Background: Gastroprotectants are commonly prescribed in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy with glucocorticoids. Presently, there is limited evidence to support such use of gastroprotectants.
Objectives: To establish if the prophylactic use of gastroprotectants was associated with a reduced incidencer of gastrointestinal signs in dogs receiving immunosuppressive doses of glucocorticoids, compared to not receiving prophylactic gastroprotectants.
Methods: Retrospective observational study. The case log of a University referral hospital was examined between September 2009 and September 2015 for dogs diagnosed with primary, immune-mediated disease. Those receiving ≥1mg/kg/day prednisolone or equivalent as part of their treatment were included. Dogs displaying gastrointestinal signs (vomiting, diarrhoea, regurgitation or haematochezia) in the preceding 7 days or those diagnosed with immune-mediated thrombocytopenia were excluded. Statistical significance was P<0.05.
Results: One hundred and twenty-seven dogs were enrolled. All dogs received prednisolone; median (range) dose 2 (1- 4.4) mg/kg/day. Seventy-six dogs received a gastroprotectant. Sixty-three dogs received them concurrent to glucocorticoids (“prophylactic” group) and thirteen dogs received gastroprotectants after starting glucocorticoids, without experiencing gastrointestinal signs (“post-exposure” group). Fifty-one dogs received no gastroprotectants (“no gastroprotectant” group). Overall 34/127 (26.8%) dogs developed gastrointestinal signs; 8/51 (15.7%) in the “no gastroprotectant” group and 26/76 (34.2%) of dogs receiving gastroprotectants. This difference was significant (P= 0.016) between groups. There was no significant difference between the “prophylactic group” (18/63; 28.6%) and “post-exposure” group (8/13; 61.5%), or between the “prophylactic” and “no gastroprotectant” groups in the incidence of gastrointestinal signs.
Conclusions: Gastroprotectants are associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal signs and conferred no identifiable benefits. Prospective randomised trials are required to validate these findings.
Veterinary Evidence uses the Creative Commons copyright Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. That means users are free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially - with the appropriate citation.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Adam Swallow, Which is More Effective in Altering the Intra-Gastric pH in Dogs, Omeprazole or Ranitidine? , Veterinary Evidence: Vol. 1 No. 2 (2016): Our second issue
- Adam Swallow, In Bitches Diagnosed with Pyometra, is Medical Therapy Using Antibiosis Alone as Effective as Combining Ovariohysterectomy with Antibiosis in Reducing Morbidity and Mortality? , Veterinary Evidence: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2016): The inaugural issue
- Adam Swallow, Is Robenacoxib Superior to Meloxicam in Improving Patient Comfort in Dogs Diagnosed With a Degenerative Joint Process? , Veterinary Evidence: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2016): The inaugural issue
- Adam Swallow, Are Novel Allergen or Hydrolysed Diets an Effective Means of Reducing the Gastro-intestinal Signs in Dogs With Inflammatory Bowel Disease When Compared to Oral Prednisolone? , Veterinary Evidence: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2017): The first issue of 2017