BMC veterinary research · 2021
Pilot study of dogs with suppurative and non-suppurative Malassezia otitis: A case series.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nunes Rodrigues Tania C, Vandenabeele Sophie I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Rarely, Malassezia otitis presents as a painful, erosive otitis with an otic discharge containing Malassezia and neutrophils on cytology. There are no published reports of this type of suppurative Malassezia otitis (SMO). The role of Malassezia hypersensitivity in otitis is still unknown, and no association has been demonstrated with SMO. We compared Malassezia IgE levels, intradermal test and histology changes in SMO dogs with the more conventional Malassezia otitis (MO) presentation.
RESULTS: Three dogs (case 1, case 2 and case 3) were diagnosed with SMO, one dog (case 4) was diagnosed with unilateral MO and unilateral SMO, and one dog (case 5) was diagnosed with MO. Only one case (case 4) with SMO/MO had a positive Intradermal Allergy Test (IDAT) and elevated IgE levels for Malassezia. Histopathology findings from SMO revealed: interface dermatitis (case 1 and 3), lymphocytic dermatitis (case 2) and chronic hyperplastic eosinophilic and lymphoplasmacytic dermatitis (case 4). Histopathology findings from MO showed perivascular dermatitis (case 4 and 5). All the cases were treated successfully.
CONCLUSIONS: SMO presents with a distinct clinical phenotype in comparison with conventional MO. No consistent aetiology could be isolated. In these clinical cases it is possible that previous treatments could have influenced the results. More research is needed to understand the possible aetiologies and the pathogenesis of SMO.
RESULTS: Three dogs (case 1, case 2 and case 3) were diagnosed with SMO, one dog (case 4) was diagnosed with unilateral MO and unilateral SMO, and one dog (case 5) was diagnosed with MO. Only one case (case 4) with SMO/MO had a positive Intradermal Allergy Test (IDAT) and elevated IgE levels for Malassezia. Histopathology findings from SMO revealed: interface dermatitis (case 1 and 3), lymphocytic dermatitis (case 2) and chronic hyperplastic eosinophilic and lymphoplasmacytic dermatitis (case 4). Histopathology findings from MO showed perivascular dermatitis (case 4 and 5). All the cases were treated successfully.
CONCLUSIONS: SMO presents with a distinct clinical phenotype in comparison with conventional MO. No consistent aetiology could be isolated. In these clinical cases it is possible that previous treatments could have influenced the results. More research is needed to understand the possible aetiologies and the pathogenesis of SMO.