevie`ve
Marignac‡, Thierry Olivry§, Luc Beco¶, Claudia
Nett**, Jacques Fontaine††, Petra Roosje‡‡,
Kerstin Bergvall§§, Sveta Belova¶¶, Stefanie
Koebrich***, DidierPin†††,MarcelKovalik‡‡‡,
SabrinaMeury*,SylvieWilhelm*,1
and
ClaudeFavrot*,1
*Dermatology Department, Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine,
Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
†Tiera¨rztliche Spezialisten, Hamburg, Germany
‡Unite´ de Parasitologie, E´ cole Nationale Ve´te´rinaire d’Alfort,
Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France
§Department of Clinical Sciences and Center for Comparative
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
¶Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Spa, Belgium
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
Cham, Switzerland
††Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Bruxelles, Belgium
‡‡Division of Clinical Dermatology, Department of Clinical Veterinary
Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
§§Department Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
to analyse 72 parameters covering signalment, clini-
cal, laboratory and treatment characteristics from a
large group of pruritic cats from different geographi-
cal areas. Of the 502 cats, the following diagnoses
were made: flea HD (29% of cases), food HD (12%)
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD (20%) and other diseases in
which pruritus was a feature (24%). Cats with signs
consistent with a HD but which did not complete a
food trial were not analysed further (15% of cases).
Most cats with nonflea HD exhibited signs compatible
with one or more of the four typical lesional patterns,
but none of these patterns was found to be patho-
gnomonic for any specific diagnosis. Food HD and
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD were found to be clinically
undistinguishable. Young adult, purebred and female
cats appeared predisposed to nonflea/nonfood HD.
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
establishment of a specific diagnosis.
Accepted 13 January 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2011.00962.x
Clinical characteristics and causes of pruritus in cats:
a multicentre study on feline hypersensitivity-
associated dermatoses
Stefan Hobi*, Monika Linek†, Genevie`ve
Marignac‡, Thierry Olivry§, Luc Beco¶, Claudia
Nett**, Jacques Fontaine††, Petra Roosje‡‡,
Kerstin Bergvall§§, Sveta Belova¶¶, Stefanie
Koebrich***, DidierPin†††,MarcelKovalik‡‡‡,
SabrinaMeury*,SylvieWilhelm*,1
and
ClaudeFavrot*,1
*Dermatology Department, Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine,
Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
†Tiera¨rztliche Spezialisten, Hamburg, Germany
‡Unite´ de Parasitologie, E´ cole Nationale Ve´te´rinaire d’Alfort,
Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France
§Department of Clinical Sciences and Center for Comparative
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
¶Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Spa, Belgium
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
to analyse 72 parameters covering signalment, clini-
cal, laboratory and treatment characteristics from a
large group of pruritic cats from different geographi-
cal areas. Of the 502 cats, the following diagnoses
were made: flea HD (29% of cases), food HD (12%)
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD (20%) and other diseases in
which pruritus was a feature (24%). Cats with signs
consistent with a HD but which did not complete a
food trial were not analysed further (15% of cases).
Most cats with nonflea HD exhibited signs compatible
with one or more of the four typical lesional patterns,
but none of these patterns was found to be patho-
gnomonic for any specific diagnosis. Food HD and
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD were found to be clinically
undistinguishable. Young adult, purebred and female
cats appeared predisposed to nonflea/nonfood HD.
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2011.00962.x
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
¶Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Spa, Belgium
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
Cham, Switzerland
††Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Bruxelles, Belgium
‡‡Division of Clinical Dermatology, Department of Clinical Veterinary
Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
§§Department Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
¶¶Department of Therapy, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and
Animal Science, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
***Bruchweg 3, D- 68809, Neulussheim, Germany
†††Unite´ de Dermatologie, VetAgro Sup Campus Ve´te´rinaire, Marcy
L’Etoile, France
‡‡‡The University of Edinburgh, Veterinary Dermatology Unit,
Division of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Hospital for Small Ani-
mals, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh, UK
Correspondence: Claude Favrot, Dermatology Department, Clinic for
Small Animal Internal Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of
Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail: cfavrot@vetclinics.uzh.ch
1
Both the authors contributed equally to this work.
Sources of Funding
Novartis Animal Health, Basel, Switzerland and research funds from
the University of Zurich financed this study.
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest have been declared.
Abstract
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often sus-
pected in cats. Cats with HD are reported to present
with one or more of the following patterns: miliary
dermatitis, eosinophilic dermatitis, self-induced sym-
metrical alopecia or head and/or neck excoriations.
Previous reports on feline HD included small numbers
of animals, took place in geographically restricted
areas or did not compare these conditions with other
causes of pruritus. The goal of the present study was
undistinguishable. Young adult, purebred and female
cats appeared predisposed to nonflea/nonfood HD.
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
establishment of a specific diagnosis.
Accepted 13 January 2011
Introduction
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often suspected in
companion animals, and these include flea bite hypersen-
sitivity dermatitis, cutaneous adverse food reactions,
urticaria, angioedema and atopic dermatitis (AD).1
The
use of the term ‘feline AD’ remains debatable, however,
because its clinical presentation and histological features
differ markedly from those of its human and canine coun-
terparts. Furthermore, the use of the adjective ‘atopic’
(meaning ‘IgE-mediated’) itself is questionable for this
disease, because the importance of IgE in its pathogenesis
has not been firmly demonstrated.2,3
Very few studies
have investigated the role of IgE in the development of
HD in cats.2,4–6
Additionally, there is evidence suggesting
the heterogeneity of feline IgE and that allergen-specific
IgE serum levels do not correlate with clinical signs of HD
in cats.7–9
Finally, one study reported that up to 35% of
cats with HD have negative allergen-specific intradermal
and serological tests.2
Therefore, and following the current
nomenclature of human and canine allergic skin dis-
eases,10,11
as long as the importance of IgE has not been
firmly demonstrated in cats with pruritic allergic skin dis-
eases, the authors of this paper will not use the term ‘feline
AD’ and replace it with the more generic term of ‘HD’.
The diagnosis of feline nonflea HD (i.e. nonflea bite-
associated HD) is usually based on the exclusion of
ª 2011 The Authors. Veterinary Dermatology
406 ª 2011 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 22, 406–413.

6. belon
diagn
prurit
(51%
their
Mo
ing l
(83; 5
disea
cats (
these
one.
metri
evalu
of 10
or gre
Figure 1. Pruritus scale.
588 pruritic cats
502 cats analysed
86 cats excluded
235 nonflea HD cats 146 flea HD cats 121 other diseases
100 nonflea, nonfood
HD cats
74 undetermined
HD cats
61 food HD cats
Figure 2. Assignment of cats into study groups.
Alergopatias
381gatos
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
¶Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Spa, Belgium
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
Cham, Switzerland
††Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Bruxelles, Belgium
‡‡Division of Clinical Dermatology, Department of Clinical Veterinary
Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
§§Department Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
¶¶Department of Therapy, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and
Animal Science, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
***Bruchweg 3, D- 68809, Neulussheim, Germany
†††Unite´ de Dermatologie, VetAgro Sup Campus Ve´te´rinaire, Marcy
L’Etoile, France
‡‡‡The University of Edinburgh, Veterinary Dermatology Unit,
Division of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Hospital for Small Ani-
mals, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh, UK
Correspondence: Claude Favrot, Dermatology Department, Clinic for
Small Animal Internal Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of
Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail: cfavrot@vetclinics.uzh.ch
1
Both the authors contributed equally to this work.
Sources of Funding
Novartis Animal Health, Basel, Switzerland and research funds from
the University of Zurich financed this study.
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest have been declared.
Abstract
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often sus-
pected in cats. Cats with HD are reported to present
with one or more of the following patterns: miliary
dermatitis, eosinophilic dermatitis, self-induced sym-
metrical alopecia or head and/or neck excoriations.
Previous reports on feline HD included small numbers
of animals, took place in geographically restricted
areas or did not compare these conditions with other
causes of pruritus. The goal of the present study was
undistinguishable. Young adult, purebred and female
cats appeared predisposed to nonflea/nonfood HD.
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
establishment of a specific diagnosis.
Accepted 13 January 2011
Introduction
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often suspected in
companion animals, and these include flea bite hypersen-
sitivity dermatitis, cutaneous adverse food reactions,
urticaria, angioedema and atopic dermatitis (AD).1
The
use of the term ‘feline AD’ remains debatable, however,
because its clinical presentation and histological features
differ markedly from those of its human and canine coun-
terparts. Furthermore, the use of the adjective ‘atopic’
(meaning ‘IgE-mediated’) itself is questionable for this
disease, because the importance of IgE in its pathogenesis
has not been firmly demonstrated.2,3
Very few studies
have investigated the role of IgE in the development of
HD in cats.2,4–6
Additionally, there is evidence suggesting
the heterogeneity of feline IgE and that allergen-specific
IgE serum levels do not correlate with clinical signs of HD
in cats.7–9
Finally, one study reported that up to 35% of
cats with HD have negative allergen-specific intradermal
and serological tests.2
Therefore, and following the current
nomenclature of human and canine allergic skin dis-
eases,10,11
as long as the importance of IgE has not been
firmly demonstrated in cats with pruritic allergic skin dis-
eases, the authors of this paper will not use the term ‘feline
AD’ and replace it with the more generic term of ‘HD’.
The diagnosis of feline nonflea HD (i.e. nonflea bite-
associated HD) is usually based on the exclusion of
ª 2011 The Authors. Veterinary Dermatology
406 ª 2011 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 22, 406–413.
Infecciosas/A.I
121gatos

7. belonged to this group. Males represented 41% of cats
diagnosed with nonflea HD. The mean age of onset of
pruritus was 3.4 years, and 82 cats with nonflea HD
How itchy is your cat?
This scale is designed to measure the severity of itching in cats. Itching can include scratching, biting,
licking, chewing, nibbling, rubbing and/or sudden run away. Read all the descriptions below starting from the bottom
Then use a marker pen to place a mark anywhere on the vertical line that runs down the left hand side to
Indicate the point at which you think your cat’s level of itchiness lies.
.
Extremely severe itching/almost continuous
Itching does not stop whatever is happening, even in the consulting room
(needs to be physically restrained from itching)
Severe itching/prolonged episodes
Itching might occur at night (if observed) and also when eating, playing, exercising or being distracted
Moderate itching/regular episodes
Itching might occur at night (if observed), but not when eating, playing, exercising or being distracted
Mild itching/a bit more frequent
Would not itch when sleeping, eating, playing, exercising or being distracted
Very mild itching/only occasional episodes
The cat is slightly more itchy than it was before the skin problem started
Normal cat – I don’t think itching is a problem
Figure 1. Pruritus scale.
588 pruritic cats
86 cats excluded
Hobi et al.
O quanto seu
gato coça??
Extremamente severo/quase contínuo
Prurido não cessa mesmo no consultório
Prurido severo/ episódios longos
Prurido moderado/ episódios regulares
Prurido moderado/se mordiscam com frequência
Prurido em episódios ocasionais
Não pensa que prurido é o problema0
10
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
¶Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Spa, Belgium
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
Cham, Switzerland
††Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Bruxelles, Belgium
‡‡Division of Clinical Dermatology, Department of Clinical Veterinary
Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
§§Department Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
¶¶Department of Therapy, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and
Animal Science, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
***Bruchweg 3, D- 68809, Neulussheim, Germany
†††Unite´ de Dermatologie, VetAgro Sup Campus Ve´te´rinaire, Marcy
L’Etoile, France
‡‡‡The University of Edinburgh, Veterinary Dermatology Unit,
Division of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Hospital for Small Ani-
mals, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh, UK
Correspondence: Claude Favrot, Dermatology Department, Clinic for
Small Animal Internal Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of
Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail: cfavrot@vetclinics.uzh.ch
1
Both the authors contributed equally to this work.
Sources of Funding
Novartis Animal Health, Basel, Switzerland and research funds from
the University of Zurich financed this study.
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest have been declared.
Abstract
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often sus-
pected in cats. Cats with HD are reported to present
with one or more of the following patterns: miliary
dermatitis, eosinophilic dermatitis, self-induced sym-
metrical alopecia or head and/or neck excoriations.
Previous reports on feline HD included small numbers
of animals, took place in geographically restricted
areas or did not compare these conditions with other
causes of pruritus. The goal of the present study was
undistinguishable. Young adult, purebred and female
cats appeared predisposed to nonflea/nonfood HD.
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
establishment of a specific diagnosis.
Accepted 13 January 2011
Introduction
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often suspected in
companion animals, and these include flea bite hypersen-
sitivity dermatitis, cutaneous adverse food reactions,
urticaria, angioedema and atopic dermatitis (AD).1
The
use of the term ‘feline AD’ remains debatable, however,
because its clinical presentation and histological features
differ markedly from those of its human and canine coun-
terparts. Furthermore, the use of the adjective ‘atopic’
(meaning ‘IgE-mediated’) itself is questionable for this
disease, because the importance of IgE in its pathogenesis
has not been firmly demonstrated.2,3
Very few studies
have investigated the role of IgE in the development of
HD in cats.2,4–6
Additionally, there is evidence suggesting
the heterogeneity of feline IgE and that allergen-specific
IgE serum levels do not correlate with clinical signs of HD
in cats.7–9
Finally, one study reported that up to 35% of
cats with HD have negative allergen-specific intradermal
and serological tests.2
Therefore, and following the current
nomenclature of human and canine allergic skin dis-
eases,10,11
as long as the importance of IgE has not been
firmly demonstrated in cats with pruritic allergic skin dis-
eases, the authors of this paper will not use the term ‘feline
AD’ and replace it with the more generic term of ‘HD’.
The diagnosis of feline nonflea HD (i.e. nonflea bite-
associated HD) is usually based on the exclusion of
ª 2011 The Authors. Veterinary Dermatology
406 ª 2011 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 22, 406–413.

8. Table 1. Signalment and history data
(1) Nonflea
HD
(2) Nonflea HD ⁄
nonfood HD (3) Food HD (4) Flea HD (5) OD (1) versus (4) (1) versus (5) (2) versus (3)
n 161 100 61 146 121
Male cats (%) 66 (41) 42 (42) 24 (39) 83 (57) 48 (40) <0.0001 n.s. n.s.
Purebred cats (%) 43 (27) 22 (22) 21 (34) 22 (15) 35 (29) 0.003 n.s. n.s.
Siamese 8 (5) 5 3 5 3 n.s. n.s. n.s.
Persian 11 (7) 4 7 7 12 n.s. n.s. n.s.
Abyssinian 5 (3) 3 2 0 0 n.s. n.s. n.s.
Maine coon 4 (2) 2 2 3 3 n.s. n.s. n.s.
Mean age at onset (years) 3.4 3 4 4.4 4.9 0.001 0.001 n.s.
Indoor:outdoor ratio* 76 ⁄ 64 46 ⁄ 42 30 ⁄ 22 49 ⁄ 73 53 ⁄ 53 0.02 n.s. n.s.
Rural:urban ratio* 55/103 37/67 18/36 45/96 42/72 n.s. n.s. n.s.
Seasonality (%) 14 (9) 12 (12) 2 (3) 13 (9) 9 (7) n.s. n.s. n.s.
Pruritus mean 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.7 4.9 0.001 0.0001 n.s.
Pruritus < 5 (%) 17 (13) 10 (11) 7 (14) 32 (24) 45 (45) 0.008 <0.0001 n.s.
Pruritus > 5 (%) 98 (72) 64 (73) 34 (69) 79 (57) 42 (42) n.s. <0.0001 n.s.
Pruritus = 5 (%) 22 (16) 14 (16) 8 (16) 26 (19) 13 (13) n.s. n.s. n.s.
Means and proportions were analysed using Mann–Whitney U-test and Fisher’s exact test, respectively.
HD, hypersensitivity dermatis; n.s., not significant; OD, other disease.
*Cats living in both environments were not taken into account.
[Corrections to Table data added on 1st April 2011 after online publication: ‘Rural:urban ratio*’ row data were changed, as were data in the bottom
3 rows of ‘(1) Nonflea HD’ column].
Table 2. Pattern and pattern associations
(1) Nonflea
HD
(2) Nonflea HD ⁄
nonfood HD (3) Food HD (4) Flea HD (5) OD (1) versus (4) (1) versus (5) (2) versus (3)
n 161 100 61 146 121
Miliary dermatitis (%) 30 (19) 18 (18) 12 (20) 51 (35) 11 (9) 0.001 0.02 n.s.
Eosinophilic granuloma
complex (%)
41 (25) 26 (26) 15 (25) 20 (14) 3 (2) 0.01 <0.0001 n.s.
Erosions ⁄ ulcerations face 95 (59) 56 (56) 39 (64) 55 (38) 66 (55) 0.0002 n.s. n.s.
Feline hypersensitivity dermatitis
Intensidade do prurido
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
Cham, Switzerland
††Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Bruxelles, Belgium
‡‡Division of Clinical Dermatology, Department of Clinical Veterinary
Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
§§Department Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
¶¶Department of Therapy, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and
Animal Science, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
***Bruchweg 3, D- 68809, Neulussheim, Germany
†††Unite´ de Dermatologie, VetAgro Sup Campus Ve´te´rinaire, Marcy
L’Etoile, France
‡‡‡The University of Edinburgh, Veterinary Dermatology Unit,
Division of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Hospital for Small Ani-
mals, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh, UK
Correspondence: Claude Favrot, Dermatology Department, Clinic for
Small Animal Internal Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of
Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail: cfavrot@vetclinics.uzh.ch
1
Both the authors contributed equally to this work.
Sources of Funding
Novartis Animal Health, Basel, Switzerland and research funds from
the University of Zurich financed this study.
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest have been declared.
Abstract
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often sus-
pected in cats. Cats with HD are reported to present
with one or more of the following patterns: miliary
dermatitis, eosinophilic dermatitis, self-induced sym-
metrical alopecia or head and/or neck excoriations.
Previous reports on feline HD included small numbers
of animals, took place in geographically restricted
areas or did not compare these conditions with other
causes of pruritus. The goal of the present study was
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
establishment of a specific diagnosis.
Accepted 13 January 2011
Introduction
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often suspected in
companion animals, and these include flea bite hypersen-
sitivity dermatitis, cutaneous adverse food reactions,
urticaria, angioedema and atopic dermatitis (AD).1
The
use of the term ‘feline AD’ remains debatable, however,
because its clinical presentation and histological features
differ markedly from those of its human and canine coun-
terparts. Furthermore, the use of the adjective ‘atopic’
(meaning ‘IgE-mediated’) itself is questionable for this
disease, because the importance of IgE in its pathogenesis
has not been firmly demonstrated.2,3
Very few studies
have investigated the role of IgE in the development of
HD in cats.2,4–6
Additionally, there is evidence suggesting
the heterogeneity of feline IgE and that allergen-specific
IgE serum levels do not correlate with clinical signs of HD
in cats.7–9
Finally, one study reported that up to 35% of
cats with HD have negative allergen-specific intradermal
and serological tests.2
Therefore, and following the current
nomenclature of human and canine allergic skin dis-
eases,10,11
as long as the importance of IgE has not been
firmly demonstrated in cats with pruritic allergic skin dis-
eases, the authors of this paper will not use the term ‘feline
AD’ and replace it with the more generic term of ‘HD’.
The diagnosis of feline nonflea HD (i.e. nonflea bite-
associated HD) is usually based on the exclusion of
ª 2011 The Authors. Veterinary Dermatology
406 ª 2011 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 22, 406–413.

9. Como diagnosticar?

10. Procedência?
Idade do aparecimento das lesões
Tempo de evolução
Ambiente/Acesso a rua?/Contactantes?
Prurido?
Ectoparasitas?
Alimentação
Comorbidades
Banho? Produto?
Terapia prévia? CORTICOTERAPIA? Resposta?
História Clínica

11. História clínica
Filhotes
Parasitárias
Fúngicas
Alérgicas

12. História clínica
Adultos
Alérgicas
Parasitárias
Fúngicas
PF e psicogênicas e
outras

13. ! Derma&te(Miliar(
! Dermatoses(eosino/licas(
! Alopecia(Simétrica(auto(induzida(
! Lesões(erodo:(ulceradas(em(cabeça(e(
pescoço(
!
Exame Físico
Padrões de reação cutânea

19. 19

36. M.V . Tatiane Pirani

37. M.V . Tatiane Pirani

43. Pontos chave no Exame
Físico
Paciência!!!
Inspeção da cavidade
oral
Pente fino
Lâmpada de Wood

45. Ectoparasitas?
POSITIVONEGATIVO
!!!NÃO
SIM
RASPADO'
TRICOGRAMA'
FITADE'ACETATO'
'SWABS'
CULTURA'FÚNGICA'
HISTOPATO'
DAPE
ALERGIA ALIMENTAR
DIETA!
"ATOPIA "
ESCABIOSE/DEMODICIOSE
OTOACARÍASE
CHEYLETIELLOSIS
DERMATOFITOSE
SIM
!!!NÃO
ESPOROTRICOSE
PÊNFIGO FOLIÁCEO
RESPOSTA'AO'TRATAMENTO?'
SIM!
PARCIAL!
Anti-ectop. a cd 15d/3aplic???

46. Research Article
Efficacy of Spinosad Tablets Administered to a Colony of
15 Indoor Cats Naturally Infested with Fleas
Marie-Christine Cadiergues and Charline Pressanti
INP-ENVT, 23 Chemin des Capelles, 31076 Toulouse Cedex 3, France
Correspondence should be addressed to Marie-Christine Cadiergues; mc.cadiergues@envt.fr
Received 12 November 2013; Accepted 30 December 2013; Published 5 February 2014
Academic Editors: A. Anadon and K. Y. Mumcuoglu
Copyright © 2014 M.-C. Cadiergues and C. Pressanti. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
The aims of the study were (i) to describe adult fleas distribution in a strictly indoor cat colony composed of cats with flea allergy
dermatitis (FAD) and non-FAD cats and (ii) to evaluate the efficacy of spinosad used alone. Skin lesions were scored according
to the SCORing Feline Allergic Dermatitis lesion severity scale (SCORFAD) on days 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90. Cats were combed
prior to the treatment (days 0, 30, and 60) and on days 15, 45, and 90; collected fleas were replaced on the animals. All cats received
flavored spinosad tablets (Comfortis) at a dosage of 50–75 mg/kg on days 0, 30, and 60. Cats were fed immediately afterwards. On
day 0, a total of 60 fleas were collected (mean: 4 ± 4). Cats with FAD had a SCORFAD of 6, 8, 12, and 13 and harbored 0, 2, 1, and
0 fleas, respectively. Tablets were taken voluntarily by 8, 11, and 12 cats on days 0, 30, and 60, respectively. No adverse event was
recorded. From day 15 to day 90, no fleas could be collected. SCORFAD was reduced by 40%, 71%, 80%, 89%, and 98% on days 15,
30, 45, 60, and 90, respectively.
1. Introduction Drug Administration. The European Commission granted
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
ISRN Veterinary Science
Volume 2014,Article ID 484308, 4 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/484308

47. ought from
Hospital of
nation, test
were done
esponsible
flea infes-
alides felis
of several
plucks had
hytes. Tape
vidence of
nd 8 males
ghing from
oom space,
ce of 8 m2
wed. They
year. They
upplied ad
C and air
ted against
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
D0 D15 D30 D45 D60 D90
Total number of fleas in non-FAD cats
Total number of fleas in FAD cats
Total SCORFAD of non-FAD cats
Total SCORFAD of FAD cats
Figure 1: Progression of the total number of fleas (pale blue: non-
FAD cats, pink: FAD cats) and the total SCORFAD (blue: non-FAD
cats, red: FAD cats) over time.
Cura clínica leva tempo!!!0,75 pulgas/
gato DAPP
5,2 pulgas/gato
sem DAPP

48. Ectoparasitas?
POSITIVONEGATIVO
!!!NÃO
SIM
RASPADO'
TRICOGRAMA'
FITADE'ACETATO'
'SWABS'
CULTURA'FÚNGICA'
HISTOPATO'
DAPE
ALERGIA ALIMENTAR
DIETA!
"ATOPIA "
ESCABIOSE/DEMODICIOSE
OTOACARÍASE
CHEYLETIELLOSIS
DERMATOFITOSE
SIM
!!!NÃO
ESPOROTRICOSE
PÊNFIGO FOLIÁCEO
RESPOSTA'AO'TRATAMENTO?'
SIM!
PARCIAL!
Anti-ectop. a cd 15d/30 dias /90 dias!!

49. Excluindo parasitárias, fúngicas,
dermatofitose...
Alergopatias (DAPE/H.A./“Atopia”)
Responsivo a corticoterapia...
Possuem os mesmos sinais clínicos...
Mas não na mesma frequência!!!

50. Clinical characteristics and causes of pruri
a multicentre study on feline hypersensiti
associated dermatoses
Stefan Hobi*, Monika Linek†, Genevie`ve
Marignac‡, Thierry Olivry§, Luc Beco¶, Claudia
Nett**, Jacques Fontaine††, Petra Roosje‡‡,
Kerstin Bergvall§§, Sveta Belova¶¶, Stefanie
Koebrich***, DidierPin†††,MarcelKovalik‡‡‡,
SabrinaMeury*,SylvieWilhelm*,1
and
ClaudeFavrot*,1
*Dermatology Department, Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine,
Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
†Tiera¨rztliche Spezialisten, Hamburg, Germany
‡Unite´ de Parasitologie, E´ cole Nationale Ve´te´rinaire d’Alfort,
Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France
§Department of Clinical Sciences and Center for Comparative
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
to analyse 72 paramete
cal, laboratory and trea
large group of pruritic c
cal areas. Of the 502 c
were made: flea HD (2
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD (
which pruritus was a fe
consistent with a HD b
food trial were not ana
Most cats with nonflea H
with one or more of the
but none of these patt
gnomonic for any spec
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD w
undistinguishable. Youn
DOI
Clinical characteristics and causes of pruritus in cats:
a multicentre study on feline hypersensitivity-
associated dermatoses
Stefan Hobi*, Monika Linek†, Genevie`ve
Marignac‡, Thierry Olivry§, Luc Beco¶, Claudia
Nett**, Jacques Fontaine††, Petra Roosje‡‡,
Kerstin Bergvall§§, Sveta Belova¶¶, Stefanie
Koebrich***, DidierPin†††,MarcelKovalik‡‡‡,
SabrinaMeury*,SylvieWilhelm*,1
and
ClaudeFavrot*,1
*Dermatology Department, Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine,
Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
†Tiera¨rztliche Spezialisten, Hamburg, Germany
‡Unite´ de Parasitologie, E´ cole Nationale Ve´te´rinaire d’Alfort,
Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France
§Department of Clinical Sciences and Center for Comparative
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
¶Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Spa, Belgium
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
Cham, Switzerland
††Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Bruxelles, Belgium
‡‡Division of Clinical Dermatology, Department of Clinical Veterinary
Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
§§Department Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
to analyse 72 parameters covering signalment, clini-
cal, laboratory and treatment characteristics from a
large group of pruritic cats from different geographi-
cal areas. Of the 502 cats, the following diagnoses
were made: flea HD (29% of cases), food HD (12%)
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD (20%) and other diseases in
which pruritus was a feature (24%). Cats with signs
consistent with a HD but which did not complete a
food trial were not analysed further (15% of cases).
Most cats with nonflea HD exhibited signs compatible
with one or more of the four typical lesional patterns,
but none of these patterns was found to be patho-
gnomonic for any specific diagnosis. Food HD and
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD were found to be clinically
undistinguishable. Young adult, purebred and female
cats appeared predisposed to nonflea/nonfood HD.
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
establishment of a specific diagnosis.
Accepted 13 January 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2011.00962.x
Clinical characteristics and causes of pruritus in cats:
a multicentre study on feline hypersensitivity-
associated dermatoses
Stefan Hobi*, Monika Linek†, Genevie`ve
Marignac‡, Thierry Olivry§, Luc Beco¶, Claudia
Nett**, Jacques Fontaine††, Petra Roosje‡‡,
Kerstin Bergvall§§, Sveta Belova¶¶, Stefanie
Koebrich***, DidierPin†††,MarcelKovalik‡‡‡,
SabrinaMeury*,SylvieWilhelm*,1
and
ClaudeFavrot*,1
*Dermatology Department, Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine,
Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
†Tiera¨rztliche Spezialisten, Hamburg, Germany
‡Unite´ de Parasitologie, E´ cole Nationale Ve´te´rinaire d’Alfort,
Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France
§Department of Clinical Sciences and Center for Comparative
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
¶Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Spa, Belgium
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
Cham, Switzerland
to analyse 72 parameters covering signalment, clini-
cal, laboratory and treatment characteristics from a
large group of pruritic cats from different geographi-
cal areas. Of the 502 cats, the following diagnoses
were made: flea HD (29% of cases), food HD (12%)
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD (20%) and other diseases in
which pruritus was a feature (24%). Cats with signs
consistent with a HD but which did not complete a
food trial were not analysed further (15% of cases).
Most cats with nonflea HD exhibited signs compatible
with one or more of the four typical lesional patterns,
but none of these patterns was found to be patho-
gnomonic for any specific diagnosis. Food HD and
nonflea ⁄ nonfood HD were found to be clinically
undistinguishable. Young adult, purebred and female
cats appeared predisposed to nonflea/nonfood HD.
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2011.00962.x
Medicine and Translational Research, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
¶Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Spa, Belgium
**Dermatologie und Allergologie fu¨r Tieren, Kleintierklinik Rigiplatz,
Cham, Switzerland
††Clinique Ve´te´rinaire, Bruxelles, Belgium
‡‡Division of Clinical Dermatology, Department of Clinical Veterinary
Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
§§Department Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
¶¶Department of Therapy, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and
Animal Science, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
***Bruchweg 3, D- 68809, Neulussheim, Germany
†††Unite´ de Dermatologie, VetAgro Sup Campus Ve´te´rinaire, Marcy
L’Etoile, France
‡‡‡The University of Edinburgh, Veterinary Dermatology Unit,
Division of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Hospital for Small Ani-
mals, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh, UK
Correspondence: Claude Favrot, Dermatology Department, Clinic for
Small Animal Internal Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of
Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail: cfavrot@vetclinics.uzh.ch
1
Both the authors contributed equally to this work.
Sources of Funding
Novartis Animal Health, Basel, Switzerland and research funds from
the University of Zurich financed this study.
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest have been declared.
Abstract
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often sus-
pected in cats. Cats with HD are reported to present
with one or more of the following patterns: miliary
dermatitis, eosinophilic dermatitis, self-induced sym-
metrical alopecia or head and/or neck excoriations.
Previous reports on feline HD included small numbers
of animals, took place in geographically restricted
areas or did not compare these conditions with other
causes of pruritus. The goal of the present study was
undistinguishable. Young adult, purebred and female
cats appeared predisposed to nonflea/nonfood HD.
As many diagnoses presented with similar lesional
patterns, a thorough clinical work-up is required for
establishment of a specific diagnosis.
Accepted 13 January 2011
Introduction
Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are often suspected in
companion animals, and these include flea bite hypersen-
sitivity dermatitis, cutaneous adverse food reactions,
urticaria, angioedema and atopic dermatitis (AD).1
The
use of the term ‘feline AD’ remains debatable, however,
because its clinical presentation and histological features
differ markedly from those of its human and canine coun-
terparts. Furthermore, the use of the adjective ‘atopic’
(meaning ‘IgE-mediated’) itself is questionable for this
disease, because the importance of IgE in its pathogenesis
has not been firmly demonstrated.2,3
Very few studies
have investigated the role of IgE in the development of
HD in cats.2,4–6
Additionally, there is evidence suggesting
the heterogeneity of feline IgE and that allergen-specific
IgE serum levels do not correlate with clinical signs of HD
in cats.7–9
Finally, one study reported that up to 35% of
cats with HD have negative allergen-specific intradermal
and serological tests.2
Therefore, and following the current
nomenclature of human and canine allergic skin dis-
eases,10,11
as long as the importance of IgE has not been
firmly demonstrated in cats with pruritic allergic skin dis-
eases, the authors of this paper will not use the term ‘feline
AD’ and replace it with the more generic term of ‘HD’.
The diagnosis of feline nonflea HD (i.e. nonflea bite-
associated HD) is usually based on the exclusion of
ª 2011 The Authors. Veterinary Dermatology
406 ª 2011 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 22, 406–413.

51. when compared with the rest of the study population, nonflea HD (46%) presented more often with two or
Conjunctivitis (%) 13 (8) 8 (8) 5 (8) 4 (3) 8 (7) 0.04 n.s. n.s.
Proportions were analysed using Fisher’s exact test.
Figure 3. Silhouettes depicting the proportion of distribution of lesions in cats with nonflea HD, nonfood HD, food HD and flea HD. NFIHD, non
food induced hypersensitivity dermatitis; NFNFIHD, non flea, non food induced hypersensitivity dermatitis; FIHD, food induced hypersensitivity
dermatitis; FBH, flea bite hypersensitivity.

52. Como tratar?

53. Tratar ou controlar a causa
base
Terapia Tópica Terapia Sistêmica

54. Considerações
Terapia Tópica?
Terapia Sistêmica?
Proprietário X Gato
Comorbidades?
Obeso?

55. Glicocorticóides
Prednisolona oral (1 a 3 mg/kg/SID/ 7 a 30
dias)
Deflazacort oral (0,3 mg/kg/ cada 48h/ 7 a
30 dias
Acetato de metil prednisolona I.M. (4 mg/
kg)

56. Grupos de risco
Sobrepeso
Idosos a partir de 10 anos
Nefropatas
Anormalidades na ausculta cardíaca
FiV e FelV ??

64. Anti-histamínicos
Hidroxizine (2,0 mg/kg ou 10 mg/gato BID)
Cetirizina (1,0 mg/Kg ou 5mg/gato SID)
Ciproheptadina (1,0-2,0 mg/sid/gato)
Loratidina (5 mg/gato)

66. The efficacy of cetirizine hydrochloride on the pruritus
of cats with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-
blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study
Kerstin Wildermuth*,†, Sonja Zabel‡ and Rod A. W. Rosychuk*
*Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 300 West Drake, Fort
Collins, CO 80523, USA
†Tierdermatologie Dr. Wildermuth, Borsigstraße 7a, 65205 Wiesbaden, Germany
‡Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine, 501 DW Brooks Drive, Athens, GA
30602, USA
Correspondence: Kerstin Wildermuth, Tierdermatologie Dr. Wildermuth, Borsigstraße 7a, 65205 Wiesbaden, Germany. E-mail: kerstinw@
tierdermatologie-wildermuth.de
Background – Various antihistamines have been used in the management of feline atopic dermatitis, with vari-
able reported benefit. To date, there have been no randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clini-
cal trials on the use of this drug class in cats.
Hypothesis/Objectives – To evaluate the clinical efficacy of cetirizine hydrochloride for the control of pruritus
and dermatitis in cats diagnosed with atopic dermatitis.
Methods – In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover clinical trial, 21 client-owned cats diag-
nosed with mild to moderate nonseasonal atopic dermatitis were randomly assigned to two groups. Cats in each
group received either 1 mg/kg cetirizine hydrochloride or placebo once daily per os for 28 days followed by a
Vet Dermatol 2013; 24: 576–e138 DOI: 10.1111/vde.12067
Vet Dermatol 2013; 24: 576–e138
19 gatos
1 mg/kg/dia/28 dias
Ausência de efeitos adversos
Results
Cats
Twenty-one cats (10 male castrated and 11 female
spayed) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in
the study. They showed the following clinical signs in
addition to pruritus: self-induced alopecia (10 of 21
cats), self-induced alopecia with dermatitis (7 of 21
cats), facial dermatitis (2 of 21 cats) and self-induced
alopecia with facial dermatitis (2 of 21 cats). Nineteen
cats completed the study. One cat was excluded after
day 28 of the first treatment period due to severity of
clinical signs. One cat was lost to follow-up after
day 28 of the first treatment period for unknown
reasons. The owners of this cat did not return the
forms with the pruritus scales for any of the visits and
therefore only the modified CADESI-03 data on days 0
and 28 of the first treatment period were available for
analysis.
The age range of the study cats was 2–16 years (mean
7.9 years, median 7 years). The cats weighed between
3.1 and 6.6 kg (mean 5.8 kg, median 5.5 kg).
Modified CADESI-03 and pruritus scores
Upon inclusion in the study, the modified CADESI-03
scores ranged from 26 to 112 (mean 45.5). Two of the 19
cats (10.5%) showed a modified CADESI-03 score
improvement of >50% at day 28 of treatment with CTZ.
In one cat (5.3%), the modified CADESI score worsened
by >50% at day 28 of treatment with CTZ. Four of 19 pla-
cebo-treated cats (21%) showed improvement of >50%
at day 28. In one placebo-treated cat (5.3%), the modified
CADESI-03 score worsened by >50% at day 28. There
were no statistical differences in modified CADESI-03
scores between the CTZ- or PBO-treated cats when data
were either evaluated continuously or dichotomized.
Pruritus scores at the beginning of the study ranged
from 4.0 to 7.5 (mean 5.1). In two of 19 CTZ-treated cats
(10.5%), pruritus scores improved by >50% at day 28.
None of the CTZ-treated cats had an increase in pruritus
score of >50%.
One PBO-treated cat (5.2%) showed an improvement
of >50% at day 28. One PBO-treated cat (5.2%) showed
an increase of pruritus score by >50% at day 28; this cat
was one of the patients that showed a > 50% improve-
ment in pruritus score and also a > 50% improvement in
the modified CADESI-03 score while being treated with
CTZ.
There were no significant statistical differences
between the CTZ- and PBO-treated cat pruritus scores
when the data were considered continuously or dichoto-
mized. Changes in modified CADESI-03 and pruritus
scores over time are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Adverse events
None of the cats showed adverse effects to CTZ during
the study period.
Discussion
In this study, CTZ-treated cats showed a >50% improve-
ment of modified CADESI-03 scores and pruritus scores
Figure 3. Modified CADESI-03 scores before and after treatment
with cetirizine hydrochloride (CTZ; n = 19) and placebo (PBO;
n = 21). Values are means Æ SD.
© 2013 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology , 24, 576–e138. 579
Não é recomendada para controle de prurido em
gatos atópicos!

67. Feline atopic dermatitis: a retrospective study of 45
cases (2001–2012)
Philippa A. Ravens*, Bei J. Xu† and Linda J. Vogelnest*
*Small Animal Specialist Hospital, Level 1, 1 Richardson Place, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
†University of Sydney Veterinary Teaching Hospital, 410 Werombi Road, Brownlow Hill, NSW 2570, Australia
Correspondence: Philippa A. Ravens, Small Animal Specialist Hospital, Level 1, 1 Richardson Place, North Ryde, NSW 2135, Australia.
E-mail:pravens@sashvets.com
Background – Atopic dermatitis (AD) is recognized as a common cause of pruritus in cats, but it remains incom-
pletely characterized.
Hypothesis/Objectives – The aim of the study was to evaluate cases of confirmed feline AD.
Animals – Fourty-five cats from a dermatology referral practice (2001–2012).
Methods – A retrospective case record review was carried out using strict diagnostic criteria, including exclusion
of flea-bite hypersensitivity and adverse food reaction.
Results – Disease prevalence was 12.5%, with domestic mixed (n = 24), Abyssinian (n = 6) and Devon rex
(n = 3) cat breeds predisposed. Median age of onset was 2 years (62% <3 years; 22% >7 years; range
3 months to 12 years). Common presentations were severe (82%), nonseasonal (82%), waxing/waning (36%)
pruritus, with alopecia/crusting/excoriations and/or erosions/ulceration (73%). Miliary dermatitis (20%) and eosin-
ophilic granuloma complex lesions (27%) occurred. The face/head (71%), ventral abdomen (51%), neck (51%),
limbs (38%), pinnae (31%), dorsum/rump (31%) and feet (16%) were frequently affected sites; lesions were
Vet Dermatol 2014 DOI: 10.1111/vde.12109
BOA$RESPOSTA=$6%$
RESPOSTA$PARCIAL=$59%$
RESPOSTA$POBRE=$34%$
n=19=>$Lora:dina$$5$mg/gato$ n=18=>$Ce:rizina$5$mg/gato$

68. Ciclosporina
Dose: 7mg/kg/sid/VO
Pode ser administrado junto a refeição!

69. Ciclosporina
CONTRA'INDICAÇÕES.
! Gatos.com.histórico.de.doença.crônica.ou.
suspeita.de.malignidade.(neoplasia).
! Gatos.FIV.ou.FeLV.++.
! Dermatofitose/Esporotricose.
INDICAÇÕES*
! Controle*de*prurido*a*longo*prazo*
! Refratários*a*corticoterapia*
! Diabéticos**

70. Ciclosporina
INTERAÇÕES*MEDICAMENTOSAS*
! Cetoconazol*
! Itraconazol*
! Claritromicina*

71. A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled study
to evaluate an effective ciclosporin dose for the
treatment of feline hypersensitivity dermatitis
Stephen King*, Claude Favrot†, Linda Messinger‡, Tim Nuttall§, Jean Steffan*, Sophie Forster*
and Wolfgang Seewald*
*Novartis Animal Health, Schwarzwaldallee 214, Basel, Switzerland
†Dermatology Department, Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
‡Veterinary Referral Center of Colorado – Dermatology ⁄ Allergy, 3550 South Jason Street, Englewood, CO 80110, USA
§Department of Infection Biology, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, UK
Correspondence: Stephen King, Novartis Animal Health, Schwarzwaldallee 214, Basel, Switzerland. E-mail: stephen.king@novartis.com
Background – Hypersensitivity dermatitides (HD) are frequently suspected in cats, but there are few clinical
studies on safe and effective treatments in the published literature.
Objectives – To establish a safe and effective dose of ciclosporin in the treatment of feline HD.
Animals – One hundred client-owned cats with feline HD.
Methods – Double-blind study, with cats randomly assigned to receive ciclosporin at either 7.0 mg ⁄ kg once daily
(n = 33) or 2.5 mg ⁄ kg once daily (n = 32) or a placebo (n = 35) for 6 weeks.
Results – Mean Total Lesion Scores with 7.0 mg ⁄ kg ciclosporin were significantly lower than with 2.5 mg ⁄ kg
ciclosporin (P = 0.0047) or placebo (P = 0.0003) at study end. Individual Total Lesion Scores improved by >50%
in 70% of the 7.0 mg ⁄ kg group, compared with 47% in the 2.5 mg ⁄ kg group and 23% in the placebo group
(P = 0.0006). The investigators’ Global Assessment of Improvement was ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ in 61% of cats
treated with 7.0 mg ⁄ kg ciclosporin, compared with 47% of cats given 2.5 mg ⁄ kg and 23% given placebo. The
improvement in Investigator Pruritus Scores was significantly greater in cats treated with 7.0 mg ⁄ kg ciclosporin
(54%) compared with both 2.5 mg ⁄ kg ciclosporin (32%; P = 0.0232) and placebo (21%; P = 0.0063). Mild gas-
trointestinal disorders were the most common adverse events, but these did not require cessation of therapy.
Conclusions and clinical importance – Results suggest that 7.0 mg ⁄ kg ciclosporin once daily in food or per os
for 6 weeks is effective and well tolerated in feline HD.
Vet Dermatol 2012; 23: 440–e84 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2012.01086.x
7 mg/kg/dia

72. Dose tapering for ciclosporin in cats with
nonflea-induced hypersensitivity dermatitis
Jean Steffan*, Elizabeth Roberts†, Andrea Cannon‡, Pascal Prelaud§, Peter Forsythe¶, Jacques
Fontaine**, Stephen King† and Wolfgang Seewald*
*Novartis Animal Health, Schwarzwaldallee 214, Basel, Switzerland
†Novartis Animal Health US, Inc., 3200, Northline Ave., Greensboro, NC 27408, USA
‡Animal Dermatology Allergy, 3924 Oakdale Road, Modesto, CA 95357, USA
§Clinique Advetia, 5 rue Dubrunfaut, 75012, Paris, France
¶Veterinary Dermatology Referrals, Glasgow, G51 1RN, UK
**Animalclinic, Avenue Brugmann 425, Brussels, 1180, Belgium
Correspondence: Jean Steffan, Novartis Animal Health, Schwarzwaldallee 214, Basel, Switzerland. E-mail: jean.steffan@novartis.com
Background – Little information is available on the ciclosporin dose-tapering regimen and clinical response in
the treatment of feline hypersensitivity dermatitis.
Hypothesis/Objectives – To test a dose-tapering regimen and assess efficacy and clinical safety for up to
18 weeks.
Animals – Eighty-eight client-owned cats with feline hypersensitivity dermatitis.
Methods – Cats that received either a placebo or ciclosporin at 2.5 mg/kg or 7 mg/kg daily for 6 weeks were
given 7 mg/kg ciclosporin daily for 4 weeks. Depending on the clinical response, the dose was tapered from daily
to every other day over the next 4 weeks and further to twice a week for an additional 4 weeks.
Results – After all cats received 7 mg/kg for 4 weeks, the dose could be tapered to every other day for the
Vet Dermatol 2013 DOI: 10.1111/vde.12018
Dose: 7 mg/kg/SID/ 4 semanas
7 mg/kg/48h/4 sem (em15%)
7 mg/kg/ 2x/sem (em 57%)
88 gatos
Em até 70%
Veterinary Dermatology 2013; 24: 315–e70.

73. Adverse events in 50 cats with allergic dermatitis
receiving ciclosporin
Nicole A. Heinrich, Patrick J. McKeever and
Melissa C. Eisenschenk
McKeever Dermatology Clinics, Inc., Eden Prairie,
MN, USA
Correspondence: Nicole A. Heinrich, McKeever Dermatology
Clinics, Inc. 7723 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344, USA.
E-mail: heinrichderm@gmail.com
Sources of Funding
This study is self-funded.
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest have been declared.
Parts of this study were published as an abstract from the 25th North
American Veterinary Dermatology Forum in Portland, OR, USA; Vet-
erinary Dermatology 2010; 21: 326.
Abstract
Ciclosporin is an immunosuppressive drug that
has been used to treat allergies and other immune-
mediated diseases in cats, dogs and humans. Infor-
Introduction
Feline allergic dermatitis is characterized by pruritus and
varying degrees of alopecia, erythema and crusting.1
These lesions generally affect the head, neck, forelegs,
groin, lateral thorax and caudal thighs.1
Feline allergic
dermatitis varies in severity; some cats require minimal
or no treatment, while other cats require intensive, daily
therapy.
Corticosteroids are often used to treat feline allergic
dermatitis, but adverse effects (such as diabetes mell-
itus2
) associated with this therapy have stimulated inter-
est in alternative treatments.
The use of ciclosporin is gaining acceptance for treat-
ment of feline allergic dermatitis, as several studies and
anecdotal reports have demonstrated efficacy and appar-
ent safety.3,4
The true safety of this drug is of concern, as
only limited data are available that specifically address the
adverse effects of ciclosporin in cats.5–7
Ciclosporin treatment in cats has been associated with
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2011.00983.x
Adverse events in 50 cats with allergic dermatitis
receiving ciclosporin
Nicole A. Heinrich, Patrick J. McKeever and
Melissa C. Eisenschenk
McKeever Dermatology Clinics, Inc., Eden Prairie,
MN, USA
Correspondence: Nicole A. Heinrich, McKeever Dermatology
Clinics, Inc. 7723 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344, USA.
E-mail: heinrichderm@gmail.com
Sources of Funding
This study is self-funded.
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest have been declared.
Parts of this study were published as an abstract from the 25th North
American Veterinary Dermatology Forum in Portland, OR, USA; Vet-
erinary Dermatology 2010; 21: 326.
Abstract
Ciclosporin is an immunosuppressive drug that
Introduction
Feline allergic dermatitis is characterized by
varying degrees of alopecia, erythema and
These lesions generally affect the head, nec
groin, lateral thorax and caudal thighs.1
Fe
dermatitis varies in severity; some cats requ
or no treatment, while other cats require inte
therapy.
Corticosteroids are often used to treat fe
dermatitis, but adverse effects (such as dia
itus2
) associated with this therapy have stim
est in alternative treatments.
The use of ciclosporin is gaining acceptan
ment of feline allergic dermatitis, as several
anecdotal reports have demonstrated efficacy
ent safety.3,4
The true safety of this drug is of
only limited data are available that specifically
5–7
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.
rence and clinical appearance of adverse events in
cats receiving ciclosporin to treat allergic skin disease.
The medical records of 50 cats with allergic dermatitis
treated with oral ciclosporin (1.9–7.3 mg⁄kg⁄day)
were reviewed. Adverse events occurred in 66% (33
cats). Adverse events likely to be associated with
ciclosporin included the following: vomiting or diar-
rhoea within 1–8 weeks of receiving ciclosporin
(24%), weight loss (16%), anorexia and subsequent
hepatic lipidosis (2%) and gingival hyperplasia (2%).
Other adverse events less likely to be associated with
ciclosporin therapy included the following: weight
gain (14%), dental tartar and gingivitis (10%), otitis
(4%), chronic diarrhoea (4%), inflammatory bowel
disease with indolent gastrointestinal lymphoma
(2%), urinary tract infection (2%), cataract (2%), ele-
vated liver enzymes (2%), hyperthyroidism and renal
failure (2%) and transient inappropriate urination
(2%). Some cats experienced multiple adverse events.
Case–control studies are needed to prove cause and
effect of ciclosporin with regard to these adverse
events.
Accepted 30 March 2011
ª 2011 The Authors. Veterinary Dermatology
ª 2011 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 22, 511–520.

74. Table 3. Number of adverse events by category
Adverse event
Number
of cats
Vomiting, diarrhoea and ⁄ or anorexia within 1–8 weeks
of starting ciclosporin
12
Weight loss 8
Dental tartar and gingivitis 7
Weight gain 5
Chronic diarrhoea after receiving ciclosporin for
12 months or more
2
Diabetes mellitus 2
Otitis 2
Severe inflammatory bowel disease, indolent
gastrointestinal lymphoma and mild hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy
1
Hepatic lipidosis 1
Elevated liver enzymes 1
Gingival hyperplasia 1
Transient inappropriate urination 1
Urinary tract infection 1
Corneal ulcer 1
Constipation 1
Transient coughing and sneezing 1
Hyperthyroidism with subsequent chronic renal failure 1

80. Subcutaneous administration of ciclosporin in 11
allergic cats – a pilot open-label uncontrolled clinical
trial
Sandra N. Koch* , Sheila M. F. Torres*, Sandra Diaz†, Sophie Gilbert§ and Aaron Rendahl‡
*Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55018, USA
†Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, 601 Vernon Tharp Street, Columbus, OH 43210, USA,
§Centre Veterinaire Laval, 4530 Highway 440, Laval, Quebec Canada, H7T 2P7 and
‡Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55018, USA
Correspondence: Sheila M. F. Torres, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN
55018, USA. E-mail: torre009@umn.edu
Background – Oral ciclosporin has been reported to be efficacious for feline inflammatory skin diseases; how-
ever, cats are often difficult to medicate orally.
Hypothesis/Objective – To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of subcutaneous ciclosporin administered to
cats with allergic skin disease.
Animals – Eleven client-owned cats with nonseasonal clinical signs.
Methods – Prospective open label trial. Ciclosporin 50 mg/mL solution for injection (Sandimuneâ, Novartis; NJ,
USA) was administered subcutaneously for 60 days with initial doses ranging from 2.5 mg/kg once daily (one
cat) to every other day (five cats) and 5 mg/kg once daily (four cats) to every other day (one cat). Dosages
were adjusted monthly if needed based on clinical response. Clinical response was assessed using a modified
FeDESI (feline Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index) and PVAS (pruritus Visual Analog Scale) between days (D)
0, 30 and 60.
Results – Six cats completed the study and four of five cats withdrawn from the study were included in an inten-
tion-to-treat analysis. There was significant decrease in FeDESI and PVAS scores between D0 and D30, D0 and
D60 and D30 and D60 (P 0.05) in all ten cats.
Conclusions and clinical importance – Ciclosporin administered subcutaneously at initial doses of 2.5-5 mg/
kg, once daily to alternate days, appears to be an efficacious therapy for feline allergic dermatitis and may be an
alternative therapy for cats that cannot be treated orally. Randomized and controlled long term studies which
include a larger number of cats are needed to confirm these findings.
Vet Dermatol 2017 DOI: 10.1111/vde.12505
Subcutaneous administration of ciclosporin in 11
allergic cats – a pilot open-label uncontrolled clinical
trial
Sandra N. Koch* , Sheila M. F. Torres*, Sandra Diaz†, Sophie Gilbert§ and Aaron Rendahl‡
*Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55018, USA
†Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, 601 Vernon Tharp Street, Columbus, OH 43210, USA,
§Centre Veterinaire Laval, 4530 Highway 440, Laval, Quebec Canada, H7T 2P7 and
‡Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55018, USA
Correspondence: Sheila M. F. Torres, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN
55018, USA. E-mail: torre009@umn.edu
Background – Oral ciclosporin has been reported to be efficacious for feline inflammatory skin diseases; how-
ever, cats are often difficult to medicate orally.
Hypothesis/Objective – To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of subcutaneous ciclosporin administered to
cats with allergic skin disease.
Animals – Eleven client-owned cats with nonseasonal clinical signs.
Methods – Prospective open label trial. Ciclosporin 50 mg/mL solution for injection (Sandimuneâ, Novartis; NJ,
USA) was administered subcutaneously for 60 days with initial doses ranging from 2.5 mg/kg once daily (one
cat) to every other day (five cats) and 5 mg/kg once daily (four cats) to every other day (one cat). Dosages
were adjusted monthly if needed based on clinical response. Clinical response was assessed using a modified
FeDESI (feline Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index) and PVAS (pruritus Visual Analog Scale) between days (D)
0, 30 and 60.
Results – Six cats completed the study and four of five cats withdrawn from the study were included in an inten-
tion-to-treat analysis. There was significant decrease in FeDESI and PVAS scores between D0 and D30, D0 and
D60 and D30 and D60 (P 0.05) in all ten cats.
Conclusions and clinical importance – Ciclosporin administered subcutaneously at initial doses of 2.5-5 mg/
kg, once daily to alternate days, appears to be an efficacious therapy for feline allergic dermatitis and may be an
alternative therapy for cats that cannot be treated orally. Randomized and controlled long term studies which
include a larger number of cats are needed to confirm these findings.
Vet Dermatol 2017 DOI: 10.1111/vde.12505
Ciclosporina 50
mg/ml SC
Dose: 2.5 a 5.0 mg /Kg/SID
ou EDA

81. impact of therapy on pruritus. Pairwise analyses showed
significant pruritus decrease between D0 and D30
(P = 0.028), D0 and D60 (P = 0.026) and D30 and D60
(P = 0.034). Figure 1 and Table S2 show the individual
scores.
attempt to taper the frequency of injections failed with
recurrence of pruritus with or without skin lesions and
alopecia. No adverse reactions were reported during the
follow-up visits. Table S1 provides further details on
treatment duration.
Figure 1. Feline Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index and pruritus Visual Analog Scale (range 0-10) scores on days (D) 0, 30 and 60 in 10 cats with
allergic skin disease (Cat 10 not included).
© 2017 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology 3

82. Subcutaneous administration of ciclosporin in 11
allergic cats – a pilot open-label uncontrolled clinical
trial
Sandra N. Koch* , Sheila M. F. Torres*, Sandra Diaz†, Sophie Gilbert§ and Aaron Rendahl‡
*Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55018, USA
†Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, 601 Vernon Tharp Street, Columbus, OH 43210, USA,
§Centre Veterinaire Laval, 4530 Highway 440, Laval, Quebec Canada, H7T 2P7 and
‡Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55018, USA
Correspondence: Sheila M. F. Torres, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN
55018, USA. E-mail: torre009@umn.edu
Background – Oral ciclosporin has been reported to be efficacious for feline inflammatory skin diseases; how-
ever, cats are often difficult to medicate orally.
Hypothesis/Objective – To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of subcutaneous ciclosporin administered to
cats with allergic skin disease.
Animals – Eleven client-owned cats with nonseasonal clinical signs.
Methods – Prospective open label trial. Ciclosporin 50 mg/mL solution for injection (Sandimuneâ, Novartis; NJ,
USA) was administered subcutaneously for 60 days with initial doses ranging from 2.5 mg/kg once daily (one
cat) to every other day (five cats) and 5 mg/kg once daily (four cats) to every other day (one cat). Dosages
were adjusted monthly if needed based on clinical response. Clinical response was assessed using a modified
FeDESI (feline Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index) and PVAS (pruritus Visual Analog Scale) between days (D)
0, 30 and 60.
Results – Six cats completed the study and four of five cats withdrawn from the study were included in an inten-
tion-to-treat analysis. There was significant decrease in FeDESI and PVAS scores between D0 and D30, D0 and
D60 and D30 and D60 (P 0.05) in all ten cats.
Conclusions and clinical importance – Ciclosporin administered subcutaneously at initial doses of 2.5-5 mg/
kg, once daily to alternate days, appears to be an efficacious therapy for feline allergic dermatitis and may be an
alternative therapy for cats that cannot be treated orally. Randomized and controlled long term studies which
include a larger number of cats are needed to confirm these findings.
Vet Dermatol 2017 DOI: 10.1111/vde.12505
Efeitos adversos em
54.5% dos casos
5 gatos = lesões no local da aplicação 7 a 10 dias
após.
1 gato = alteração comportamental

84. Oclacitinib
Apoquel®
Oclacitinib in feline nonflea-, nonfood-induced
hypersensitivity dermatitis: results of a small
prospective pilot study of client-owned cats
Christian Ortalda*, Chiara Noli†, Silvia Colombo‡ and Stefano Borio§
*Servizi Dermatologici Veterinari, Strada Revigliasco 11, Moncalieri, 10024, Italy
†Servizi Dermatologici Veterinari, Strada Bedale della Ressia 2, Peveragno, 12016, Italy
‡Servizi Dermatologici Veterinari, via Felice Musazzi 24, Legnano, 20025, Italy
§Servizi Dermatologici Veterinari, via Italia 12, San Mauro Torinese, 10099, Italy
Correspondence: Chiara Noli, Servizi Dermatologici Veterinari, Strada Bedale della Ressia 2, 12016 Peveragno (CN), Italy. E-mail: info@dermatologia
veterinaria.it
Background – Oclacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor that decreases pruritus and lesions in allergic dogs. In cats,
it is able to inhibit interleukin-31-induced pruritus; no information is available on its clinical effectiveness.
Hypothesis/Objectives – To evaluate the efficacy, ease of administration and tolerability of oclacitinib in feline
nonflea-, nonfood-induced hypersensitivity dermatitis.
Methods – Cats 12 months of age and 3 kg body weight with a diagnosis of nonflea-, nonfood-induced hyper-
sensitivity dermatitis were treated with oclacitinib, 0.4–0.6 mg/kg orally (p.o.) twice daily for 2 weeks, then once
daily for an additional 14 days. Clinical lesions were evaluated with the Scoring Feline Allergic Dermatitis (SCOR-
FAD) system and pruritus was evaluated with a 10-cm-long visual analog scale (VAS) before and at the end of the
study. Owners assessed global efficacy, ease of administration and tolerability with a four-point scale.
Results – Twelve cats were treated with a mean initial oclacitinib dose of 0.47 mg/kg p.o. twice daily. There was
good improvement in SCORFAD and VAS pruritus scores in five of 12 cases, while the other cats were
unchanged, deteriorated or dropped out due to treatment failure. Owners scored global efficacy as good/excel-
lent in four of 12 cases and ease of administration and tolerability as good/excellent in 10 of 12.
Conclusions and clinical importance – Oclacitinib at 0.4–0.6 mg/kg p.o. may be an effective and safe drug for
some cats with nonflea-, nonfood-induced hypersensitivity dermatitis. Further studies are needed to identify the
most effective dose range for this species.
safe and effective; serial clinical examinations and com-
Vet Dermatol 2015; 26: 235–e52 DOI: 10.1111/vde.12218
Melhora em 5/12 gatos
Dose: 04-0.6 mg/kg/bid

85. Abstracts of the 29th Annual Congress
of the ECVD-ESVD, 7-9th September 2015,
Lausanne, Switzerland
Novel serum biomarkers of oxidative
stress in canine atopic dermatitis
R. M. ALMELA*, U. MAYER*, C. P. RUBIO†
,
A. ANSON‡
, A. TICHY‡
and J. J. CERON†
*Kleintierspezialisten Augsburg €Uberweisungszentrum,
Augsburg, Germany
†
Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis, Campus
Excellence Mare Nostrum, Murcia, Spain
‡
Veterin€armedizinische Universit€at Wien, Vienna, Austria
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a disease with a highly complex
and not fully understood pathophysiology. Oxidative
stress (OS) has been shown to be involved in the patho-
genesis of human and canine AD by several distinct
mechanisms. Recently, novel serum biomarkers of OS
(sbOS) have been validated in normal dogs; they do not
appear to have been studied in dogs with AD, however.
The aim of this prospective, cohort-controlled study was
to compare a panel of novel sbOS (thiol [THIOL], ferric
reducing ability of the plasma [FRAP], cupric reducing
antioxidant capacity [CUPRAC], trolox equivalent antioxi-
dant capacity [TEAC], trolox equivalent antioxidant capac-
ity-B [TEAC-B], and ferrous oxidation-xylenol orange
[FOX]) in normal and atopic dogs. To evaluate the antioxi-
dant response, we assessed the levels of the THIOL,
FRAP, CUPRAC, TEAC and TEAC-B parameters, while
that of FOX was measured as a biomarker of oxidative
damage. We included 46 healthy dogs, nine client owned
dogs with nonfood-induced and three with food-induced
AD. The mean serum levels for THIOL, CUPRAC, TEAC
and TEAC-B were significantly lower in all categories of
dogs with AD (NFIAD + FIAD; NFIAD; FIAD) compared to
those of healthy dogs; whereas FOX and FRAP values
were significantly higher in the atopic group (two-tailed t-
tests/Mann–Whitney test, P 0.05 for all). These find-
ings suggest that oxidative stress could play an important
role in the pathogenesis of canine AD. In addition, the
evaluation of sbOS could be useful to help detect subsets
of atopic dogs who might benefit of antioxidant therapies.
Use of RNAScope in situ hybridization
to assess the context-specific
expression of genes in canine tissues
G. BAMMERT, S. DUNHAM, C. HEDKE and
A. GONZALES
Zoetis, Kalamazoo, MI, USA
Understanding disease pathogenesis often involves mon-
itoring differential gene expression through comparison
of RNA from healthy, model and diseased cell popula-
tions; such studies eventually lead to the examination of
protein-based cellular imbalances that are fundamental to
better understand disease mechanism. RNAScope in situ
hybridization (RNA-ISH) overcomes the technical chal-
lenges involved with signal amplification, as it allows sin-
gle gene expression to be monitored in the context of
cellular and tissue morphological changes. We describe
the use of RNA-ISH to probe the expression of selected
genes (il4r, il13ra1, il31ra, trpv1 and ntrk1) in normal bea-
gle skin, dorsal root ganglia (DRG) and spinal cord tissues:
these genes were chosen for their association with atopic
dermatitis or the neuronal signal transduction of itch and
pain sensations. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded
(FFPE) tissues were probed using the Leica Bond Rx with
haematoxylin counter-staining to define nuclei, while
proximal sections were HE-stained to capture cellular
and tissue morphology. Staining was qualified with a con-
stitutive positive (PPIB) and negative (DapB) controls. All
genes appeared similarly expressed in canine skin. While,
Il4r and il13ra1 were absent from dog DRGs, there was a
robust expression of il31ra, trpv1 and ntrk1 in these neu-
rons. Our results describe a step forward in understand-
ing a context-specific expression of genes relevant to
canine atopic dermatitis. These methods will likely play
an important role in understanding how a clinical disease
relates to tissue gene expression, and they may allow for
the development of relevant cellular models for assess-
ment of drug safety and efficacy.
Vet Dermatol 2017 DOI: 10.1111/vde.12468
festations of atopic dermatitis (AD).
hat responded positively to the initial
tmab treatment in a positive-controlled
nrolled into this trial. These dogs were
thly subcutaneous injections with loki-
x additional administrations at the mini-
1 mg/kg. Prior to each monthly
owners assessed pruritus levels using
ale (VAS) while investigators assessed
g the CADESI-03. Blood was drawn
thology, drug exposures) and urine col-
months (urinalysis). At the end of this
months, the mean VAS (which reached
CADESI-03 (reduced to 32) remained
pective values at the start of this exten-
e months of lokivetmab injections, 45/
ere assessed as being “normal” with
uritus levels (VAS score ≤ 19) and 35 of
deemed with skin lesions “in remis-
≤ 15). None of the observed adverse
ributable to lokivetmab; treatment-
enicity (i.e. anti-lokivetmab antibody
s not seen in any dog. This study
lokivetmab injections were well toler-
months at a monthly minimum dose of
vided a continuous and robust efficacy
us and skin lesions in dogs with AD.
Zoetis.
: All authors are employees of Zoetis.
valuation of the speed of
er against Ixodes ricinus
D. A. CAVALLERI, W. SEEWALD,
S. NANCHEN
tzerland
ine lotilaner is rapidly absorbed follow-
of a chewable tablet formulation (Cre-
eenfield, IN, USA) to dogs, and it
or a minimum of 1 month against fleas
udy was conducted to determine its
st ticks. Thirty two dogs were random-
: two received lotilaner tablets at a min-
20 mg/kg and two were left untreated.
xodes ricinus were performed on Days
nd 35. Counts were completed 4 and
8 and 12 h following the subsequent
ve ticks were incubated, without loti-
owing removal. At 4 h post-treatment,
reduction in geometric mean live tick
dogs compared to controls. After incu-
There were no treatment-related adverse events.Loti-
laner, at a minimum dose rate of 20 mg/kg, was well tol-
erated and began to kill ticks on dogs within 4 h of
treatment; its efficacy was 100% within 8 h. Lotilaner
sustained a rapid kill of I. ricinus ticks throughout this
35 day study.
Source of funding: Elanco.
Conflicts of interest: All authors are employed by Elanco.
Efficacy of oclacitinib in allergic cats: a
multicentre randomised, blinded,
methylprednisolone-controlled study
C. NOLI*, I. MATRICOTI* and C. SCHIEVANO†
*Servizi Dermatologici Veterinari, Peveragno, Italy
†
Universita di Padova, Padova, Italy
Oclacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor that decreases inter-
leukin-31-induced pruritus in cats. At 0.4-0.6 mg/kg/day
orally, it relieves pruritus and skin lesions in less than half
of allergic cats. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and
safety of a higher dosage of oclacitinib in feline non-flea-
non-food-induced hypersensitivity dermatitis (NFNFIHD).
Affected cats were randomly assigned to receive oclac-
itinib (group A, 18 cats, 0.8–1.3 mg/kg) or methylpred-
nisolone (group B, 14, 0.5–1 mg/kg) orally, twice daily for
28 days. On Day 1 and 28, veterinarians evaluated lesions
with the Scoring Feline Allergic Dermatitis (SCORFAD)
scale, while owners assessed pruritus with a 10-cm
visual analogue scale (VAS) and quality of life (QoL) with a
validated questionnaire. Haematochemical tests were
performed before and after treatment. Results were anal-
ysed with a General Linear Mixed Model (significance:
P 0.05). There were no significant differences between
parameters at baseline. In both groups, values improved
significantly over time. In cats treated with oclacitinib, the
mean percentage reduction in SCORFAD and VAS was
62 and 51%, respectively. In those treated with methyl-
prednisolone, decreases were 77% and 74%, respec-
tively; there was no significant difference between
groups at study end. No response was seen in five and
one cat from groups A and B, respectively. Scores of QoL
improved similarly in both groups (26 versus 23%). Hae-
matochemical changes were not noted on any cat. In con-
clusion, oclacitinib at 0.8–1.3 mg/kg twice daily orally
appears safe for 28 days, and it is as effective as methyl-
prednisolone for the treatment of feline NFNFIHD.
Source of funding: European Society of Veterinary Der-
matology.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
VD 2017
18 gatos tratados com
0.8 a 1.3 mg/kg /sid/28 dias
Redução lesões= 62%
Redução prurido =51%

86. Conclusões
Necessidade de mais estudos na
dermatologia felina
Sempre buscar a causa base
O sucesso do tratamento depende
da cooperação do gato e seu serviçal

87. alessandravieiravet@gmail.com
Obrigada!!