Article

Serum cobalamin and methylmalonic acid concentrations in dogs with chronic gastrointestinal disease.

Gastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
American Journal of Veterinary Research (Impact Factor: 1.21). 01/2013; 74(1):84-9. DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.74.1.84
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objective-To determine the prevalence of hypocobalaminemia or methylmalonic acidemia (or both) in dogs with chronic gastrointestinal disease. Sample-Serum samples from 56 dogs with chronic gastrointestinal disease and 43 control dogs. Procedures-Serum cobalamin and methylmalonic acid (MMA) concentrations were measured in all samples and compared between groups. A correlation between serum cobalamin and MMA concentrations and the canine chronic enteropathy clinical activity index was evaluated via the Spearman rank correlation. Results-20 of 56 (36%) dogs with gastrointestinal disease had hypocobalaminemia. Serum cobalamin concentrations were significantly lower in dogs with gastrointestinal disease than in control dogs. Five of 56 (9%) dogs with chronic gastrointestinal disease and 5 of 20 (25%) hypocobalaminemic dogs had increased MMA concentrations. There was a significant negative correlation (Spearman r = -0.450) between serum cobalamin and MMA concentrations in dogs with gastrointestinal disease. No correlation was found between the canine chronic enteropathy clinical activity index and serum cobalamin or MMA concentrations. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-These data indicated the prevalence of hypocobalaminemia in dogs with chronic gastrointestinal disease was 20 of 56 (36%). Five of 20 (25%) hypocobalaminemic dogs had increased serum MMA concentrations, which indicated that although hypocobalaminemia was common in these dogs, it did not always appear to be associated with a deficiency of cobalamin on a cellular level. Hypocobalaminemia is a risk factor for negative outcome in dogs with chronic gastrointestinal disease and should be considered in every patient with corresponding clinical signs.

0 Followers
 · 
196 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A wide variety of markers are available to assess the function and pathology of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. This review describes some of these markers with special emphasis given to markers used in dogs and cats. Small intestinal disease can be confirmed and localized by the measurement of serum concentrations of folate and cobalamin. Fecal α1-proteinase inhibitor concentration can increase in individuals with excessive GI protein loss. A wide variety of inflammatory markers are available for a variety of species that can be used to assess the inflammatory activity of various types of inflammatory cells in the GI tract, although most of these markers assess neutrophilic inflammation, such as neutrophil elastase, calprotectin, or S100A12. N-methylhistamine can serve as a marker of mast cell infiltration. Markers for lymphocytic or eosinophilic inflammation are currently under investigation. Exocrine pancreatic function can be assessed by measurement of serum concentrations of pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (PLI) and trypsin-like immunoreactivity (TLI). Serum PLI concentration is increased in individuals with pancreatitis and has been shown to be highly specific for exocrine pancreatic function and sensitive for pancreatitis. Serum TLI concentration is severely decreased in individuals with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.
    Toxicologic Pathology 10/2013; DOI:10.1177/0192623313506793 · 1.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in dogs can be challenging to diagnose and fecal markers of disease that correlate with its severity could potentially be clinically useful. Surrogate inflammatory markers, such as the concentration of fecal S100A12, are used to detect active IBD in humans. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between fecal canine S100A12 concentrations and clinical, endoscopic, and histologic disease severity. Twenty-six dogs with IBD and 90 healthy control dogs were enrolled. Spot fecal samples were collected and fecal canine S100A12 concentrations measured by an in-house ELISA. The correlation of fecal canine S100A12 concentrations with clinical disease activity (using the canine chronic enteropathy clinical activity index scoring system) and with endoscopic and histologic disease severity (using semi-quantitative grading systems) was assessed in dogs with IBD. Concentrations of fecal canine S100A12 were significantly higher in dogs with IBD (median [interquartile range]: 223 [21-3,477] ng/g) than in healthy controls (median [interquartile range]: 9 [5-31] ng/g; P < 0.0001). Fecal canine S100A12 concentrations correlated with the CCECAI score (ρ = 0.4778; P = 0.0408) and the severity of endoscopic lesions in the duodenum (ρ = 0.4703; P = 0.0354) and colon (ρ = 0.9747; P = 0.0144), but not with the severity of histopathologic changes except for inflammatory lesions in the colon (ρ = 0.8669; P = 0.0230). A concentration of 273 ng fecal canine S100A12/g feces or greater distinguished a) dogs with moderate to severe endoscopic disease in any GI section from dogs with at most mild endoscopic disease, and b) dogs with very severe clinical disease (i.e., a CCECAI score of ≥12) from dogs with a CCECAI score of <12, with a sensitivity of 71% and 90%, respectively, and a specificity of 89% and 75%, respectively. This study showed that fecal canine S100A12 concentrations are increased in dogs with IBD. Further, this study showed that fecal canine S100A12 is associated with the clinical disease activity, the severity of endoscopic lesions, and the severity of colonic inflammation in dogs with IBD. Fecal S100A12 concentrations are potentially useful as a biomarker of inflammation in dogs with IBD.
    Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 04/2014; 158(3-4). DOI:10.1016/j.vetimm.2014.01.006 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • The Veterinary Journal 04/2013; 196(2). DOI:10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.03.022 · 2.17 Impact Factor