Antimicrobials’ topical administration efficacy has not been assessed in dogs with upper respiratory tract disease. The aim was to compare the concentration of gentamicin in nasal lavage fluid (NALF) and in serum after three topical protocols. This was a prospective crossover study of ten healthy dogs. Gentamicin was nebulized for a duration of 1 week, twice a day, for 10 min in the first protocol (10-min protocol) and for 3 min in the second protocol (3-min protocol), while the third protocol consisted of the administration of 0.25 mL of gentamicin in each nostril (drop protocol). Median concentrations of gentamicin in NALF were 9.39 µg/mL (8.12–19.97 interquartile range), 4.96 µg/mL (4.60–6.43) and 137.00 µg/mL (110.5–162.00) in the 10-min protocol, 3-min protocol and drop protocol, respectively. The result for the drop protocol was significantly higher than those of both nebulization protocols in NALF (p = 0.039). In serum, the gentamicin concentration was 0.98 µg/mL (0.65–1.53) and 0.25 µg/mL (0.25–0.44) in the 10-min and 3-min protocols, respectively. Gentamicin was not detected in the serum of seven out of ten dogs in the drop protocol, and gentamicin was significantly higher in the 10-min protocol compared to the drop protocol (p = 0.001). This study found that the 10-min, 3-min and drop protocols achieved superior concentrations in NALF compared to the minimum inhibitory concentration for gentamicin-sensitive bacteria, while remaining below the toxic values in blood.

Background The relationships among gastric lymphoid follicular hyperplasia (GLFH), Helicobacter-like organisms (HLOs), and clinical signs have not been established in dogs. Objectives To evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, endoscopic, and histopathologic findings associated with GLFH in dogs, and determine the association of GLFH with HLOs and the French Bulldog (FB) breed. Animals Two hundred eighty-eight dogs that underwent gastroscopy between 2013 and 2016. Methods Retrospective, cross-sectional study. Gastric biopsy samples were reviewed and scored for inflammation and HLOs. Dogs were divided into 3 groups: group 1 (63 FBs), group 2 (45 non-FB brachycephalic dogs), and group 3 (180 nonbrachycephalic dogs). Variables were evaluated for their association with GLFH. Results Univariate analysis determined that intact males, young age, vomiting, gastroscopic findings (discoloration, hemorrhage, and ulcers), and histopathologic findings (gastric lamina propria lymphocytic infiltration and HLO score) were associated with GLFH (P ≤ .03). In the multivariate analysis, GLFH was associated with the HLO score (odds ratio [OR] > 5 for HLO scores 1-2 and >15 for HLO score of 3; P < .001), with vomiting (OR > 4; P = .01) but not with FB breed (P = .76) and age (P = .1). The HLO score was associated with younger age (P < .001). Conclusion and Clinical Importance The HLO score was associated with a high GLFH score. Vomiting was associated with GLFH. Helicobacter-like organisms are highly prevalent in young dogs and GLFH is indirectly associated with this factor. Clinical relevance of the identification of GLFH and HLO remains to be determined.

Background: In dogs with sinonasal aspergillosis (SNA) the utility of PCR in the diagnosis and monitoring of the disease after treatment has not been assessed. Objectives: To evaluate the presence of fungal DNA using quantitative PCR targeting Aspergillus fumigatus (Aspfum) and Aspergillus spp. (PanAsp), and PCR targeting multiple fungal species (PanFun), in samples obtained from nasal cavities of dogs with SNA, other nasal diseases and healthy dogs. Animals: Sixty-two dogs including 20 with SNA, 12 with cured SNA (of which 10 are from the SNA group), 20 dogs with Non-SNA nasal disease, and 20 healthy dogs. Methods: Prospective cross-sectional study. Aspfum, PanAsp, and PanFun were performed on blindly collected nasal swabs obtained in anesthetized dogs. Results: In SNA dogs, Aspfum and PanAsp were positive in 13/20 and 14/20 dogs. In all dogs in the 3 other groups, A. fumigatus DNA was not detected using Aspfum. PanAsp was positive in 3 non-SNA dogs: 1 with cured SNA and 2 with Non-SNA nasal disease. A Ct cut-off value of 33.3 for Aspfum demonstrated 65% sensitivity and 100% specificity. A Ct cut-off value of 34.5 for PanAsp demonstrated 70% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity. PanFun was positive in 16/20, 12/12, 19/20, and 7/20 dogs in the SNA, cured SNA, Non-SNA, and healthy groups, respectively. Conclusion and Clinical Importance: Aspfum and PanAsp on blindly collected nasal swabs can be useful for the detection of SNA at diagnosis and at cure, especially when more invasive methods are not available.

Background: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) analysis is a key diagnostic tool in veterinary respiratory medicine. The IDEXX ProCyte Dx analyzer was developed for blood formulation and cellular counting in various fluids, but its applicability for BALF analysis remains unexplored. Objectives: To assess the agreement between manual counting and automated counting using the IDEXX ProCyte Dx analyzer for total cell count (TCC) and differential cell count (DCC) in BALF samples from healthy and diseased dogs, under two pretreatment conditions: mucolytic treatment with dithiothreitol (DTT) or filtration. Methods: BALF from 10 healthy beagles and 14 diseased dogs were analyzed to compare TCC and DCC between manual and automated methods across pretreatment conditions. Results: In healthy dogs, Bland–Altman analysis on log‐transformed data demonstrated a mean ratio close to 1 and acceptable 95% limits of agreement between manual and automated methods and between pretreatment conditions. In diseased dogs, good agreement was observed between manual and automated methods for filtered samples only; the other comparisons showed poor agreement. In both healthy and diseased dogs, Passing‐Bablok regression analysis did not detect systematic or proportional bias between methods. Automated DCC was inconsistent compared with manual methods in both healthy and diseased dogs. Conclusions: The IDEXX ProCyte Dx analyzer can be used for TCC measurement of pre‐treated BALF samples in healthy dogs. In diseased dogs, filtration is preferred over DTT‐treatment for automated counting, and results should be interpreted with caution due to the unpredictable influence of pretreatment on cellular counts. For DCC, automated methods are unreliable.