Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Spray vs oral ciclosporin for treating dog itchy skin disease
By Nuttall, Tim J et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2012·Department of Infection Biology, United Kingdom·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Comparable efficacy of a topical 0.0584% hydrocortisone aceponate spray and oral ciclosporin in treating canine atopic dermatitis.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs with atopic dermatitis (a skin allergy) were treated with either a hydrocortisone aceponate spray or an oral medication called ciclosporin to see which worked better. Both treatments significantly reduced itching and skin severity over 84 days, and there was no major difference in effectiveness between the two. However, the hydrocortisone spray had fewer side effects, with no dogs experiencing adverse reactions compared to some on ciclosporin. Both treatments helped dogs feel more comfortable, and pet owners reported similar ease of use for both options.
People also search for: dog itching treatment · hydrocortisone spray for dogs · ciclosporin for dog skin allergies
Abstract
This study compared the efficacy of a 0.0584% hydrocortisone aceponate (HCA) spray (Cortavance(®); Virbac SA) and ciclosporin (Atopica(®); Novartis Animal Health) in canine atopic dermatitis in a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Dogs received HCA (two sprays/100 cm(2); n=24) or ciclosporin (5 mg/kg; n=21). Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI)-03, pruritus (visual analog scale with grade descriptors) and owner scores (5-point scales) were recorded every 28 days for 84 days. Intention-to-treat data were analysed. CADESI-03 and pruritus significantly decreased over time (P<0.0001), but there was no difference between the treatment groups (P=0.91 and P=0.52, respectively). Similar proportions of HCA- and ciclosporin-treated dogs achieved ≥50% reductions in CADESI-03 and pruritus scores at 28 days (CADESI-03 58.3 and 57.1%, P=0.76; pruritus 33.3 and 38.1%, P=1.0), 56 days (CADESI-03 70.8 and 81.0%, P=1.0; pruritus 62.5 and 57.1%, P=1.0) and 84 days (CADESI-03 75 and 85.7%, P=0.72; pruritus 65.2 and 57.1%, P=0.76). The CADESI-03 and pruritus scores were close to equivalence (0.47 and 0.51, respectively). By 84 days, every-other-day or twice-weekly therapy was achieved in 13 of 24 HCA- and 12 of 21 ciclosporin-treated dogs (P=0.85). There were no significant differences in scores for efficacy (P=0.82), tolerance (P=0.62) and ease of administration (P=0.25). Scores for tolerance (0.49) and administration (0.46) were close to equivalence. The score for efficacy favoured HCA (0.68). Mild adverse events were noted in six of 21 ciclosporin and none of 24 HCA dogs (P=0.008). Five HCA-treated dogs and three ciclosporin-treated dogs were prematurely withdrawn (P=0.7). In conclusion, HCA and ciclosporin proved equally effective in treating canine atopic dermatitis for up to 84 days.
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/21718368/