Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39813458›Full record

ArticleRevista brasileira de parasitologia veterinaria = Brazilian journal of veterinary parasitology : Orgao Oficial do Colegio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria2025

Antibody dynamics in dogs submitted to different canine visceral leishmaniasis treatment protocols.

Eliesse Pereira Costa, Gisele Vaz Aguirre Samoel, Gilneia da Rosa, Vanessa Osmari, Michelli Lopes de Souza, Luís Felipe Dias Lopes, Fernanda Silveira Flôres Vogel, Sônia de Avila Botton, Luís Antônio Sangioni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista brasileira de parasitologia veterinaria = Brazilian journal of veterinary parasitology : Orgao Oficial do Colegio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Treatment ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Review
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

9 authors.

Eliesse Pereira CostaPrograma de Pós-graduação em Medicina Veterinária, Laboratório de Doenças Parasitárias, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
Gisele Vaz Aguirre SamoelPrograma de Pós-graduação em Medicina Veterinária, Laboratório de Doenças Parasitárias, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
Gilneia da RosaPrograma de Pós-graduação em Medicina Veterinária, Laboratório de Doenças Parasitárias, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
Vanessa OsmariPrograma de Pós-graduação em Medicina Veterinária, Laboratório de Doenças Parasitárias, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
Michelli Lopes de SouzaPrograma de Pós-graduação em Medicina Veterinária, Laboratório de Doenças Parasitárias, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
Luís Felipe Dias LopesDepartamento de Ciências Administrativas, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
Fernanda Silveira Flôres VogelPrograma de Pós-graduação em Medicina Veterinária, Laboratório de Doenças Parasitárias, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
Sônia de Avila BottonLaboratório de Saúde Única, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
Luís Antônio SangioniPrograma de Pós-graduação em Medicina Veterinária, Laboratório de Doenças Parasitárias, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2364-1084

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated dynamics of antibodies in dogs treated for canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL). Twenty-one dogs naturally infected by Leishmania spp. were grouped based on the treatment protocol: G1 (n=4) received allopurinol; G2 (n=10) allopurinol with miltefosine; and G3 (n=7) allopurinol, miltefosine and Leish-Tec® vaccine. The dogs were monitored monthly for a period of one year. To verify serum antibody titers, an indirect immunofluorescence reaction was performed. We found that dogs from G1 and G2 had lower clinical scores and antibody titers, when compared to the parameters evaluated in pre-treatment; however, clinical relapses were observed in three animals. In G3, clinical scores were lower than pre-treatment; however, they presented relatively stable antibody titers and no clinical relapse was observed. All animals submitted to the evaluated treatment protocols showed relative improvement in clinical signs. Furthermore, the immune response of animals must be considered, given the challenges of parasitic loads in infections. Therefore, it is necessary to complement the methods of clinical and therapeutic monitoring of dogs with CVL in order to establish the risk of transmissibility of the agent in infected and treated dogs.

Indexed as

AllopurinolAntibodies, ProtozoanAntiprotozoal AgentsDog DiseasesLeishmaniasis, VisceralPhosphorylcholineAnimalsDogsFemaleMaleAllopurinolAntibodies, ProtozoanAntiprotozoal AgentsmiltefosinePhosphorylcholine

Identifiers

PMID39813458
PMCPMC11756860

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.