Topical Minoxidil Exposures and Toxicoses in Dogs and Cats: 211 Cases (2001–2019)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy C. Tater ◽  
Sharon Gwaltney-Brant ◽  
Tina Wismer
Keyword(s):  
Hair Loss ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Control Center ◽  
Pet Owners ◽  
Topical Minoxidil ◽  
Low Exposure ◽  
American Society ◽  
Major Illness

ABSTRACT Topical minoxidil is a medication for hair loss, initially available in the United States by prescription only and available since 1996 as an over-the-counter product. To determine the epidemiology of minoxidil exposures and toxicoses in dogs and cats, 211 dog and cat cases with topical minoxidil exposure were identified from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Animal Poison Control Center database. In 87 cases with clinical signs of toxicosis (62 cats, 25 dogs), case narratives were reviewed and coded for exposure-related circumstances. Unintentional delivery, especially while pet owners applied minoxidil for his/her own hair loss (e.g., pet licked owner’s skin or pillowcase, pet was splashed during a medication spill), was the most common cat exposure circumstance. Exploratory behavior (e.g., searching through trash) was the most common dog exposure circumstance. Clinical signs occurred in dogs and cats even with low exposure amounts, such as drops or licks. In patients that developed clinical signs, most developed moderate or major illness (56.0% dogs, 59.7% cats). Death occurred in 8/62 (12.9%) cats that developed clinical signs after the pet owner’s minoxidil use. Pet owners should be educated on the risk of dog and cat toxicosis from accidental minoxidil exposure.

Evaluation of castor bean toxicosis in dogs: 98 cases

2000 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
JC Albretsen ◽  
SM Gwaltney-Brant ◽  
SA Khan
Keyword(s):  
Castor Bean ◽  
Ricinus Communis ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Poison Control Center ◽  
Control Center ◽  
American Society ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

Castor beans (Ricinus communis) contain ricin. Ricin is a glycoprotein reported to cause hypotension, gastroenteritis, depression, and death. However, few deaths are reported following castor bean ingestion in animals. From January 1987 to December 1998, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-National Animal Poison Control Center received 98 incidents of castor bean ingestion in dogs. The most commonly reported clinical signs were vomiting, depression, and diarrhea. Death or euthanasia occurred in 9% of the cases. The severity of clinical signs following castor bean ingestion may depend on whether the beans were chewed or swallowed whole.

Mirtazapine toxicity in cats: retrospective study of 84 cases (2006–2011)

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 868-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah E Ferguson ◽  
Mary Kay McLean ◽  
Julia A Bates ◽  
Jessica M Quimby
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Control Center ◽  
Abnormal Gait ◽  
Route Of Exposure ◽  
American Society ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

Objectives Mirtazapine is commonly used in veterinary medicine at doses of 1.88 or 3.75 mg as an appetite stimulant. The objectives of this study were to determine the most common adverse effects reported and the dose associated with these signs. Methods Records of cats with mirtazapine exposure (2006–2011) were obtained from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ Animal Poison Control Center. The following parameters were recorded: signalment, weight, outcome, agent ingested, amount ingested, route of exposure, clinical signs observed, intended of use, onset time of signs and duration of signs. Results The 10 most commonly observed adverse effects reported in 84 cats exposed to mirtazapine included vocalization (56.0% of cats; mean dose 2.56 mg/kg), agitation (31.0%; 2.57 mg/kg), vomiting (26.2%; 2.92 mg/kg), abnormal gait/ataxia (16.7%; 2.87 mg/kg), restlessness (14.3%; 3.55 mg/kg), tremors/trembling (14.3%; 2.43 mg/kg), hypersalivation (13.0%; 2.89 mg/kg), tachypnea (11.9%; 3.28 mg/kg), tachycardia (10.7%; 3.04 mg/kg) and lethargy (10.7%; 2.69 mg/kg). Fifty-nine (70.2%) cases were considered accidental ingestions and 25 (29.8%) cases were given mirtazapine as prescribed. The doses associated with signs of toxicity were 15.00 mg (40 cats), 3.75 mg (25 cats), 7.50 mg (four cats), 30.00 mg (one cat), 18.75 mg (one cat), 11.25 mg (one cat), 5.80 mg (one cat) and 1.88 mg (one cat). For cats with available information, the onset of clinical signs ranged from 15 mins to 3 h, and time to resolution of clinical signs ranged from 12–48 h. Conclusions and relevance The greater number of adverse effects at 3.75 mg rather than 1.88 mg suggests that the latter may be a more appropriate starting dose for stimulating appetite while limiting toxicity. The benefit of dispensing exact doses of mirtazapine is implied given the likelihood of accidental administration of a full tablet (15 mg) and the resulting toxicity.

scholarly journals Suitability of Data for the Surveillance of Toxicological Events in Companion Animals

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Swirski ◽  
Dr. David Pearl ◽  
Dr. Olaf Berke ◽  
Terri O'Sullivan ◽  
Deborah Stacey
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Companion Animals ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Poison Control Center ◽  
Pet Food ◽  
Control Center ◽  
Animal Populations ◽  
American Society ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

Objective: Our objective was to assess the suitability of the data collected by the Animal Poison Control Center, run by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for the surveillance of toxicological exposures in companion animals in the United States.Introduction: There have been a number of non-infectious intoxication outbreaks reported in North American companion animal populations over the last decade1. The most devastating outbreak to date was the 2007 melamine pet food contamination incident which affected thousands of pet dogs and cats across North America1. Despite these events, there have been limited efforts to conduct real-time surveillance of toxicological exposures in companion animals nationally, and there is no central registry for the reporting of toxicological events in companion animals in the United States. However, there are a number of poison control centers in the US that collect extensive data on toxicological exposures in companion animals, one of which is the Animal Poison Control Center (APCC) operated by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Each year the APCC receives thousands of reports of suspected animal poisonings and collects extensive information from each case, including location of caller, exposure history, diagnostic findings, and outcome. The records from each case are subsequently entered and stored in the AnTox database, an electronic medical record database maintained by the APCC. Therefore, the AnTox database represents a novel source of data for real-time surveillance of toxicological events in companion animals, and may be used for surveillance of pet food and environmental contamination events that may negatively impact both veterinary and human health.Methods: Recorded data from calls to the APPC were collected from the AnTox database from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014, inclusive. Sociodemographic data were extracted from the American 2010 decennial census and the American Community Surveys. Choropleth maps were used for preliminary analyses to examine the distribution of reporting to the hotline at the county-level and identify any “holes” in surveillance. To further identify if gaps in reporting were randomly distributed or tended to occur in clusters, as well as to look for any predictable spatial clusters of high rates of reporting, spatial scan statistics, based on a Poisson model, were employed. We fitted multilevel logistic regression models, to account for clustering within county and state, to identify factors (e.g., season, human demographic factors) that are related to predictable changes in call volume or reporting, which may bias the results of quantitative methods for aberration/outbreak detection.Results: Throughout the study period, over 40% of counties reported at least one call to the hotline each year, with the majority of calls coming from the Northeast. Conversely, there was a large “hole” in coverage in Midwestern and southeastern states. The location of the most likely high and low call rate clusters were relatively stable throughout the study period and were associated with socioeconomic status (SES), as the most likely high risk clusters were identified in areas of high SES. Similar results were identified using multivariable analysis as indicators of high SES were found to be positively associated with rates of calls to the hotline at the county-level.Conclusions: Socioeconomic status is a major factor impacting the reporting of toxicological events to the APCC, and needs to be accounted for when applying cluster detection methods to identify outbreaks of mass poisoning events. Large spatial gaps in the network of potential callers to the center also need to be recognized when interpreting the spatiotemporal results of analyses involving these data, particularly when statistical methods that are highly influenced by edge effects are used.

scholarly journals 2017 Annual Report of the University of Kansas Health System Poison Control Center

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 70-79
Author(s):  
Lisa K Oller ◽  
Stephen L Thornton
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health System ◽  
Human Exposure ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
University Of Kansas ◽  
Control Center ◽  
Route Of Exposure

Introduction This is the 2017 Annual Report of the University of Kansas Health System Poison Control Center (PCC). The PCC is one of 55 certified poison control centers in the United States and serves the state of Kansas 24-hours a day, 365 days a year. The PCC receives calls from the public, law enforcement, health care professionals, and public health agencies, which are answered by trained and certified specialists in poison information with the immediate availability of medical toxicology back up. All calls to the PCC are recorded electronically in the Toxicall® data management system and uploaded in near real-time to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which is the data repository for all poison control centers in the United States. Methods All encounters reported to the PCC from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 were analyzed. Data recorded for each exposure included caller location, age, weight, gender, substance exposed to, nature of exposure, route of exposure, interventions, medical outcome, disposition and location of care. Encounters were classified further as human exposure, animal exposure, confirmed non-exposure, or information call (no exposure reported). Results The PCC logged 21,431 total encounters in 2017, including 20,278 human exposure cases. Cases came from every county in Kansas. Most of the human exposure cases (51.4%, n = 10,430) were female. Approximately 66% (n = 13,418) of human exposures involved a child (defined as age less than 20 years). Most encounters occurred at a residence (94.0%, n = 19,018) and most calls (69.5%, n = 14,090) originated from a residence. Almost all human exposures (n = 19,823) were acute cases (exposures occurring over eight hours or less). Ingestion was the most common route of exposure documented (80.5%, n = 17,466). The most common reported substance in pediatric encounters was cosmetics/personal care products (n = 1,255), followed by household cleaning products (n = 1,251). For adult encounters, analgesics (n = 1,160) and sedatives/hypnotics/antipsychotics (n = 1,127) were the most frequently involved substances. Unintentional exposures were the most common reason for exposures (78.6%, n = 15,947). Most encounters (69.4%, n = 14,073) were managed in a non-health care facility (i.e., a residence). Among human exposures, 14,940 involved exposures to pharmaceutical agents, while 9,896 involved exposure to non-pharmaceuticals. Medical outcomes were 28% (n = 5,741) no effect, 18% (n = 3,693) minor effect, 9% (n = 1,739) moderate effect, and 2% (n = 431) major effect. There were 16 deaths in 2017 reported to the PCC. Number of exposures, calls from health care facilities, cases with moderate or major medical outcomes, and deaths increased in 2017 compared to 2016, despite a decrease in total exposures. Conclusions The results of the 2017 University of Kansas Health System Poison Control annual report demonstrated that the center continues to receive calls from the entire state of Kansas, totaling over 20,000 human exposures per year. While pediatric exposures remain the most common, a trend of increasing number of calls remains from health care facilities and for cases with serious outcomes. The 2017 PCC data reflected current national trends. This report demonstrated the continued importance of the PCC to both the public and health care providers in the state of Kansas.

Clinical Signs of Cardiovascular Effects Secondary to Suspected Pimobendan Toxicosis in Five Dogs

2012 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 250-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Noelani Reinker ◽  
Justine A. Lee ◽  
Lynn R. Hovda ◽  
Mark Rishniw
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Asymptomatic Patient ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Cardiovascular Effects ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Poison Control Center ◽  
Control Center ◽  
Electrocardiogram Monitoring

The purpose of this study was to review the medical records of dogs that were either suspected or known to have ingested large doses of pimobendan and to describe the clinical signs associated with pimobendan toxicosis. The database of Pet Poison Helpline, an animal poison control center located in Minneapolis, MN, was searched for cases involving pimobendan toxicosis from Nov 2004 to Apr 2010. In total, 98 cases were identified. Of those, seven dogs that ingested between 2.6 mg/kg and 21.3 mg/kg were selected for further evaluation. Clinical signs consisted of cardiovascular abnormalities, including severe tachycardia (4/7), hypotension (2/7), and hypertension (2/7). In two dogs, no clinical signs were seen. Despite a wide safety profile, large overdoses of pimobendan may present risks for individual pets. Prompt decontamination, including emesis induction and the administration of activated charcoal, is advised in the asymptomatic patient. Symptomatic and supportive care should include the use of IV fluid therapy to treat hypotension and address hydration requirements and blood pressure and electrocardiogram monitoring with high-dose toxicosis. Practitioners should be aware of the clinical signs associated with high-dose pimobendan toxicosis. Of the dogs reported herein, all were hospitalized, responded to supportive care, and survived to discharge within 24 hr of exposure.

scholarly journals Retrospective study of suspected canine poisoning cases at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria (2009-2019)

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-37
Author(s):  
O.A. Adekoya ◽  
O.T. Adenubi ◽  
O.O. Adebayo ◽  
O.O. Adebowale ◽  
J.A. Oyewusi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Teaching Hospital ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Delayed Presentation ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Pet Owners ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Route Of Exposure

AbstractCases of canine poisoning pose a great challenge to pet owners and veterinarians due to incomplete patient history, late/delayed presentation of pets and the large array of poisonous agents. A ten-year retrospective study on canine poisoning cases presented to the Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Abeokuta, Nigeria was conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize animal signalment, mode, month and year of exposure, severity, treatment and outcome. Associations between explanatory demographic characteristics of patients (age, sex and breed) with poison type and route of exposure were determined using a binary logistic regression model. Fifty-two case records with poisoning history and complete data were reviewed. The study population consisted of twenty males and thirty-two females between two months and five years of age. Poisonous agents that were identified included insecticides/acaricides (83%), cleaning products (2%), rodenticides (4%) and snake venom (6%). Poisoning occurred more in Alsatians, especially during the rainy season. No association between the dog demographics with type of poisoning and route of exposure was observed (p>0.05). There were 4 fatalities and 48 recoveries. This study highlights the heterogeneity of poisonous agents, associated clinical signs, treatment and outcome, and the challenges involved in poison control. Standardized approaches for the collection, assessment, integration of poisoning data and risk management is needed.

scholarly journals Epidemiology of Suspected Pesticide Poisoning in Livestock

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy Akkina ◽  
Leah Estberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Pesticide Exposure ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Severity Of Illness ◽  
The United States ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Pesticide Poisoning ◽  
Pesticide Exposures ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The U.S

ObjectiveThis study characterizes the epidemiology of suspected pesticide poisoning in livestock in the United States (U.S.) and Canada using data from calls to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) Animal Poison Control Center (APCC).IntroductionPesticides are used in agriculture and in the home to control pests such as insects, weeds, fungi and rodents. Pesticide poisoning in animals is usually due to misuse or accidental exposure1. Information on poisonings in livestock in North America is largely lacking2. Examples of hotlines in the U.S. for animal poisoning consultations include the APCC ($65.00 fee) and the Pet Poison Helpline (PPH) ($59.00 fee). The APCC fields calls 24 hours/day, 7 days/week about animal poisonings from the U.S., its territories and Canada. Using data from almost 4 years of APCC calls we describe the occurrence, category and class of pesticides involved, and outcomes of suspected pesticide exposures in livestock. This information is useful to raise awareness, encourage the proper use of pesticides and identify specific pesticides with negative impact on livestock health.MethodsAPHIS contracts with the APCC to receive de-identified data weekly on livestock calls for the purpose of conducting surveillance. This retrospective study used data from all calls concerning bovine, camelid, caprine, equine, ovine, porcine and poultry species from 10/1/2013 to 9/2/2017, where the caller reported suspected pesticide exposure. There were 1,025 calls regarding 3,028 animals meeting this criteria, representing 52% of all livestock calls with any type of toxic exposure. Caller type was 80% animal owners, 10% veterinarian or veterinary staff, and 10% other types. Most callers (92%) provided their zip code, with 96% of calls from the U.S. and 4% from Canada. Variables used for descriptive analysis were: species; APCC staff assessment that illness was due to pesticide exposure; severity of illness; clinical signs; first, second and third ingredients of the pesticide, and pesticide ingredient class (e.g. pyrethrin). Pesticides were grouped based on the first active ingredient into fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, and rodenticide categories.ResultsThe proportion of calls by species was equine (33%), poultry (26%), bovine (25%), caprine (8%), porcine (6%), ovine (2%), and camelid (0.5%). Some animals were exposed to >1 pesticide product and some pesticide products had >1 ingredient class. The pesticide category with the highest number of exposed animals was insecticides (2,151), followed by herbicides (839), rodenticides (765) and fungicides (286). The treemap below illustrates the number and proportions of animals exposed to the 4 pesticide categories and the top 3 pesticide classes within each category based on the first active ingredient. For all pesticide exposures in all species, no illness was reported in 68% of animals. According to assessment by APCC staff, only 35% (333) of animals showing clinical signs were considered with confidence (medium or high likelihood) to be due to pesticide exposure. For these 333 animals, severity of illness was mild for 80% (266 animals), moderate for 18% (61 animals), major for 1% (3 animals) and caused death in 1% (3 animals). Among animals with confidence that clinical signs were due to pesticide exposure the most frequent syndrome was dermatologic.ConclusionsSuspected pesticide exposure was the most frequent reason a call concerning livestock was made to the APCC. Callers reported that most animals showed no illness, and major illness or death was rare. Livestock were most frequently exposed to the insecticide category, and 46% of the animals with exposure to insecticides were exposed to the pyrethrin class. This is consistent with the phasing out of organophosphate insecticides for residential use since 2000 and the increasing use of pyrethrin insecticides3, which are considered less toxic. Limitations of this study include: 1) data from only one major animal poison control hotline was available for analysis and people may call their veterinarian directly or use the internet 2) calls regarding specific ingredients may be over represented due to corporate client relationships with the APCC 3) illness may have occurred after the call was made, therefore the proportion of animals with illness following suspected exposure may be an underestimate.References1. Wang Y, Kruzik P, Helsber A, Helsberg I, Rausch W. (2006) Pesticide poisoning in domestic animals and livestock in Austria: A 6 year retrospective study. Forensic Science International 169:157-160.2. Gwaltney-Brant SM. (2012). Epidemiology of Animal Poisonings in the United States. In: Gupta RC (Ed.), Veterinary Toxicology: Basic and Clinical Principles. Elsevier, Second ed: 80-87.3. Power LE, Sudakin DL. Pyrethrin and pyrethroid exposures in the United States: A longitudinal analysis of incidents reported to Poison Centers. (2007) J of Medical Toxicology. 3(3):94-99. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document