Editorial

Abstract

Some articles in this issue have the bullet point clinical summaries described in my December editorial. These do not replace the abstracts. They are to enable the nontechnical reader understand the context of the subject and to summarize what the article adds to the knowledge of that subject. It is hoped that, in addition to the standard abstracts, these will help busy readers in general practice both to understand the relevance of articles to their daily work and to enable them to decide what they wish to read in greater detail. We are pleased to have manuscripts describing novel approaches to therapy. In this issue, we report a multicentre trial of a novel proprietary blend of plant extracts (PYM00217) in the management of canine atopic dermatitis. The trial was randomized, double blind, placebo controlled and was a parallel group design. The number of dogs entered was based on the pre-study estimate of the statistical power of the study and three doses were tested. Lesions were assessed by the canine atopic dermatitis extent and severity index (CADESI) index. Statistical analysis was done on the intention-to-treat population. The results indicate that the 200 mg kg−1 day−1 dose was significantly more effective than placebo and, in general, the compound was well tolerated with only minor adverse effects on gastrointestinal function. Another prospective study reported here is the pilot study of the use of topical imiquimod (an immune response modifier) as a topical cream to treat equine sarcoids. The trial was neither blinded nor controlled and numbers were small but the results are encouraging enough to indicate further controlled studies are warranted. We are also pleased to publish manuscripts that, although not prospective or totally novel, add to the breadth of our knowledge on the use of different products. One example is that of the large retrospective survey comparing home-prepared and a chicken hydrolysate diet to diagnose adverse reactions to food. Science involves painstaking work to prove hypotheses. In this issue, Linda Frank and co-workers report the latest of their studies exploring the hormonal background of alopecia X in Pomeranians. Despite hair regrowth during the study1 this was not associated with a change in oestrogen receptor-α staining. Similarly, in their previous study, they found no correlation between hair regrowth and adrenal steroid hormone concentrations. Is this disease associated with sex hormones or is it even an endocrinopathy? The site of the follicular stem cells that initiate canine hair growth is controversial. The manuscript by Pascucci and colleagues shows that the stem cell marker CD34 is present in a bulge-like area of the canine hair follicle. CD34 is one of a number of markers, studies on which will improve our knowledge of how and why hair grows. Eventually, this may enable the development of new products to reverse cyclical arrest and support hair growth. As indicated above, Veterinary Dermatology welcomes reviews and scientific manuscripts about new dermatological products. All such contributions are peer reviewed and decisions on publication are made on scientific grounds. It is not the policy of Veterinary Dermatology to advertise or promote specific products. The Journal is scientific in nature, not a general information publication. The Journal aims to assess the evidence of efficacy of scientific generic compounds rather than endorse a product. Scientific presentations at the European Society of Veterinary Dermatology and the American College of Veterinary Dermatology meetings are abstracted in the Journal and these may also refer to new products. Sometimes abstracts and articles are edited so that neither they nor Editorials promote specific products. We invite review papers as these are valued as updates by the general reader. All are refereed to ensure that the reputation of the journal is maintained. Refereeing usually identifies points that need to be rewritten and generally improves the review. Authors routinely welcome this. Although we ask for reviews from some authors, none is singled out as ‘invited’ as this can have an implication that the information is somehow of different quality. We are pleased to see the ‘Letters to the Editor’ section bulging in this issue. Too often, alternative views are not expressed, leaving readers less well informed and unaware of controversial subjects. We welcome case reports but, before submitting these, ensure they present a unique or outstanding description; it is not sufficient merely to describe the same condition in a different breed or species. The Board is considering future directions for the Journal. Possible sections on dermatological hypotheses and experimental dermatology as well as fast tracking of some manuscripts (and charging for this service) are some of the topics for discussion.