Comparison of three canine nose guards for reduction of ultraviolet (UVA and UVB) solar radiation.

BACKGROUND: Protection from solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation is paramount for some dermatological conditions, yet there are no studies assessing UV nose guards for dogs. OBJECTIVES: Compare the ability of three nasal guards to block solar UV radiation (UVR) from the canine nose, using two commercial products and one created by the authors. ANIMALS: Four fabric model dogs were used in this prospective controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each model had a UV dosimeter applied to the dorsal nose and anterior nasal planum. Three models had nose protectors applied: (1) a mesh hood (OutFox Field Guard, OutFox For Dogs); (2) a fabric nose shield (Nose Protector, Dog Nose Protectors); or (3) a basket muzzle with ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) 50+ fabric developed by the authors. The control had no protective device applied. All the models were placed in direct sunlight and measurements taken over nine 2 h time periods. Total cumulative UVR was analysed for each location and type of guard or control. RESULTS: All guards provided statistically significant UV protection compared to control at all time points (p < 0.001). The basket muzzle with UPF 50+ guard was consistent in protecting the dorsal and anterior nose, blocking 94.2% and 94.3% UVR, respectively. The fabric nose protector blocked 99.2% UVR from the dorsal and 82.9% anterior. The mesh hood blocked 72.5% of UVR dorsal and 71.4% anterior. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Two guards were superior in blocking UVR; however, the choice of UV guard in a clinical setting depends on an individual's disease location and tolerance of the device.

Pathology in Practice.

In collaboration with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists.

Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Shelter Dogs in Los Angeles County.

The primary aim of this study was to establish the seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi in dogs in Los Angeles County by testing shelter and client owned dogs with 2-tier ELISA testing. A secondary goal was to create a pilot study for evaluation of all Borrelia positive dogs for dermatologic signs of infection. This is the first study to look at the seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi in dogs in Los Angeles County. We hypothesized that the prevalence is higher than previously predicted (0.5%-1%). 422 shelter and client owned dogs were tested for Borrelia burgdorferi with an ELISA cageside test. Seropositive animals were to have additional blood sent to a reference laboratory for further ELISA testing and examined for dermatologic manifestations of Borrelia burgdorferi. No dogs tested positive for Borrelia burgdorferi in this study population, however 3 dogs tested positive for Ehrlichia and 1 for Anaplasma, 2 other tick-borne pathogens uncommon in southern California. This is the first study in Los Angeles County to employ active surveillance regarding an important zoonotic disease. The findings prove that results from these types of studies may differ from those of predictions and passive surveillance. Dogs are sentinels for disease in people and focus should be placed on monitoring antibody levels in canine patients. This study carried out in an endemic area may prove more valuable in assessing cutaneous manifestations of Borrelia burgdorferi and provide a foundation for future hypothesis driven studies.