| Literature DB >> 32192496 |
Adolfo Maria Tambella1, Anna Rita Attili2, Francesca Beribè2, Margherita Galosi2, Andrea Marchegiani2, Matteo Cerquetella2, Angela Palumbo Piccionello2, Cecilia Vullo2, Andrea Spaterna2, Alessandro Fruganti2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine otitis externa is a painful condition which can be challenging to treat due to difficulties in the administration of otic medication. This can be due to lack of owner compliance in the application of ear drops or due to the resentment that some dogs demonstrate when attempts are made to administer topical medication into a sensitive ear canal. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of a topical LED-illuminated gel (LIG) in canine otitis externa in comparison to standard of care therapy. Dogs with spontaneous otitis externa were randomly allocated in three groups: groups QW received LIG once weekly; BW received LIG twice weekly; group C received enrofloxacin and silver sulfadiazine twice daily. LIG consists of a topical application of a gel containing chromophores that, when illuminated by a LED lamp, re-emit fluorescent light which can stimulate physiological responses, promoting healing and controlling bacteria. The evaluation protocol (T0 to T5) considered clinical assessment (OTIS-3-index-scoring-system; pruritus-severity-scale; pain-severity-score; aural temperature), cytological scoring system, quali-quantitative bacteriologic assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Biophotonics; Dog; Fluorescence biomodulation; Inflammation; Light; Otitis; Otitis externa; Photobiomodulation; Phototherapy; Topical administration
Year: 2020 PMID: 32192496 PMCID: PMC7083025 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02311-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Comparison of baseline demographic and clinical data in the three groups on day 0
| Group QW | Group BW | Group C | Statistical data | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
(mean ± sd; months) | 100.0 ± 31.4 | 106.4 ± 45.7 | 91.8 ± 45.6 | F = 0.66 |
(mean ± sd; Kg) | 23.1 ± 11.2 | 23.4 ± 11.6 | 18.9 ± 10.4 | F = 1.06 |
(F:M ratio; number of cases) | 9:12 | 13:10 | 11:9 | χ2 = 0.958 |
(C:S ratio; number of cases) | 12:9 | 7:16 | 6:14 | χ2 = 4.293 |
QW group receiving LIG once weekly, BW group receiving LIG twice weekly, C group receiving standard of care twice daily, sd standard deviation, F female, M male, C ceruminous exudate, S suppurative exudate
Comparison of Otitis Index Scoring System (OTIS-3) within each group from T0 to T5
| T | T | Statistical data; | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (mean score ± sd) | (mean score ± sd) | ||
| 6.60 ± 1.82 | 4.05 ± 2.56 | W = 190; | |
| 6.24 ± 2.09 | 2.48 ± 1.83 | W = 231; | |
| 8.61 ± 1.72 | 4.00 ± 2.04 | W = 276; |
QW group receiving LIG once weekly, BW group receiving LIG twice weekly, C group receiving standard of care twice daily, sd standard deviation, T first evaluation time, T sixth (last) evaluation time
Fig. 1Trend of mean Total OTIS-3 Index Scoring System (total score, 0 to 12) ± SEM in the study groups during the trial, with indication (*) of the statistical significance (p < 0.05), considering the mean OTIS-3 reduction, between Group BW and Group C, and between Group QW and Group C
Comparison of pruritus severity scale within each group from T0 to T5
| T | T | Statistical data; | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (mean score ± sd) | (mean score ± sd) | ||
| 7.05 ± 1.14 | 3.95 ± 1.70 | W = 190; | |
| 5.81 ± 1.16 | 2.67 ± 1.96 | W = 219; | |
| 7.35 ± 1.40 | 3.35 ± 1.69 | W = 276; |
QW group receiving LIG once weekly, BW group receiving LIG twice weekly, C group receiving standard of care twice daily, sd standard deviation, T first evaluation time, T sixth (last) evaluation time
Fig. 2Mean Pruritus Severity Scores (VAS, 0 to 10) ± SEM per study group
Comparison of pain severity score within each group from T0 to T5
| T | T | Statistical data; | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (mean score ± sd) | (mean score ± sd) | ||
| 6.3 ± 1.59 | 4.05 ± 1.79 | W = 159; | |
| 5.57 ± 1.99 | 2.86 ± 1.49 | W = 195; | |
| 7.35 ± 1.26 | 3.87 ± 2.22 | W = 253; |
QW group receiving LIG once weekly, BW group receiving LIG twice weekly, C group receiving standard of care twice daily, sd standard deviation, T first evaluation time, T sixth (last) evaluation time
Fig. 3Mean Pain Severity Scores (VAS, 0 to 10) ± SEM per study group
Comparison of aural temperature (°C) within each group from T0 to T5
| T | T | Statistical data; | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (mean score ± sd) | (mean score ± sd) | ||
| 37.96 ± 0.39 | 37.58 ± 0.49 | t = 3.225; | |
| 37.90 ± 0.72 | 37.16 ± 0.85 | t = 4.865; | |
| 38.32 ± 0.70 | 37.77 ± 0.59 | t = 4.976; |
QW group receiving LIG once weekly, BW group receiving LIG twice weekly, C group receiving standard of care twice daily, sd standard deviation, T first evaluation time, T sixth (last) evaluation time
Fig. 4Mean Aural Temperatures (°C) ± SEM measured before application per study group
Fig. 5Mean Aural Temperature ± SEM measured before and immediately after application in exposed ear canals and in contralateral ear canals (°C)
Comparison of cytological assessment within each group from T0 to T5
| T | T | Statistical data; | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (mean score ± sd) | (mean score ± sd) | ||
| 7.80 ± 1.54 | 3.85 ± 2.71 | W = 210; | |
| 5.00 ± 3.27 | 1.43 ± 2.25 | W = 187; | |
| 7.56 ± 2.15 | 3.48 ± 2.09 | W = 253; |
QW group receiving LIG once weekly, BW group receiving LIG twice weekly, C group receiving standard of care twice daily, sd standard deviation, T first evaluation time, T sixth (last) evaluation time
Fig. 6Mean Cytological Scoring System (total score, 0 to 12) ± SEM by study group
Fig. 7Trend of mean percentage of CFU/mL in relation to initial bacterial count (T0, 100%) in the three study groups during the trial
Fig. 8Frequency of bacterial isolation according to the Gram staining in Groups C, QW and BW, at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T5) of the trial