4.2 Article

Long-term compassionate use of oclacitinib in dogs with atopic and allergic skin disease: safety, efficacy and quality of life

期刊

VETERINARY DERMATOLOGY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 171-+

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/vde.12194

关键词

-

资金

  1. Zoetis, Florham Park, NJ, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundOclacitinib is safe and effective for treating dogs with pruritus associated with allergic and atopic dermatitis, based on randomized clinical trials of up to 4months duration. Hypothesis/ObjectivesThis study assessed long-term safety, efficacy and quality of life of oclacitinib-treated dogs enrolled in a compassionate use programme. AnimalsTwo hundred and forty-seven client-owned dogs with allergic skin disease that had previously benefited from oclacitinib therapy. MethodsDogs were enrolled in an open-label study at 26 veterinary clinics. Dogs received 0.4-0.6mg/kg oclacitinib twice a day for 14days, then once a day for up to 630days. Assessments were performed at similar to 90day intervals. Owners completed a quality-of-life survey and assessed pruritus using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at each clinic visit. Veterinarians assessed dermatitis using a similar VAS. Abnormal health events, concomitant medication and clinical pathology results were summarized. ResultsVisual Analog Scale scores showed improvement from baseline at all time points. The percentage of dogs showing 50% reduction from baseline on day90 was 63.9% for pruritus and 66.4% for dermatitis. Owners saw a positive impact on quality of life in >91% of all dogs. Urinary tract infection/cystitis, vomiting, otitis, pyoderma and diarrhoea were the most frequently reported (>5% of dogs) abnormal clinical signs. Haematology and serum chemistry means remained within the normal reference ranges. Concomitant medications were well tolerated. Conclusions and clinical importanceResults indicated that oclacitinib was safe and efficacious for long-term use and improved the quality of life for dogs in this study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据