三种局部皮肤病治疗在收容所猫中的随机、非劣效性临床试验。

IF 2.1 2区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-28 DOI:10.1177/1098612X251360611
Lena DeTar, Kyrsten Jade Janke, Linda Jacobson
{"title":"三种局部皮肤病治疗在收容所猫中的随机、非劣效性临床试验。","authors":"Lena DeTar, Kyrsten Jade Janke, Linda Jacobson","doi":"10.1177/1098612X251360611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesTopical treatments, along with systemic oral antifungals, are the mainstay of infection and environmental control for cats with dermatophytosis in animal shelters. This study aimed to provide realistic expectations of the performance of three commonly used topical treatments to help shelters minimize the length of stay and optimize feline welfare.MethodsA prospective, randomized, semi-blinded clinical trial compared treatment success and time to cure for miconazole chlorhexidine (MC) and hydrogen peroxide (HP) shampoos vs lime sulfur (LS) using a non-inferiority model. Cats with <i>Microsporum canis</i> were enrolled at four US animal shelters, treated with oral itraconazole and randomized into three topical treatment groups. Treatment success was defined as mycological cure by 7 weeks, while inferiority was defined as requiring more than 1 additional week to achieve cure.ResultsA total of 76 cats were enrolled. LS significantly outperformed both alternatives in cure by 7 weeks. Time to cure analysis showed significant differences between LS (mean 27 days, range 7-45) vs MC (37, 14-62) (<i>P</i> = 0.04) and LS vs HP (36, 11-65) (<i>P</i> = 0.06). Although alternative products took significantly longer to cure, confidence intervals (CIs) around the difference of means included the inferiority margin: LS vs MC (9.66, 95% CI 0.7-18.5) and LS vs HP (8.54, 95% CI 0.44-16.6). Therefore, inferiority of the alternative products was suggestive but inconclusive. After controlling for confounders, a Cox proportional hazards analysis confirmed significantly poorer performance of MC (<i>P</i> = 0.003) and HP (<i>P</i> = 0.032) vs LS. Younger age also significantly prolonged treatment (<i>P</i> = 0.039), while intake type, co-housing and low body condition score did not. Shelter staff ratings showed no differences between products in terms of treatment unpleasantness, difficulty or cat reactions.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, LS outperformed HP and MC in treating cats with <i>M canis</i>. Younger cats took a longer time to achieve cure. If shelters or practitioners wish to use an alternative topical treatment to LS, then HP should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":15851,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery","volume":"27 9","pages":"1098612X251360611"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12477372/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial of three topical dermatophytosis treatments in shelter cats.\",\"authors\":\"Lena DeTar, Kyrsten Jade Janke, Linda Jacobson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1098612X251360611\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectivesTopical treatments, along with systemic oral antifungals, are the mainstay of infection and environmental control for cats with dermatophytosis in animal shelters. This study aimed to provide realistic expectations of the performance of three commonly used topical treatments to help shelters minimize the length of stay and optimize feline welfare.MethodsA prospective, randomized, semi-blinded clinical trial compared treatment success and time to cure for miconazole chlorhexidine (MC) and hydrogen peroxide (HP) shampoos vs lime sulfur (LS) using a non-inferiority model. Cats with <i>Microsporum canis</i> were enrolled at four US animal shelters, treated with oral itraconazole and randomized into three topical treatment groups. Treatment success was defined as mycological cure by 7 weeks, while inferiority was defined as requiring more than 1 additional week to achieve cure.ResultsA total of 76 cats were enrolled. LS significantly outperformed both alternatives in cure by 7 weeks. Time to cure analysis showed significant differences between LS (mean 27 days, range 7-45) vs MC (37, 14-62) (<i>P</i> = 0.04) and LS vs HP (36, 11-65) (<i>P</i> = 0.06). Although alternative products took significantly longer to cure, confidence intervals (CIs) around the difference of means included the inferiority margin: LS vs MC (9.66, 95% CI 0.7-18.5) and LS vs HP (8.54, 95% CI 0.44-16.6). Therefore, inferiority of the alternative products was suggestive but inconclusive. After controlling for confounders, a Cox proportional hazards analysis confirmed significantly poorer performance of MC (<i>P</i> = 0.003) and HP (<i>P</i> = 0.032) vs LS. Younger age also significantly prolonged treatment (<i>P</i> = 0.039), while intake type, co-housing and low body condition score did not. Shelter staff ratings showed no differences between products in terms of treatment unpleasantness, difficulty or cat reactions.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, LS outperformed HP and MC in treating cats with <i>M canis</i>. Younger cats took a longer time to achieve cure. If shelters or practitioners wish to use an alternative topical treatment to LS, then HP should be considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery\",\"volume\":\"27 9\",\"pages\":\"1098612X251360611\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12477372/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X251360611\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X251360611","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在动物收容所中,眼科治疗和全身口服抗真菌药物是控制皮肤真菌病猫感染和环境的主要手段。本研究旨在对三种常用的局部治疗方法的性能提供现实的期望,以帮助收容所最大限度地减少停留时间并优化猫的福利。方法一项前瞻性、随机、半盲临床试验,采用非效性模型比较咪康唑氯己定(MC)和双氧水(HP)洗发水与石灰硫(LS)洗发水的治疗成功率和治愈时间。患有犬小孢子虫的猫在四个美国动物收容所登记,口服伊曲康唑治疗,并随机分为三个局部治疗组。治疗成功被定义为7周的真菌学治愈,而治疗不良被定义为需要超过1周的时间才能达到治愈。结果共入组76只猫。LS在7周的治疗中明显优于两种替代方案。治疗时间分析显示,LS(平均27天,范围7-45)与MC (37,14 -62) (P = 0.04)和LS与HP (36,11 -65) (P = 0.06)之间存在显著差异。虽然替代产品需要更长的时间才能治愈,但均值差异的置信区间(CI)包括劣效度:LS vs MC (9.66, 95% CI 0.7-18.5)和LS vs HP (8.54, 95% CI 0.44-16.6)。因此,替代产品的劣等性是有启发性的,但不是决定性的。在控制混杂因素后,Cox比例风险分析证实,与LS相比,MC (P = 0.003)和HP (P = 0.032)的表现明显较差。年龄越小,治疗时间越长(P = 0.039),而摄入类型、共住和低体状态评分对治疗时间无显著影响。收容所工作人员的评分显示,在治疗不愉快、困难或猫的反应方面,不同产品之间没有差异。结论及相关性在本研究中,LS治疗犬M病的效果优于HP和MC。年轻的猫需要更长的时间才能治愈。如果庇护所或从业者希望使用替代局部治疗LS,那么HP应该考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial of three topical dermatophytosis treatments in shelter cats.

Randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial of three topical dermatophytosis treatments in shelter cats.

Randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial of three topical dermatophytosis treatments in shelter cats.

Randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial of three topical dermatophytosis treatments in shelter cats.

ObjectivesTopical treatments, along with systemic oral antifungals, are the mainstay of infection and environmental control for cats with dermatophytosis in animal shelters. This study aimed to provide realistic expectations of the performance of three commonly used topical treatments to help shelters minimize the length of stay and optimize feline welfare.MethodsA prospective, randomized, semi-blinded clinical trial compared treatment success and time to cure for miconazole chlorhexidine (MC) and hydrogen peroxide (HP) shampoos vs lime sulfur (LS) using a non-inferiority model. Cats with Microsporum canis were enrolled at four US animal shelters, treated with oral itraconazole and randomized into three topical treatment groups. Treatment success was defined as mycological cure by 7 weeks, while inferiority was defined as requiring more than 1 additional week to achieve cure.ResultsA total of 76 cats were enrolled. LS significantly outperformed both alternatives in cure by 7 weeks. Time to cure analysis showed significant differences between LS (mean 27 days, range 7-45) vs MC (37, 14-62) (P = 0.04) and LS vs HP (36, 11-65) (P = 0.06). Although alternative products took significantly longer to cure, confidence intervals (CIs) around the difference of means included the inferiority margin: LS vs MC (9.66, 95% CI 0.7-18.5) and LS vs HP (8.54, 95% CI 0.44-16.6). Therefore, inferiority of the alternative products was suggestive but inconclusive. After controlling for confounders, a Cox proportional hazards analysis confirmed significantly poorer performance of MC (P = 0.003) and HP (P = 0.032) vs LS. Younger age also significantly prolonged treatment (P = 0.039), while intake type, co-housing and low body condition score did not. Shelter staff ratings showed no differences between products in terms of treatment unpleasantness, difficulty or cat reactions.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, LS outperformed HP and MC in treating cats with M canis. Younger cats took a longer time to achieve cure. If shelters or practitioners wish to use an alternative topical treatment to LS, then HP should be considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
17.60%
发文量
254
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: JFMS is an international, peer-reviewed journal aimed at both practitioners and researchers with an interest in the clinical veterinary healthcare of domestic cats. The journal is published monthly in two formats: ‘Classic’ editions containing high-quality original papers on all aspects of feline medicine and surgery, including basic research relevant to clinical practice; and dedicated ‘Clinical Practice’ editions primarily containing opinionated review articles providing state-of-the-art information for feline clinicians, along with other relevant articles such as consensus guidelines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信