PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Clopidogrel treatment in dogs with immune-mediated anemia survival

By Mellett, A M et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2011·Internal Medicine Department, United States·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: A prospective study of clopidogrel therapy in dogs with primary immune-mediated hemolytic anemia.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of 24 dogs with primary immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (pIMHA), a serious condition where the immune system attacks red blood cells, was treated with either clopidogrel, a medication to prevent blood clots, or ultralow-dose aspirin. The goal was to see if clopidogrel could help these dogs survive longer without causing side effects. The results showed that clopidogrel was safe and did not lead to more complications or transfusions compared to aspirin alone. However, there was no significant difference in survival rates between the two treatments.

People also search for: dog pIMHA treatment · clopidogrel for dogs · immune-mediated hemolytic anemia in dogs

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A major cause of death in dogs with primary immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (pIMHA) is thrombotic disease. Ultralow-dose aspirin (ULDA) is commonly used to prevent thrombosis in dogs with pIMHA; however, the efficacy of antiplatelet agents in dogs with pIMHA is unknown. HYPOTHESIS: The use of clopidogrel (CL), alone or in combination with ULDA, would improve survival to discharge and at 90 days without important adverse effects compared with ULDA alone in dogs with pIMHA treated with standard immunosuppressive therapy. ANIMALS: Twenty-four client-owned dogs with pIMHA. METHODS: Prospective, positive-controlled, unmasked clinical trial with dogs randomized in 3 treatment groups to receive PO ULDA or CL or both. RESULTS: There was no identifiable adverse reaction, evidence of hemorrhage, or increase in transfusion requirements associated with CL therapy, either alone or combined with ULDA, compared with ULDA alone. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with respect to survival to discharge and at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: This study suggests that CL therapy, alone or in combination with ULDA, was safe and had similar short-term survival compared with ULDA alone in a small group of dogs with pIMHA able to tolerate oral medications and treated with standard immunosuppressive treatment.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21155892/