PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Transdermal methimazole is safe and works for cats

By Sartor, Laura Lee et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2004·University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Efficacy and safety of transdermal methimazole in the treatment of cats with hyperthyroidism.

Species:
cat
Feline hyperthyroidismStomach & digestionCats

Plain-English summary

A group of 47 cats with hyperthyroidism (a condition where the thyroid gland is overactive) was treated with either a skin gel (transdermal methimazole) or a pill (oral methimazole) to see which worked better and caused fewer side effects. After two weeks, more cats on the pill had normal thyroid hormone levels compared to those using the gel, but by four weeks, the difference wasn't significant. However, the cats on the gel had fewer stomach issues than those on the pill. Overall, while the gel might not be as effective initially, it could be a better option for cats that are sensitive to medications.

People also search for: cat hyperthyroidism treatment · transdermal methimazole for cats · cat thyroid medication side effects

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether transdermal methimazole was as safe and effective as oral methimazole for the control of hyperthyroidism in cats. Forty-seven cats with newly diagnosed hyperthyroidism were randomized to receive either transdermal methimazole in pluronic lecithin organogel (PLO; applied to the inner pinna), or oral methimazole (2.5 mg q12h for either route). Cats were evaluated at weeks 0, 2, and 4 with a physical exam, body weight determination, CBC, biochemical panel, urinalysis, measurement of total levothyroxine (T4) concentration, indirect Doppler blood pressure determinaiton, and completion of an owner questionnaire. Data between the 2 groups and over time were compared by nonparametric methods. Forty-four cats followed the protocol (17 oral and 27 transdermal). Significantly more cats treated with oral methimazole had serum T4 concentrations within the reference range after 2 weeks (14 of 16 cats) compared to those treated by the transdermal route (14 of 25; P = .027). This difference was no longer significant by 4 weeks of treatment (9 of 11 for oral versus 14 of 21 for transdermal), possibly because of inadequate numbers evaluated by 4 weeks. Cats treated with oral methimazole had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (4 of 17 cats) compared to the cats treated with transdermal methimazole (1 of 27; P = .04), but no differences were found between groups in the incidence of neutropenia, hepatotoxicity, or facial excoriations. Although the overall efficacy of transdermal methimazole is not as high as that of oral methimazole at 2 weeks of treatment, it is associated with fewer GI adverse effects compared to the oral route.

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/15515580/