Efficacy of antimicrobial and nutraceutical treatment for canine acute diarrhoea: A systematic review and meta-analysis for European Network for Optimization of Antimicrobial Therapy (ENOVAT) guidelines.

Systemic antimicrobial treatments are commonly prescribed to dogs with acute diarrhoea, while nutraceuticals (prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics) are frequently administered as an alternative treatment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of antimicrobials and nutraceutical preparations for treatment of canine acute diarrhoea (CAD). The results of this study will be used to create evidence-based treatment guidelines. PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) were generated by a multidisciplinary expert panel taking into account opinions from stakeholders (general practitioners and dog owners). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. The systematic search yielded six randomised controlled trials (RCT) for antimicrobial treatment and six RCTs for nutraceutical treatment meeting the eligibility criteria. Categories of disease severity (mild, moderate, and severe) were created based on the presence of systemic signs and response to fluid therapy. Outcomes included duration of diarrhoea, duration of hospitalization, progression of disease, mortality, and adverse effects. High certainty evidence showed that antimicrobial treatment did not have a clinically relevant effect on any outcome in dogs with mild or moderate disease. Certainty of evidence was low for dogs with severe disease. Nutraceutical products did not show a clinically significant effect in shortening the duration of diarrhoea (based on very low to moderate certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported in any of the studies.

Prescribing habits for the use of omeprazole as a gastroprotectant in dogs in a veterinary teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the prescribing habits for omeprazole in a veterinary teaching hospital and to evaluate the effect of a clinical audit on omeprazole prescription. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational study with retrospective clinical audit followed by a prospective study. The evaluated data about omeprazole prescription included the dose, frequency and indication. These were assessed according to published guidelines. A seminar about the audit and current guidelines on the use of omeprazole was organised for all members of clinical staff. Prospective data collection was conducted after the seminar. A comparison of the collected data before and after the clinical audit was made. RESULTS: A total of 301 dogs were prescribed omeprazole in the veterinary teaching hospital during the study period (including the retrospective and prospective parts). Complete data were acquired from 240 patients. The prescribed frequency of omeprazole was inappropriate in 23 (16.5%) of the prescriptions in the retrospective section but in only five (5.0%) in the prospective study. Inappropriate indications were reported in 12 (8.6%) patients in the retrospective section and in two patients (2.0%) in the prospective study. Overall inappropriate omeprazole prescription was identified in 34 (24.5%) patients in the retrospective part and in seven (6.9%) patients in the prospective part. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in frequency, indication and overall prescription of omeprazole. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study details the frequency of inappropriate prescription of omeprazole in a veterinary teaching hospital and provides some evidence that dissemination of guidelines based on clinical audit can improve prescribing habits.