A 4-year-old, female, Maltese dog with bilateral hind limb ataxia was brought to Gyeongsang National University Animal Medical Center (GAMC). Based on the previous medical and imaging records, the patient was presumptively diagnosed with a primary brain tumor of the right temporo-occipital lobe on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a local animal hospital. Hydroxyurea and prednisolone therapy was initiated, and the neurological signs transiently improved. Approximately 5 months after the treatment, ataxia recurred and the patient was referred to GAMC. Upon admission, MRI at the same anatomic level as in the previous MRI was performed. Results showed inflammatory brain lesions, not brain neoplastic changes. Considering this finding, the dog was tentatively diagnosed with meningoencephalitis of unknown etiology (MUE). We added oral imatinib mesylate (10 mg/kg every 24 h), and the dosage of prednisolone was increased to 1 mg/kg twice daily. Hydroxyurea was discontinued. A rapid improvement in neurological signs was observed after the initiation of imatinib mesylate treatment. Approximately 2 months after the treatment, the size of the inflammatory lesion remarkably decreased on repeat MRI. The patient had been doing well, and there were no overt neurological signs 259 days after the initiation of imatinib mesylate therapy. We describe a case of MUE in a dog that was successfully managed with imatinib mesylate.

An 8-year-old castrated male Maltese dog (patient) was referred to our institute with refractory canine babesiosis. The patient had previously responded to conventional treatment with atovaquone and azithromycin; however, anemia had recurred at six weeks after treatment withdrawal. No effect was observed on the administration of the same medication along with diminazene aceturate. On blood analysis, mild anemia was identified, with the absolute reticulocyte count indicating a markedly regenerative state. On Diff-Quik-stained peripheral blood film examination, the parasitic protozoan Babesia gibsoni was observed, and based on further laboratory examinations, a relapse of babesiosis was confirmed. Based on a previous study of drug-resistant variants of B. gibsoni and therapeutic trials, the treatment was then changed to a combination therapy of clindamycin, doxycycline, and metronidazole. Subsequently, the patient’s condition improved rapidly — B. gibsoni was not detected in the blood film and the PCR analysis for it was negative. This treatment was discontinued at six weeks after treatment initiation; however, at seven weeks after the treatment withdrawal, another relapse of babesiosis was confirmed and treatment was restarted with the same protocol. This treatment was effective again and lasted for 12 weeks. However, anemia recurred again at five weeks after withdrawal of the previous treatment and was corrected by restarting the same treatment protocol. This third treatment continued for 24 weeks and was finally stopped at the request of the client. The patient has reportedly been doing well with no manifestation of clinical signs and symptoms. This case report demonstrates that the clindamycin- doxycycline-metronidazole combination therapy against atovaquone and azithromycin-resistant B. gibsoni may be effective in improving the clinical manifestation of symptoms of canine babesiosis and this therapy may be an alternative treatment strategy.

This study compares the differences in the gastrointestinal transit time between the conventional capsule endoscope and a minimized capsule endoscope model in normal dogs to verify whether the minimization of capsule endoscope can help relief retention in the gastrointestinal tract, especially in the pyloric passage. Three male beagles were used as the experimental group for which the minimized capsule endoscope model was orally administered and the control group consisted of three beagle dogs for which the conventional capsule endoscope was orally administered. Nine experiments were conducted with three experiments for each dog in each group. The results showed a significant difference in the gastric transit time (GTT) by the minimization of the capsule endoscope between the two groups (control group: 123.3 ± 80 min, experimental group: 63.3 ± 40.9 min, p=0.019). In contrast, the difference in the small bowel transit time (SBTT) by the minimization of the capsule endoscope between the two groups (control group: 86.6 ± 58.9 min, experimental group: 80 ± 33.5 min, p=0.863) was not significant. In this study, the capsule endoscopes reached the large intestine without retention in the small intestine in all subjects. The significant difference in the GTT between the control group using the conventional capsule endoscope and the experimental group using the minimized capsule endoscope model suggests that the smaller size of the capsule endoscope is helpful in resolving retention in the gastrointestinal tract, thus shorting the GTT.

This study investigated the prokinetic effect of metoclopramide and mirtazapine on gastric transit time (GTT), small bowel transit time (SBTT) and gastrointestinal transit time (GITT) during capsule endoscopy in four healthy beagle dogs. Four beagle dogs participated in the experiment as four groups at intervals of more than three days as the following: Control group 1 (capsule alone), Control group 2 (capsule alone), Metoclopramide administered group (metoclopramide + capsule) and Mirtazapine administered group (mirtazapine + capsule). The results of this study demonstrated there was no significant difference in GTT ([min] control group 1: 105 ± 90, control group 2: 172.5 ± 102 vs metoclopramide administered group: 247.5 ± 93, p = 0.07, 0.10) and SBTT ([min] control group 1: 120 ± 88, control group 2: 75 ± 39 vs metoclopramide administered group: 37.5 ± 15, p = 0.20, 0.18) for capsule only administered groups (control group 1 & 2) compared to metoclopramide administered group. In addition, there was no significant difference in GTT ([min] control group 1: 105 ± 90, control group 2: 172.5 ± 102 vs mirtazapine administered group: 127.5 ± 45, p = 0.56, 0.36) and SBTT ([min] control group 1: 120 ± 88, control group 2: 75 ± 39 vs mirtazapine administered group: 157.5 ± 38, p = 0.29, 0.07) between capsule only administered groups (control group 1 & 2) and mirtazapine administered group. In this study, the fact that metoclopramide might be ineffective and administration of mirtazapine might be inadequate in dogs were confirmed.