what can help a dogs brain due to drug reaction
Front Vet Sci. 2016; 3: 27.
Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions in Dogs Treated with Antiepileptic Drugs
Tina Koch
oneClinic of Pocket-size Animal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Frg
Ralf S. Mueller
1Clinic of Modest Animal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Federal republic of germany
Britta Dobenecker
2Department of Veterinary Sciences, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany
Andrea Fischer
1Clinic of Small-scale Animal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian Academy Munich, Munich, Germany
Received 2015 Dec 15; Accepted 2016 Mar xiv.
Abstract
Epilepsy is i of the about common neurologic disorders in dogs and life-long treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AED) is frequently required. Adverse events of AED targeting the peel are simply rarely reported in veterinarian medicine and the true incidence and spectrum of cutaneous reactions in epileptic dogs remains unknown. In this study, nosotros hypothesized that cutaneous reactions ordinarily occur in epileptic dogs and are related to AED treatment. A retrospective instance 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 post-obit initiation of AED therapy in 10.9% of dogs treated for epilepsy (95% CI 6.8–17.vii%). Cutaneous lesions were classified as probably drug-induced in xl.0% of these cases. Patch testing and intradermal testing were further investigated every bit potential diagnostic methods to confirm AED hypersensitivity. They were of high specificity only sensitivity and positive predictive value appeared inappropriate to recommend their routine use in clinical practice.
Keywords: epilepsy, phenobarbital, antiepileptic drug, adverse reaction, dermatologic, peel, side effects, patch test
Introduction
Anticonvulsant agents are well known to crusade adverse drug reactions (ADR) in dogs and cats, and ADRs are a major concern for owners of epileptic dogs (i, 2). However, in those species, effects, which are not immunologically mediated such equally polyphagia, polydipsia/polyuria, sedation, and clutter, or an activation of liver enzymes predominate (3, four). In that location are only few case reports in the scientific literature regarding allowed-mediated hypersensitivity reactions against antiepileptic handling in animals including blood cell dyscrasias (five, 6), idiosyncratic hepatopathy (caused by zonisamide) (7, 8), or cutaneous disorders. Superficial necrolytic dermatitis (SND) or more appropriate metabolic epidermal necrosis (MEN) was described to appear after several months to years of phenobarbital (PB) therapy and evidence supported its origin as a hepatocutaneous syndrome (9, 10). Dermatologic signs take also been a concern in dogs treated with potassium bromide (panniculitis) (xi, 12) and zonisamide (erythema multiforme) (13).
Adverse drug reactions are divided into two categories: type 1 ADRs are not immune mediated and attributed to physical or chemical backdrop of the agent or its metabolites. They are dose dependent and predictable. Type 2 ADRs are immune mediated, idiosyncratic, and occur unpredictably. The machinery of this type of ADR is non completely understood (14, 15). Information technology is presumed that all four principal types of allowed reaction – as defined past Gell and Coombs – play a significant role in drug allergy (xiv). Manifestations of drug-induced allergic reactions can affect numerous organ systems and atomic number 82 to liver impairment, lymphadenopathy, pneumonia, or hematologic abnormalities, although cutaneous manifestations are well-nigh common (xvi).
In human medicine, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are well known to cause cutaneous ADRs in about 3% of patients treated with an AED (17). These allowed-mediated hypersensitivity reactions can range from more than frequent mild urticarioid or maculopapular eruptions to severe systemic reactions such equally Anticonvulsant Hypersensitivity Syndrome (AHS) (17–19). It is suggested that AHS is triggered by a delayed type immune reaction (Type 4), since drug-specific T-cells appear to play a significant role (twenty), but several other approaches are discussed to be involved in pathogenesis such as cohesive viral infections with human being herpes virus Types half dozen and vii or cytomegalovirus (21, 22). Furthermore, recent investigations indicate that genetic factors predispose to the development of an adverse reaction against AED (23), such as a genetically caused deficiency of detoxifying enzymes, which leads to an aggregating of toxic metabolites (19, 21, 22, 24). Management of ADRs in patients with epilepsy creates specific challenges as any change in AED treatment schedule may increase the risk for seizure recurrence, cluster seizures, or condition epilepticus. Patch testing (PT) and intradermal testing (IDT) have been introduced in human medical practice during the last decades in social club to predict the probability of an ADR confronting AED (20, 21).
Nosotros hypothesized that cutaneous signs occur more commonly in dogs treated with AEDs than reported in scientific literature. So, the aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of AED-treated dogs that adult dermatologic signs and whether these signs are consistent with an ADR. A secondary goal was the investigation of PT and IDT as diagnostic methods.
Materials and Methods
Retrospective Evaluation of Agin Events
Medical records of epileptic dogs seen between 01/2007 and 12/2012 were reviewed for documentation of adverse events after initiation of AEDs. Inclusion criteria were a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy (idiopathic or structural) according to published criteria (25), medical treatment with 1 or more AEDs, and at least ane follow-upwards visit in the clinic at least ii weeks after drug initiation. Exclusion criteria were presence of or strong suspicion for a systemic disease prior to initiation of AED therapy or simultaneous handling with other drugs at the time of occurrence of agin events. In full, 185 dogs were included. All data collected, including blood parameters (hematology, chemistry, liver function examination), results of the clinical examination, besides as owner-reported agin events, were reviewed. The records were peculiarly screened for appearance of adverse events afterward initiation of AED therapy such as polydipsia/polyuria, polyphagia, ataxia, sedation, gastrointestinal signs, pancreatitis, hepatopathy, hematologic changes, behavioral changes, respiratory signs, and in particular dermatologic abnormalities. Dermatologic signs were documented by clinicians as role of structurally conducted history and examination. Pancreatitis was assumed if specific canine pancreatic lipase was increased and additionally matching clinical signs and/or matching ultrasonographic findings were present. Hepatopathy was causeless if blood values (decreased albumin, decreased full protein, increased bilirubin, increased ammonia, and increased bile acids in liver function examination) and clinical signs indicated information technology, confirmed by ultrasonographic findings. Each agin event that occurred after AED initiation was noted, regardless of how long after drug initiation it occurred or whether it resolved once more during therapy. Furthermore, we attempted follow-up calls to the owners of the dogs with noted dermatologic signs in guild to obtain further information virtually the causality betwixt occurrence of dermatologic signs and AED therapy.
Then, each case of registered cutaneous signs was classified as a doubtful, possible, probable, or definite ADR, equally defined past Naranjo et al. (26) (Table ane). The probability category was assigned from the total score as followed: <0/0 = doubtful, 1–4 = possible, five–8 = probable, 9/>9 = definite (26).
Tabular array 1
Classification of skin lesions with the Naranjo probability index.
| Question | Yes | No | Practise non know |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are in that location previous conclusive reports on this reaction? | +1 | −1 | 0 |
| Did the agin event appear after the suspected drug was administered? | +ii | −1 | 0 |
| Did the adverse reaction improve when the drug was discontinued or a specific antagonist was administered? | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| Did the adverse reaction reappear when the drug was readministered? | +2 | −1 | 0 |
| Are there alternative causes (other than the drug) that could on their ain have caused the reaction? | −1 | +2 | 0 |
| Did the reaction reappear when a placebo was given? | −ane | +1 | 0 |
| Was the drug detected in the blood (or other fluids) in concentrations known to exist toxic? | +ane | 0 | 0 |
| Was the reaction more severe when the dose was increased or less severe when the dose was decreased? | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| Did the patient accept a similar reaction to the same or like drugs in any previous exposure? | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| Was the adverse event confirmed by any objective evidence? | +i | 0 | 0 |
Assignment of probability scores: total score ≤0 = doubtful, i–4 = possible, five–8 = likely, and ≥ 9 = definite (26).
Prospective Evaluation of Cutaneous Reactions
Dogs diagnosed with epilepsy (idiopathic or structural) and treated with AEDs between 01/2013 and 12/2014 were prospectively included and monitored for any new advent of cutaneous signs later on initiation of AED. Whenever feasible, consummate dermatologic exam was performed by an ECVD diplomate or resident which routinely included detailed dermatologic history, visual inspection of the lesions, skin scrapings, and cytologic examination in guild to draw the appeared lesions equally precisely as possible and to exclude other potential causes such as ectoparasites and infections. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical to the ones described for the retrospective evaluation. Owners of dogs with dermatologic signs were asked to fill in a standardized questionnaire or alternatively answer a follow-upwards telephone call. Based on this information, cutaneous signs were ranked using the Naranjo probability index as described for the retrospective data.
Evaluation of Patch Test and Intradermal Test
Dogs
Patch test (PT) and IDT were performed in six dogs with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy, which had adult skin lesions after initiation of PB monotherapy (four dogs) or combination therapy (two dogs).
Command Groups
Ten laboratory Beagle dogs (two males, eight females, median historic period 3.eight years; range: 2–4 years) that had never received whatsoever AED and therefore were well-nigh probable not sensitized to those allergens and seven dogs with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic epilepsy (three males, four females, three Border collies, 2 Labrador Retrievers, one Beagle, and one German shepherd mix; median age: 2.5 years, range: 1.5–9 years) currently treated with Pb monotherapy (ii) or combination therapy [two PB/potassium bromide (KBr) and three PB/levetiracetam (LEV)] without any previous or electric current dermatologic signs.
In the laboratory Beagle dogs, the PT included Atomic number 82, potassium bromide, LEV, gabapentin, and zonisamide, and the IDT included Pb and potassium bromide. The privately owned dogs were patch tested for those AEDs, which they currently received or had received previously. PB and, if the AED treatment included it, potassium bromide were additionally used in the IDT.
Patch Test
For the patch test, 2 different concentrations (v and 10%) of petrolatum-solved agents were compounded for each AED (Tabular array 2). Tablets were grounded with a tablet grinder to an instant powder, which was solved in petrolatum. Approximately 0.2 cc of the prepared solutions were placed in Finn chambers of 12 mm diameter. Pure petrolatum was used as negative control. The Finn chambers were placed firmly on the clipped peel on the lateral thorax and carefully fixed by surgical tape equally described previously (27). The dogs wore a body suit for 48 h to prevent shifting of the chambers (27–29). After 48 h, the chambers were removed, and the peel reactions were evaluated as described previously (Table iii) (27).
Table 2
Antiepileptic agents unsed in patch tests.
| Active substance | Trade proper name | Concentration per pill (mg) |
|---|---|---|
| Phenobarbital | Luminal Vet® | 100 |
| Potassium bromide | Libromide® | 325 |
| Levetiracetam | Keppra® | 100 |
| Gabapentin | Gabapentin, 1A Pharma® | 100 |
| Zonisamide | Zonegran® | 50 |
Table 3
Evaluation of patch test sites.
| – | No visible reaction or irritation |
|---|---|
| 1+ | Mild erythema |
| 2+ | Moderate erythema |
| 3+ | Astringent erythema |
| ++ | Erythema and induration or edema (papules) |
| +++ | Erythema with vesiculation or more than astringent reactions |
Intradermal Test
Intradermal testing was performed with Pb and potassium bromide. The corresponding amount of 200 mg effective agent was solved in two cc of sterile isotonic saline solution, resulting in a 10% dilution. To detect the minimum drug dilution non triggering a positive reaction when injected into the pare of a healthy, non-sensitized dog, series dilutions were prepared (10, i, 0.ane, and 0.01%) and injected intradermally into the skin of a healthy laboratory Beagle canis familiaris, which had never received any AEDs. Positive reactions were seen with the x and one% dilution. Consequently, a 0.i% dilution of both drugs was used subsequently in this written report. An area of twenty cm × fifteen cm on the lateral thorax was clipped, and the injection sites were marked by an enduring felt pen. Approximately 0.05 cc of each solution also every bit a positive (histamine 1:100,000) and a negative control (sterile isotonic saline solution) were injected intradermally using an insulin syringe (0.33 mm × 12 mm) as previously described (30). After 15 and 25 min, the skin reaction and diameter of the wheal at the drug injection site were compared to the negative and positive command and graded either negative (−) or positive every bit +, ++, or +++, depending on strength of reaction.
Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of PT and IDT and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
This animal experiment was approved by the government, under the reference 55.2-ane-54-2532-four-xiii. The laboratory dogs were housed according to the prescribed atmospheric condition of the German animal protection police. Epileptic dogs were privately owned patients of the clinic. All animal owners signed informed consent prior to study participation.
Results
Retrospective Evaluation of Agin Events
In full, 185 dogs (84.9% idiopathic epilepsy and 15.one% structural epilepsy) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The 52.4% of the retrospective cases were treated with AED monotherapy [93 with Lead, iii with potassium bromide (KBr), and one with levetiracetam (LEV)] and 47.6% with a combination of AED (66 with Atomic number 82/KBr, v with PB/LEV, x with PB/KBr/LEV, 3 with Pb/KBr/gabepentin, one with Pb/KBr/zonisamide, 1 with Lead/zonisamide, one with PB/KBr/LEV/zonisamide/pregabalin, and 1 with PB/pregabalin/zonisamie/lacosamide).
Clinical signs that occurred after initiation of antiepileptic treatment and were considered adverse events are listed in Table 4. Most frequently noted were clutter (27.1%), sedation (23.viii%), and polyphagia (20.5%), while pancreatitis (5.four%) and hepatopathy (two.2%) were less often seen. Neutropenia occurred in half dozen dogs (3.2%). Cutaneous signs were documented in 20.0% of the cases, 30 of them diagnosed with idiopathic epilepsy. The dermatologic signs ranged from solely pruritus/baldness (northward = 23), skin lesions such every bit papules, pustules, or erythema (n = 13) to severe reactions such every bit epidermal necrosis (n = i). In total, 26 owners were available for a detailed follow-up phone interview. These owner interrogations revealed that iv dogs already had dermatologic signs before AED initiation and two owners could not surely remember whether the dermatologic signs occurred before or after AED therapy. Based on these data and on the clinical records, the Naranjo alphabetize (26) was used in lodge to classify the dermatologic signs as probably related to AED handling in two dogs (5.4%), possible in 22 dogs (59.v%), and hundred-to-one in xiii dogs (35.1%).
Tabular array 4
Adverse events during AED therapy (north = 185).
| Polyuria/polydypsia | Polyphagia | Sedation | Ataxia | Gastro-intestinal disorders | Pancreatitis | Changes in behavior | Respiratory signs | Dermatol. signs | Hepatopathy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PB (northward = 93) | 15 | nineteen | 16 | 15 | iv | 3 | 5 | 0 | 17 | three |
| KBr (n = three) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LEV (n = 1) | 0 | ane | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| PB + KBr (n = 66) | 15 | 11 | 18 | 24 | 11 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 12 | 1 |
| Atomic number 82 + LEV (north = 5) | 1 | two | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | i | 0 |
| PB + KBr + LEV (northward = 10) | four | iv | 4 | 4 | 4 | iii | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Other AED (northward = 7) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Count | 36 | 38 | 44 | l | 21 | 10 | 16 | ii | 37 | iv |
| Percentage of all reviewed dogs (due north = 185) in % | 19.5 | 20.five | 23.viii | 27.0 | 11.four | 5.4 | viii.vi | 1.1 | 20.0 | 2.2 |
Prospective Evaluation of Cutaneous Signs
Within this report part, 137 dogs (74.5% idiopathic epilepsy and 25.five% structural epilepsy) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of the 137 dogs, x.nine% (95% CI half dozen.viii–17.vii%, xv dogs) presented with dermatologic signs of varying extent, which appeared after initiation of AED therapy. All of the dogs with dermatologic signs were diagnosed with idiopathic epilepsy except for ane (P5) with ambiguous results in neurologic test, which were not consequent with idiopathic epilepsy. Detailed owner interrogation revealed that three of the dogs already had mild dermatologic signs earlier onset of seizures which worsened after AED initiation (Table 5). All dogs were treated with Lead. Twelve dogs received PB monotherapy, and three were treated with a PB combination therapy (Pb/LEV, PB/KBr, Lead/LEV/KBr). Ane of the dogs (P14) adult dermatologic signs soon subsequently initiation of LEV therapy, the others within days to several months afterward initiation of PB.
Table five
Prospectively collected cases of peel lesions under antiepileptic treatment.
| No. | Signalment | Antiepileptic therapy | Agin events | Dermatologic signs prior to AED therapy | Clarification of dermatologic signs after initiation of AED | Chronological advent of dermatologic signs | Discontinuation of AED therapy | Classification of skin lesions according to Naranjo et al. | Patch examination | Intra-dermal skin test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P 1 | Mixed-breed, male person, 8a | PB | Dermatologic signs | None | Severe erosive perianal inflammation with purulent secretion | Several months afterward initiation of AED | Aye, but only for 2 weeks, no improving of peel lesions during that menstruum | Possible | Positive (2+) | Negative |
| P 2 | Saluki, male-neutered, 5a | PB | Dermatologic signs | None | Erosive-crusty dermatitis, generalized spread, especially in the face, at the testicles and oral mucosa | Several weeks after initiation of AED | Yes → complete remission within 1–2 weeks | Likely | Negative | Negative |
| P 3 | Mixed-brood, male, 4a | PB later combination therapy Pb/LEV | Dermatologic signs | None | Pruritus, crusty lesions at the hind limbs and rhinarium | Weeks to months after Atomic number 82 initiation | No | Possible | Negative | Positive (+ +) |
| P 4 | Golden Retriever, female-neutered, 7a | PB | Dermatologic signs | None | Pruritus and baldness at the limbs | Several months after initiation of AED | No | Possible | Negative | Negative |
| P v | Mixed-breed, male, 3a | Pb | Dermatologic signs | None | Erosive and crusty lesions perioccular, at the limbs and foot pads | Several days afterward initiation of AED | Immediately afterward appearance of dermatologic signs → complete remission within ane–two weeks | Probable | No definite result (± ) | Negative |
| P 6 | Mixed-breed, male, 5a | Combination therapy PB/KBr | Dermatologic signs | None | Pruritus and baldness at the limbs, crusty lesions at the ears and the inguinal region | Several months after initiation of AED | No | Possible | Negative | Negative |
| P 7 | Mixed-breed, male-neutered, 8a | Lead | Dermatologic signs, changes in behavior | None | Pruritus and crusty lesions around the eyes, at the ears, at the armpit area and breast | Several weeks after initiation of AED | Yes, for several weeks, improving of skin lesions during that period | Probable | – | – |
| P 8 | Mixed-breed, male-neutered, 2a | PB | Dermatologic signs, ataxia | None | Erosive and crusty lesions in the face and at the limbs | Several weeks subsequently initiation of AED | No | Probable | – | – |
| P 9 | Hovawart, male-neutered, 2a | PB | Dermatologic signs | None | Erosive lesions and discoloration of oral mucosa | Weeks to months afterward drug initiation | No | Possible | – | – |
| P ten | Australian shepherd, male-neutered, 8a | PB | Dermatologic signs | None | Generalized cornification of the pare, generalized spread papules and nodes | Several months after initiation of AED | No | Possible | – | – |
| P 11 | Yorkshire terrier, male, 7a | Pb | Dermatologic signs | Moderate pruritus considering of flea several months earlier | Severe pruritus and skin rash (pustules, papules, macule) in the armpit region and at the flanks | four days later on initiation of AED | Yes → complete remission within 1 week, never received Atomic number 82 again | Probable | – | – |
| P 12 | French bulldog, female person-neutered, 7a | Pb | Dermatologic signs: PU/PD, polyphagia | Balmy allergic skin illness (pruritus) already before AED initiation | Bedevilment of pruritus and appearance of crusty lesions at the rhinarium and hypotrichous areas and erythema at the limbs, perianal inflammation | Weeks to months after drug initiation | No | Doubtful | – | – |
| P 13 | Australian shepherd, male person, 3a | PB | Dermatologic signs | None | Generalized spread, astringent erosive, necrolytic dermatitis, especially at the mucocutaneous boundary, human foot pads, testicles, perianal, and in the inguinal and armpit area | 1–2 weeks after initiation of phenobarbital therapy | Immediately later appearance of dermatologic signs – >consummate remission within 1–2 weeks | Probable | – | – |
| P xiv | American bulldog, male person, 2a | PB/KBr | Dermatologic signs, especially under levetiracetam | Mild pruritus already earlier AED therapy | Severe pruritus | Days later initiation of LEV therapy | Immediately after advent of dermatologic signs → consummate remission within several days | Possible | – | – |
| LEV (for several days) | ||||||||||
| Later additionally imepitoin | ||||||||||
| P 15 | Labrador retriever, male-neutered, 9a | PB | Dermatologic signs, polyphagia | None | Generalized spread, crusty, erosive lesions, alopecic areas, hypotrichosis at the limbs | Weeks later on drug initiation | No, just improvement of signs under corticosteroids | Possible | – | – |
Nine dogs (P1, P3–six, P11–13, and P15) underwent complete dermatologic examination performed by a diplomate or resident ECVD, which included detailed dermatologic history and visual inspection of the lesions in all examined dogs as well every bit cytologic examination (n = 8), skin scrapings (n = 4), and bacteriological culture (north = 2). The remaining six dogs were examined past other clinicians, lacking further dermatologic tests. The cutaneous signs were described as severe with extensive erosions or epidermal necrosis leading to skin detachment in four dogs (P2, P5, P7, and P13). Viii dogs showed moderate signs, well-nigh notably papules, pustules, erythema, and crusty lesions, and iii dogs showed mainly pruritus and/or alopecia. Particularly affected were the confront, especially the periocular region, the mucocutaneous boundaries, the inguinal region, and the limbs (Table five). Peel scrapings revealed Sarcoptes mites in dog P15. In this dog, antiparasitic therapy led to fractional improvement of cutaneous signs. In the other fourteen dogs, no other cause for the cutaneous lesions was identified. Peel biopsy was performed in one dog (P13) and indicated presence of erythema multiforme. AED therapy was withdrawn in vii cases (half-dozen dogs with PB and one dog with LEV). Cutaneous signs dissolved completely in five dogs within approximately two weeks (P2, P5, P11, P13, and P14). In one dog, a clear improvement, although no complete remission, was noticeable (P7), and in another canis familiaris (P1), appearance of severe seizures despite concomitant loading with KBr led to reinstitution of Pb therapy after 2 weeks. Handling for the cutaneous lesions included anti-inflammatory and/or antimicrobial topicals (n = 8), antiparasitic agents (n = half dozen), and brusque-term systemic prednisolone (n = three). Handling led to improvement of signs in all of the cases. Notwithstanding, this comeback was non complete and merely temporary while topical or systemic anti-inflammatory medication was given. Based on the private patient's history, the examinations and the information obtained by standardized questionnaires, the Naranjo index was practical to classify the cutaneous signs equally probably due to AED therapy in 40.0% (six dogs, all treated with PB monotherapy), and every bit possible (eight dogs; 53.3%) or doubtful (ane dog; vi.seven%) in the residue (Table 5). As an example, the skin lesions of canis familiaris P7 and P13 are depicted in Figures 1A,B and 2A,B. Both dogs had adult dermatologic signs several weeks after initiation of PB therapy and were both classified as probably drug-induced ADR.
Dog P7 (mixed-breed, male-neutered, 8 years) developed a generalized, erosive-crusty dermatitis, particularly in the face (A) and in the axiallry region (B) several weeks after initiation of PB; clear improvement of dermatologic signs after PB withdrawal.
Dog P13 (Australian shepherd, male, iii years) developed a generalized, severe, erosive necrolytic dermatitis, especially at the oral mucosa (A), at the mucocutaneous junctions and the foot pads (B) ane–2 weeks after Pb initiation; additionally affected were the testicles and the perianal, inguinal and axillary areas. Subsequently withdrawal of Pb therapy, the skin lesions resolved completely inside two weeks.
Evaluation of Patch Test and Intradermal Test
Half dozen dogs with cutaneous signs occurring nether antiepileptic therapy (iv Pb monotherapy, i PB/LEV, and 1 PB/KBr) were tested with PT and IDT. Cutaneous signs were classified as likely due to AED therapy in ii of these dogs, and as possible due to AEDs in the other four dogs. The clinical details of these patients are listed in Table 5 (P1–P6) and are described below. All half dozen dogs underwent complete dermatologic exam: ectoparasites were not establish in any of these dogs simply other possible causes for dermatologic signs such as food or environmentally induced atopic dermatitis could not be precluded assuredly. This fact has been regarded in ranking the probability of an adverse event using the Naranjo index.
One of the tested dogs (P1; possible ADR) showed a strong positive reaction in PT to the 10% petrolatum-solved Lead (Figures 3A,B). The other patch test sites (negative command and v% dilution) equally well as intradermal reactions were negative. This canis familiaris (P1, 8a) had been treated with Lead for several years and developed a severe erosive perianal inflammation a few months after initiation of medical handling with PB. After the positive PT, the AED therapy was changed to potassium bromide by showtime starting a loading dose of KBr (600 mg/kg per 24-hour interval, over iv days) and subsequent gradual decrease of PB over a period of 2 weeks. Approximately two weeks after cessation of PB, a period of cluster seizures re-occurred, thus PB therapy was resumed. During the short menses off PB, the perianal inflammation did non better noticeably. It should be noted that this canis familiaris already had regular cluster seizures while existence treated with Atomic number 82.
Dog P1 (mixed-breed, male person, viii years) developed a severe erosive perianal inflammation with purulent secretion after Atomic number 82 initiation (A). Patch test revealed a positive reaction to the 10% phenobarbital (arrowed) (B).
Another dog (P3, possible ADR) was positive on IDT for PB, simply negative on the patch test (Figures 4A,B). This dog was treated with PB for 3 years and showed pruritus and crusty lesions at the hind limbs and rhinarium. The cutaneous signs appeared shortly afterwards PB therapy was started. Atomic number 82 therapy was non discontinued in this canis familiaris due to the astringent cluster seizures seen in that patient.
Canis familiaris P3 (mixed-breed, male, 4 years) developed pruritus and crusty lesions at the hind limbs and the rhinarium (A). Intradermal test revealed a positive reaction at the phenobarbital injection site (slim arrow), compared to positive control (big arrow) (B).
A third domestic dog (P5) had an ambiguous patch test result against the 10% Atomic number 82. This dog received Atomic number 82 only for 1 week. Therapy was and then discontinued because of the sudden appearance of severe pruritus and alopecia at the limbs, crusty lesions periocular, at the ears and the inguinal region and erosive lesions with ulcera at the foot pads. After cessation of Pb handling, the pare lesions resolved completely within 2 weeks. This history supported a cutaneous adverse reaction to Atomic number 82.
The other 3 tested dogs (P2, P4, and P6) with skin lesions developed nether Atomic number 82 treatment were negative on IDT and PT.
None of the tested healthy laboratory beagle dogs showed a positive reaction on PT or IDT, neither did whatsoever of the private-owned dogs of the negative control group (epileptic dogs under Pb treatment without any registered cutaneous signs – currently or previously to AED therapy).
Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of PT and IDT are listed in Table 6.
Table 6
Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of patch testing and intradermal testing for AED hypersensitivity.
| Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Positive predictive value (%) | Negative predictive value (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patch test | 16.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 84.4 |
| Intradermal skin examination | 16.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 84.4 |
Word
This written report was initiated based on our own unpublished clinical observations, which suggested simultaneous appearance of pare disease and epilepsy more ordinarily than previously reported. This prompted further investigations of the prevalence of cutaneous signs and their relationship to AED handling. Subsequently, we confirmed a surprisingly loftier prevalence of cutaneous signs with xx% in the retrospective data analysis, and identified 15 dogs with potentially AED-caused cutaneous signs in the prospective study role. The prevalence in the prospectively evaluated grouping was x.nine% (15/137) and exceeded the prevalence of hepatopathy and pancreatitis in this investigation.
Dermatologic examination in our dogs was unable to delineate other etiologies than drug hypersensitivity, such equally ectoparasite manifestations or allergies in all only ane dog (P15), but non all diagnostic tests were applied to each dog (31). Literature describes a variety of cutaneous signs caused by an ADR, ranging from urticaria and angioedema (immediate drug hypersensitivity), pruritus, or exanthema to severe generalized syndromes such as lupoid/pemphigoid reactions or SND (15). March et al. retrospectively evaluated the appearance of SND/MEN with chronic Pb administration in dogs (9). The two main differences between the results of this study and our results were the duration of AED treatment earlier onset of skin lesions (a median of seven years in March's report and weeks to months in our cases) and the severity of skin lesions (more astringent and potentially life-threatening SND/MEN in March's study versus predominantly mild to moderate cutaneous signs in our report). March et al. focused on a Atomic number 82-induced hepatopathy, while we evaluated whatsoever reaction to the drug which may be the caption for this deviation.
In society to further highlight the human relationship betwixt AED handling and appearance of cutaneous signs the ADR probability scale of Naranjo et al. (26), a classification system validated in human medicine (32, 33), was practical. This scale estimates the likelihood of an ADR based on a number of criteria (Table ane). It is particularly helpful when proof of a drug reaction cannot be accomplished under clinical circumstances with a drug challenge for ethical reasons, and also accounts for missing information on detail details, east.g., whether cutaneous signs were present prior to AED handling. The individual patient history was reviewed with regard to the chronological relationship between initiation of drug treatment and appearance of dermatologic signs, the precise localization and appearance of skin lesions and whether signs improved after withdrawal of AED whenever feasible. Based on this evaluation, 2 of the 37 retrospective cases and half dozen of the 15 prospective cases were classified equally probably suffering from anticonvulsant drug hypersensitivity.
Some other explanation for the high prevalence of dermatologic signs in epileptic dogs may be that there are mutual immunologic mechanisms underlying both the peel disease and the epilepsy. Several dissimilar facts support this hypothesis: food allergies or asthma might increase the risk of developing seizure disorders in humans and animals (34, 35). Mouse models show inflammatory pathways involved in allergic diseases that may also be activated in the brain and may crusade epilepsy (36). Dietary supplementation with either ω3 fatty acids or medium chain triglycerides are used to better seizure command in individuals with refractory epilepsy (37–41) and are also successfully administered to dogs with atopic dermatitis (42, 43). Thus, at that place may be a link between allergic diseases and epilepsy leading to cutaneous signs in epileptic dogs independent of antiepileptic therapy. Investigations indicate that in humans, genetic factors predispose for developing an agin reaction against AED (23). In contrast, in this study no breed predisposition for developing adverse events could be determined.
Secondary goal of our study was to evaluate PT and IDT as potential diagnostic methods in suspected ADRs against AEDs in dogs. In human being, medicine PT is already frequently used to confirm AHS (44). In previous studies, the positive predictive value was much college than the negative predictive value and the validity of the PT varied between the different AEDs (highest for carbamazepine, lowest for Atomic number 82) (28). In contrast, in veterinarian medicine, there are just few reports nearly the employ of pare tests equally 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 assist to choose the ingredients of an elimination diet in dogs with adverse food reaction (27), and IDT is widely used to identify offending ecology allergens in dogs with atopic dermatitis (xxx). Those established methods were used equally guidance to develop the skin tests in our written report. Both tests showed a loftier negative predictive value, none of the good for you controls and none of the epileptic dogs nether Lead therapy without dermatologic signs showed a positive reaction in either PT or IDT. In the positive control group (north = vi), one of the tested dogs was positive on patch test, and one of the dogs showed a positive reaction on IDT. The contradictory results of PT and IDT in these two dogs might be due to different underlying immune mechanisms. An IDT evaluated shortly after injection as in this study is more sensitive for immediate hypersensitivity reactions, in dissimilarity PT is more sensitive for delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (46–48). A late judged IDT (evaluation of skin reaction after hours or days) might accept revealed other results but was not feasible in this study. Thus, PT and IDT in the present form were insufficient to confirm suspected AED hypersensitivity, which might point that other mechanisms than drug hypersensitivity were involved, or that a modification of the skin examination protocol with higher drug concentrations or unlike application methods is needed.
This study too provided insights into occurrence of adverse events of AEDs previously reported (1, 2, 49) in comparison to the appearance of dermatologic signs. Ataxia and sedation occurred in approximately a quarter of the patients. These are known side effects of AEDs (2, iii), occur most common during the first weeks of therapy and tend to improve (iii). Hepatopathy, pancreatitis, and blood dyscrasias are of major concern in literature (v, 6, fifty–52), but occurred less frequently than dermatologic signs in this study population (hepatopathy in 1/50, pancreatitis in 1/20, neutropenia in 1/xxx). This should be considered when educating clients most side effects of AED therapy.
Limitations of the study are certainly that nosotros did non utilise other approaches to confirm AED hypersensitivity. A major limitation of this report is that not all of the dogs were examined by a veterinary dermatologist and that further dermatologic examinations were not performed on each domestic dog. Although cutaneous signs in a proportion of dogs were besides suggestive of MEN, histopathologic confirmation was only obtained in i dog and sonography of the liver to show typical sonographic changes of MEN was not performed because of lacking possessor-acquiescence. Also none of the dogs, in whom peel reactions disappeared after cessation of anticonvulsants, underwent a second challenge with the drug for ethical reasons, although this would have confirmed AED hypersensitivity reaction more reliably.
In summary, based on the results of this study, dermatologic signs appear realtively frequently in epileptic dogs treated with AED. The pathomechanism of those cutaneous signs needs to be further investigated. Moreover, patch testing and intradermal testing should be evaluated for the diagnosis of a suspected drug hypersensitivity in a larger number of dogs on AED with cutaneous signs. Changes to the protocol of those tests may increase the positive predictability while maintaining the condom of those tests.
Writer Contributions
TK: designed the experiments, conducted the experiments, and wrote outset typhoon of the paper. RM: designed the experiments and provided corrections and feedback on first drafts of newspaper. BD: assisted in the experimental part on research dogs. AF: designed the experiments, and provided detailed corrections and feedback on interpretations of results and first drafts of paper.
Conflict of Involvement Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or fiscal relationships that could be construed equally a potential conflict of interest.
References
ane. Chang Y, Mellor DJ, Anderson TJ. Idiopathic epilepsy in dogs: owners' perspectives on management with phenobarbitone and/or potassium bromide. J Modest Anim Pract (2006) 47:574–81.10.1111/j.1748-5827.2006.00203.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Dewey CW. Anticonvulsant therapy in dogs and cats. Vet Clin Due north Am Small Anim Pract (2006) 36:1107–1127, vii.x.1016/j.cvsm.2006.05.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
three. Boothe DM, Dewey C, Carpenter DM. Comparison of phenobarbital with bromide as a first-pick antiepileptic drug for treatment of epilepsy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc (2012) 240:1073–83.x.2460/javma.240.9.1073 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Fischer A, Jurina K, Potschka H, Rentmeister Yard, Tipold A, Volk HA, et al. Die idiopathische Epilepsie des Hundes. Stuttgart: Enke Verlag; (2013). [Google Scholar]
5. Weiss DJ. Drug-associated blood cell dyscrasias. Compend Contin Educ Vet (2012) 34:E1–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
half-dozen. Bersan E, Volk HA, Ros C, De Risio Fifty. Phenobarbitone-induced haematological abnormalities in idiopathic epileptic dogs: prevalence, take a chance factors, clinical presentation and result. Vet Rec (2014) 175:247.10.1136/vr.102158 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
seven. Miller ML, Center SA, Randolph JF, Lepherd ML, Cautela MA, Dewey CW. Apparent acute idiosyncratic hepatic necrosis associated with zonisamide administration in a canis familiaris. J Vet Intern Med (2011) 25:1156–60.x.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.00783.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Schwartz M, Munana KR, Olby NJ. Possible drug-induced hepatopathy in a dog receiving zonisamide monotherapy for treatment of cryptogenic epilepsy. J Vet Med Sci (2011) 73:1505–eight.10.1292/jvms.11-0164 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. March PA, Hillier A, Weisbrode SE, Mattoon JS, Johnson SE, DiBartola SP, et al. Superficial necrolytic dermatitis in 11 dogs with a history of phenobarbital assistants (1995-2002). J Vet Intern Med (2004) xviii:65–74.x.1111/j.1939-1676.2004.tb00137.ten [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Bevier DE, Miller MA, Rohleder JJ, Wozniak AD. Pathology in practice. Superficial necrolytic dermatitis. J Am Vet Med Assoc (2010) 237:365–7.10.2460/javma.237.four.365 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
eleven. Diener W, Sorni M, Ruile S, Rude P, Kruse R, Becker East, et al. Panniculitis due to potassium bromide. Brain Dev (1998) 20:83–7.10.1016/S0387-7604(97)00110-one [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Boynosky NA, Stokking LB. Potassium bromide-associated panniculitis. J Small Anim Pract (2014) 55:640–2.ten.1111/jsap.12129 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Ackermann AL, Frank LA, McEntee MF, May ER. Erythema multiforme associated with zonisamide in a dog. Vet Dermatol (2015) 26:391–e389.10.1111/vde.12237 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Schnyder B, Pichler WJ. Mechanisms of drug-induced allergy. Mayo Clin Proc (2009) 84:268–72.10.1016/S0025-6196(11)61145-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Voie KL, Campbell KL, Lavergne SN. Drug hypersensitivity reactions targeting the skin in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med (2012) 26:863–74.x.1111/j.1939-1676.2012.00927.ten [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
sixteen. Khan DA, Solensky R. Drug allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2010) 125(2 Suppl 2):126–37.10.1016/j.jaci.2009.x.028 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Blaszczyk B, Lason W, Czuczwar SJ. Antiepileptic drugs and adverse skin reactions: an update. Pharmacol Rep (2015) 67:426–34.10.1016/j.pharep.2014.xi.009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xviii. Bavdekar SB, Muranjan MN, Gogtay NJ, Kantharia V, Kshirsagar NA. Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: lymphocyte toxicity analysis for the confirmation of diagnosis and hazard assessment. Ann Pharmacother (2004) 38:1648–50.x.1345/aph.1E042 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Criado PR, Avancini J, Santi CG, Medrado AT, Rodrigues CE, de Carvalho JF. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (Dress): a complex interaction of drugs, viruses and the immune system. Isr Med Assoc J (2012) 14:577–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
twenty. Santiago F, Concalo 1000, Viera R, Coelho Due south, Figueiredo A. Epicutaneous patch testing in drug hypersensitivity syndrome (Dress). Contact Dermatitis (2010) 62:47–53.10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01659.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Gogtay NJ, Bavdekar SB, Kshirsagar NA. Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome, a review. Expert Opin Drug Saf (2005) 4:571–81.10.1517/14740338.4.3.571 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Inadomi T. Drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (Wearing apparel): changing carbamazepine to phenobarbital controlled epilepsy without the recurrence of DRESS. Eur J Dermatol (2010) twenty:220–ii.10.1684/ejd.2010.0887 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Franciotta D, Kwan P, Perucca E. Genetic ground for idiosyncratic reactions to antiepileptic drugs. Curr Opin Neurol (2009) 22:144–nine.10.1097/WCO.0b013e328328f276 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Mansur AT, Yasar SP, Göktay F. Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: clinical and laboratory features. Int J Dermatol (2008) 47:1184–9.10.1111/j.1365-4632.2008.03827.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Berendt M, Farquhar RG, Mandigers PJ, Pakozdy A, Bhatti SF, De Risio L, et al. International veterinary epilepsy job force consensus report on epilepsy definition, classification and terminology in companion animals. BMC Vet Res (2015) 11:182.10.1186/s12917-015-0461-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther (1981) thirty:239–45.ten.1038/clpt.1981.154 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Bethlehem S, Bexleyb J, Mueller RS. Patch testing and allergen-specific serum IgE and IgG antibodies in thediagnosis of canine adverse food reactions. Vet Immunol Immunopathol (2012) 145:582–9.x.1016/j.vetimm.2012.01.003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Elzagallaai AA, Knowles SR, Rieder MJ, Curve JR, Shear NH, Koren G. Patch testing for the diagnosis of anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: a systematic review. Drug Saf (2009) 32:391–408.ten.2165/00002018-200932050-00003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Friedmann PS, Ardern-Jones Thou. Patch testing in drug allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol (2010) 10:291–6.10.1097/ACI.0b013e32833aa54d [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Hillier A, DeBoer DJ. The ACVD task force on canine atopic dermatitis (XVII): intradermal testing. Vet Immunol Immunopathol (2001) 81:289–304.x.1016/S0165-2427(01)00296-iii [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Hill Lead, Lo A, Eden CA, Huntley S, Morey V, Ramsey S, et al. Survey of the prevalence, diagnosis and treatment of dermatological conditions in small animals in general practice. Vet Rec (2006) 158:533–9.x.1136/vr.158.sixteen.533 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Liang R, Borgundvaag B, McIntyre Thou, Thwaites C, Ragan Thousand, Wyllie A. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale score in published case reports. Pharmacotherapy (2014) 34:1159–66.10.1002/phar.1496 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Khan A, Adil MS, Nematullah Thou, Ihtisham South, Aamer K, Aamir Due south. Causality cess of adverse drug reaction in Pulmonology Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital. J Basic Clin Pharm (2015) half dozen:84–8.10.4103/0976-0105.160744 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Larsen JA, Owens TJ, Fascetti AJ. Nutritional management of idiopathic epilepsy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc (2014) 245:504–8.x.2460/javma.245.v.504 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Silverberg JI, Joks R, Durkin HG. Allergic disease is associated with epilepsy in childhood: a United states of america population-based study. Allergy (2014) 69:95–103.10.1111/all.12319 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Silverberg J, Ginsburg D, Orman R, Amassian V, Durkin HG, Stewart M. Lymphocyte infiltration of neocortex and hippocampus afterwards a unmarried brief seizure in mice. Brain Behav Immun (2010) 24:263–72.x.1016/j.bbi.2009.10.006 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Scorza FA, Cavalheiro EA, Arida RM, Terra VC, Scorza CA, Ribeiro MO, et al. Positive impact of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in a dog with drug-resistant epilepsy: a case study. Epilepsy Behav (2009) 15:527–8.10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.05.013 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Borges One thousand, Sonnewald U. Triheptanoin – a medium concatenation triglyceride with odd chain fatty acids: a new anaplerotic anticonvulsant treatment? Epilepsy Res (2012) 100:239–44.10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2011.05.023 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. DeGiorgio CM, Miller PR, Harper R, Gornbein J, Schrader L, Soss J, et al. Fish oil (n-three fatty acids) in drug resistant epilepsy: a randomised placebo-controlled crossover report. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2015) 86:65–70.10.1136/jnnp-2014-307749 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Police force Thursday, Davies ES, Pan Y, Zanghi B, Want E, Volk HA. A randomised trial of a medium-chain TAG diet as treatment for dogs with idiopathic epilepsy. Br J Nutr (2015) 114:1438–47.10.1017/S000711451500313X [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Reda DM, Abd-El-Fatah NK, Omar Tel S, Darwish OA. Fish oil intake and seizure control in children with medically resistant epilepsy. N Am J Med Sci (2015) 7:317–21.10.4103/1947-2714.161248 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Mueller RS, Fieseler KV, Fettman MJ, Zabel Due south, Rosychuk RA, Ogilvie GK, et al. Effect of omega-3 fatty acids on canine atopic dermatitis. J Pocket-size Anim Pract (2004) 45:293–vii.10.1111/j.1748-5827.2004.tb00238.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Schumann J, Basiouni S, Guck T, Fuhrmann H. Treating canine atopic dermatitis with unsaturated fatty acids: the role of mast cells and potential mechanisms of action. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) (2014) 98:1013–xx.10.1111/jpn.12181 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Aquino MR, Sher J, Fonacier L. Patch testing for drugs. Dermatitis (2013) 24:205–14.x.1097/DER.0b013e3182a0d38a [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Murayama Due north, Midorikawa K, Nagata M. A case of superficial suppurative necrolytic dermatitis of miniature schnauzers with identification of a causative agent using patch testing. Vet Dermatol (2008) xix:395–9.x.1111/j.1365-3164.2008.00708.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Romano A, Viola Thousand, Gaeta F, Rumi G, Maggioletti M. Patch testing in not-firsthand drug eruptions. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol (2008) iv:66–74.ten.1186/1710-1492-4-2-66 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Rueff F, Bergmann KC, Brockow K, Fuchs T, Grubl A, Jung K, et al. [Pare tests for diagnostics of allergic immediate-blazon reactions. Guideline of the German Guild for Allergology and Clinical Immunology]. Pneumologie (2011) 65:484–95.10.1055/south-0030-1256476 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Rive CM, Bourke J, Phillips EJ. Testing for drug hypersensitivity syndromes. Clin Biochem Rev (2013) 34:xv–38. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Muller Atomic number 82, Taboada J, Hosgood Thousand, Partington BP, VanSteenhouse JL, Taylor HW, et al. Effects of long-term phenobarbital treatment on the liver in dogs. J Vet Intern Med (2000) 14:165–71.ten.1111/j.1939-1676.2000.tb02230.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Gaskill CL, Cribb AE. Pancreatitis associated with potassium bromide/phenobarbital combination therapy in epileptic dogs. Can Vet J (2000) 41:555–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Kluger EK, Malik R, Ilkin WJ, Snowfall D, Sullivan DR, Govendir Thou. Serum triglyceride concentration in dogs with epilepsy treated with phenobarbital or with phenobarbital and bromide. J Am Vet Med Assoc (2008) 233:1270–seven.ten.2460/javma.233.8.1270 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Tipold A, Keefe TJ, Loscher W, Rundfeldt C, de Vries F. Clinical efficacy and safety of imepitoin in comparison with phenobarbital for the control of idiopathic epilepsy in dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther (2015) 38:160–viii.10.1111/jvp.12151 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Frontiers in Veterinarian Science are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4830846/
0 Response to "what can help a dogs brain due to drug reaction"
إرسال تعليق