• Open Access

A Prospective Study of Clopidogrel Therapy in Dogs with Primary Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia

Authors

  • A.M. Mellett,

    1. Internal Medicine and Critical Care Departments, Red Bank Veterinary Hospital, NJ
    2. University of Pennsylvania, College of Veterinary Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • R.K. Nakamura,

    1. Internal Medicine and Critical Care Departments, Red Bank Veterinary Hospital, NJ
    2. Advanced Veterinary Care Center, Lawndale, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • D. Bianco

    1. Internal Medicine and Critical Care Departments, Red Bank Veterinary Hospital, NJ
    2. Veterinary Specialists of the Valley, Woodland Hills, CA.
    Search for more papers by this author

  • This work was performed at Red Bank Veterinary Hospital. Abstract was presented at the 2010 ACVIM Forum in Anaheim, CA.

Corresponding author: Dr Domenico Bianco, DVM, PhD, DACVIM, Veterinary Specialists of the Valley, Internal Medicine Department, 22123 Ventura Boulevard, Woodland Hills, CA 91364; e-mail: d.bianco@vetspecialistsvalley.com.

Abstract

Background: A major cause of death in dogs with primary immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (pIMHA) is thrombotic disease. Ultralow-dose aspirin (ULDA) is commonly used to prevent thrombosis in dogs with pIMHA; however, the efficacy of antiplatelet agents in dogs with pIMHA is unknown.

Hypothesis: The use of clopidogrel (CL), alone or in combination with ULDA, would improve survival to discharge and at 90 days without important adverse effects compared with ULDA alone in dogs with pIMHA treated with standard immunosuppressive therapy.

Animals: Twenty-four client-owned dogs with pIMHA.

Methods: Prospective, positive-controlled, unmasked clinical trial with dogs randomized in 3 treatment groups to receive PO ULDA or CL or both.

Results: There was no identifiable adverse reaction, evidence of hemorrhage, or increase in transfusion requirements associated with CL therapy, either alone or combined with ULDA, compared with ULDA alone. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with respect to survival to discharge and at 90 days.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance: This study suggests that CL therapy, alone or in combination with ULDA, was safe and had similar short-term survival compared with ULDA alone in a small group of dogs with pIMHA able to tolerate oral medications and treated with standard immunosuppressive treatment.

Ancillary