ArticleIrish veterinary journal2018
Comparative study to evaluate the voluntary acceptance of two liquid oral formulations of ciclosporin in dogs.
Article in Irish veterinary journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine and compare the voluntary acceptance of two oral liquid formulations of ciclosporin, investigational Atopica® oral solution (Elanco Animal Health) and Cyclavance® Oral Solution (Virbac), when given orally via syringe or offered freely after mixing with food to dogs.Twenty-five adult mixed breed dogs were selected for this two-phase study. In Phase 1, 12 (Group I) and 13 (Group II) dogs received Atopica® oral solution and Cyclavance® Oral Solution, respectively, daily for 7 days via an oral syringe. After a 3-day washout period, the dosing was switched for a further 7 days. For Phase 2, dosing was by acceptance from freely offered test article mixed in a small amount of food, approximately 6 h after the routine morning feeding. During the first part of this phase, normal daily ration of food offered in the morning was continuously left in the cage. Group I was offered Atopica® oral solution and Group II was offered Cyclavance® Oral Solution mixed with ~ 25 g of food for 3 days. After another 2-day washout period, the test articles were switched for another 3 days but the animals received food for only 1 h in the morning. Five hours after the food was removed, the test articles with food were offered in the same manner as in the first part of Phase 2. Animals were also monitored for adverse events (AEs).
resultsDuring Phase I, voluntary acceptance rates of 100 and 98.9% were noted for Atopica® oral solution and Cyclavance® Oral Solution, respectively. The corresponding immediate prehension rates during Phase 2 (Period 1) were 61.1 and 56.4%, respectively. During Phase 2 (Period 2), the immediate prehension rates were 69.2, 69.4 and 92.0% for Atopica® oral solution, Cyclavance® Oral Solution and the positive control (DYNE®; High Calorie Liquid Dietary Supplement), respectively. Two adverse events of diarrhea and vomiting, with a probable relationship to the test articles, were reported.
conclusionThere was no significant difference in acceptance of the two oral ciclosporin solutions, the investigational Atopica® oral solution (Elanco) and Cyclavance® (Virbac) for dogs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.