Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Can immunosuppressive drugs hide or worsen scabies in dogs
By Souza, Clarissa P et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2016·Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Can immunosuppressive therapy facilitate the diagnosis and affect the clinical signs of canine scabies? A retrospective study of 79 cases.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 79 dogs diagnosed with scabies (a highly itchy skin condition) was studied to see how immunosuppressive drugs (IMD) affected their symptoms and diagnosis. The dogs that received IMD had higher itching scores compared to those that didn't, but there was no significant difference in the number of skin areas affected or the rate of positive skin scrapings for scabies. This suggests that while IMD may increase itching, it doesn't necessarily help with diagnosing the condition. Treatment with acaricides (medications to kill mites) was still effective in managing the scabies.
People also search for: dog itching treatment · scabies in dogs symptoms · immunosuppressive drugs for dogs
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scabies infestation is one of the most pruritic dermatoses of dogs. It is often misdiagnosed and dogs are treated with immunomodulatory drugs (IMD) to relieve pruritus. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: The primary goals of this study were to determine the impact of IMD on skin scraping results, pruritus level and extent of skin lesions, and to evaluate whether disease duration is associated with positive skin scrapings and contagion. ANIMALS: Seventy nine dogs with a final diagnosis of scabies. METHODS: Inclusion in this retrospective study required a positive skin scraping for scabies or a clinical response to an acaricidal treatment trial. RESULTS: The average pruritus score of dogs that received IMD (8.71) was significantly higher than those that did not (7.43; P = 0.03). However, there were no significant differences in either the rates of positive skin scrapings (79.6% versus 59.1%; P = 0.13) or the mean number of body sites affected (3.8 versus 3.4; P = 0.30) between dogs that received IMD and those that did not. Neither skin scraping status nor duration of clinical signs were correlated with a report of contagion within the household. CONCLUSION/CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: IMD was associated with a significant increase in the pruritus level, but not with the mean number of lesional body sites. Dogs exposed to IMD had a 20.5% higher rate of positive skin scrapings. This difference could be clinically relevant and lack of statistical significance may indicate an underpowered study.
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/27109747/