Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35410442›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2022

Dogs with leishmaniosis: how are we managing proteinuria in daily practice? A Portuguese questionnaire-based study.

Marta Monteiro, Sara Prata, Luís Cardoso, Isabel Pereira da Fonseca, Rodolfo Oliveira Leal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marta MonteiroHospital Escolar Veterinário, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sara PrataHospital Escolar Veterinário, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Luís CardosoDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, and Animal and Veterinary Research Centre (CECAV), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal.
Isabel Pereira da FonsecaHospital Escolar Veterinário, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Rodolfo Oliveira LealHospital Escolar Veterinário, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. rleal@fmv.ulisboa.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2463-4062
University of Lisbon · PTUniversity of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro · PT

Funding

CECAV - Veterinary and Animal Research Center LA/P/0059/2020FCT - Foundation for Science and Techonology, UIDB00276/2020 (funded by FCT)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProteinuria is a common finding in dogs with leishmaniosis. Although antileishmanial therapeutic protocols are widely implemented, little information is available on which treatments are most adequate for identifying proteinuria in patients with canine leishmaniosis (CanL), especially regarding the use of immunosuppressants. The aim of this study was to explore the current paradigm regarding the antiproteinuric approach adopted by veterinary practitioners in Portugal to treat dogs with CanL.

methodsA questionnaire-based study was developed using Google Forms®. The questionnaire presented a number of different hypothetical scenarios of CanL, and the topics surveyed included the general features of the respondents and the protocols preferred by these respondents to manage proteinuria in the presented scenarios, including choice of therapeutic drugs, appropriate diet and use of immunosuppressants, in dogs with immune-mediated glomerulonephritis. The questionnaire was internally prevalidated and diffused online over a 2-month period through Portuguese veterinary social networking groups, and data were collected for descriptive analysis.

resultsA total of 86 veterinary practitioners responded to the survey. When exposed to theoretical scenarios of proteinuria in dogs with CanL at stages IIb, III and IV (LeishVet guidelines), 16.3%, 62.8% and 93.8% of the respondents, respectively, answered that they would treat it. The dog was started on a renal diet as therapy by 28.6%, 83.3% and 97.4% of respondents, respectively. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were prescribed by 100%, 85.2% and 78.9% of respondents as first-choice drugs for CanL at stages IIb, III and IV, respectively, with ACEI used in monotherapy by 64.3%, 40.7% and 46.1%. In comparison, protocols using ACEI in combination with other compounds were chosen by 7.1%, 33.3% and 39.5% of respondents, and combination therapy which did not include ACEI was the choice of 0.0%, 12.9% and 14.5%. Regarding immunosuppressants, 44.2% of the respondents answered they would prescribe them, with 97.4% electing for prednisolone and 5.3% choosing mycophenolate mofetil.

conclusionsAmong the veterinary practitioners who responded, proteinuria treatment was considered since stage IIb CanL, although implementation of a therapeutic approach was more evident in advanced CanL stages. ACEI were the first-choice drugs, particularly for the treatment of stage IIb CanL; in advanced stages, a combination of antiproteinuric drugs was more often used. Immunosuppressant use was controversial, although when applied, prednisolone was the preferred choice. These findings reinforce the small body of evidence that supports the use of such drugs and the need to further explore their role in CanL.

Indexed as

Dog DiseasesLeishmania infantumLeishmaniasisAnimalsDogsHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsPortugalPrednisoloneProteinuriaSurveys and QuestionnairesImmunosuppressive AgentsPrednisoloneAntiproteinuric treatmentCanine leishmaniosisDogImmunosuppressantsQuestionnaire-based study

Identifiers

PMID35410442
PMCPMC8996528
OpenAlexW4223507601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.