Search

Simple Summary: Brachycephalic dogs are affected by respiratory disorders related to abnormal anatomic conformation that can significantly affect their general health and quality of life. In this review, we address dermatological disorders in these breeds which are less recognized, but can also considerably impact welfare. Brachycephalic dogs are not only affected by brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS), but are also frequently referred to veterinary dermatologists for skin conditions, with English bulldogs and pugs particularly over-represented. Some skin diseases, such as skin fold dermatitis, are directly associated with the abnormal anatomic conformation of brachycephalic dogs, while for others, such as atopic dermatitis and viral pigmented plaques, there is an underlying genetic basis or a general predisposition. Anatomic alterations associated with brachycephaly, leading to fold formation of the skin and stenosis of the ear canal, together with primary immunodeficiencies described in some breeds, favor the development of pyoderma, Malassezia dermatitis, and otitis externa/media. In addition, the frequently neglected but often lifelong dermatological problems of brachycephalic dogs are an important consideration when discussing genetic and medical conditions affecting the welfare of those dogs. Here we review the current state of knowledge concerning dermatological problems in brachycephalic dogs and combine it with clinical experience in the management of these challenging disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malassezia are members of the mycobiome of dogs and cats. In the presence of an underlying disease, these yeasts can proliferate, attach to the skin or mucosa to induce a secondary Malassezia dermatitis, otitis externa or paronychia. Since allergic dermatitis is one of the most common underlying causes, diagnostic investigation for allergy is often indicated. Cats may suffer from various other underlying problems, especially where Malassezia dermatitis is generalised. Malassezia dermatitis in dogs and cats is chronic, relapsing and pruritic. Direct cytology from dermatological lesions and the ear canal, showing "peanut-shaped" budding yeasts, facilitates a rapid and reliable diagnosis. Topical treatment includes antiseptic and antifungal azole-based products. Systemic treatment with oral antifungals is indicated only in severe or refractory disease. Identification and treatment of the underlying cause is essential for an optimal response. In this evidence-based narrative review, we discuss the clinical presentation of Malassezia dermatitis in dogs and cats, underlying comorbidities, and diagnostic considerations. Treatment is discussed in light of emerging evidence of antifungal resistance and the authors' clinical experience. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Canine atopic dermatitis is a common clinical presentation. The skin barrier seems to play a fundamental role in the pathogenesis. Therefore a topical spot-on product containing a mixture of lipids may improve clinical signs without adverse effects if it were to improve stratum corneum barrier function. Animals Twenty six privately owned atopic dogs of different breed, age, gender and weight were included in a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Hypothesis/Objectives To evaluate potential clinical benefits and influence on skin barrier function of a topical lipid-containing product applied to the skin of atopic dogs. Methods and results Atopic dermatitis was diagnosed by adequate testing and the exclusion of other possible pruritic diseases. Dogs were randomly allocated to two treatment groups. A spot-on product containing different types of lipids was applied twice weekly to predisposed and affected areas. The placebo preparation contained only the excipients. The clinical effects were regularly verified with a Visual Analog Score and the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index. A medication score was calculated and barrier function was evaluated by means of transepidermal water loss and pH measurements. Twenty three dogs completed the study. There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the evaluated parameters. Adverse effects were not noted. Conclusions and clinical importance This study could not confirm significant clinical improvement when using the product compared to the placebo, although its use was not associated with adverse effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]