scott@vtx-cpd.com

Replying to Mónica P. 04/04/2024 - 14:36

Hello Monica!

What an absolute honour that you would join us all the way from Mozambique. Thank you!

I really hope you are enjoying the course. Please feel free to ask as may questions as you like through the discussion forum. Please let us know if you have any sampling questions!

Thank you again for your support.

Scott 🙂

Replying to Helen D. 14/04/2024 - 09:35

Hey.

Great question! I hope you are enjoying the course.

I would not use it routinely, but reserve for cases that had more severe bleeding. I would be more inclined to consider it if there was a bleeding mass in the GI tract and do use it in cases of GI blooding secondary to thrombocytopenia. As ever, there is not really a huge amount of evidence in veterinary medicine. The jury seems to be out a little in human medicine too. They seem to be more likely to use it for upper vs. lower GI bleeding:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34709209/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33041136/

Have you used this drug before?

Scott 🙂

Replying to Becky W. 09/04/2024 - 18:34

Thank you so much for joining us Becky!

Feel free to ask as many questions as you like!

Scott:)

Replying to Mónica P. 12/04/2024 - 11:52

IT is!

I have to give credit to the amazing Nikki McLeod for that tip!

Scott 🙂

Replying to Becky Cartwright 11/04/2024 - 19:44

Becky!

It is so wonderful to see you here! Thank you for joining the course.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Scott 🙂

Replying to Lesley T. 04/04/2024 - 13:42

Hello Lesley.

It is really lovely to hear from you. I am really glad to hear you are enjoying the course!

Really interesting to consider the age of these patients. This recent study is helpful to have a look at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096654/

The following is a snippet from the results section of the paper:

“Signalment, laboratory findings, ultrasonographic findings, and endoscopic scores were compared between the FR‐PLE and IR/NR‐PLE groups (Table ​(Table1).1). The FR‐PLE group was significantly younger (mean age, 7.5 versus 10.4 years old; P < .001) and had lower CIBDAI scores (median score, 3 versus 10; P < .001) and CCECAI scores (median score, 5 versus 11; P < .001) than those found in the IR/NR‐PLE group." In short, the food responsive dogs do seem to be a bit younger. Regardless of age, I would still consider a diet trial if it were suitable for the case. Remember, if they have not responded to a diet in a couple of weeks, it is probably not going to be effective. If possible (particularly in younger dogs), I would always try another diet trial, and even a third! It is also important to remember that hydrolyzed is not the only option. I would consider novel protein and carbohydrate as well as low fat in some cases. May of the diet responsive dogs will also respond to steroids; I suppose the diet avoids all the steroid side effects if it is effective. I hope that answers that question, I feel I rambled a bit. I think it is fine to reach for steroids sooner in some cases, I certainly do! Owner compliance with diet is often an issue. I would still try all of the 'easy' low risk strategies if possible. I would try diet, worming and probiotics where possible. There is also an argument with intervening with a faecal transplant earlier. I would persist with diet, if possible, even if older animals, when they are clinically well. We chatted through a lot of this at the round table discussion too. I will make sure that recording is available. I hope that was helpful. Scott 🙂