Udder cleft dermatitis (UCD) is a well-known disorder in dairy cows. Veterinary literature about this subject, however, is scarce. The objectives of this study were to define a clinical scoring system for UCD, estimate the within-herd prevalence of UCD, and identify potential risk factors of UCD at cow and herd level. On 20 randomly selected dairy farms in the Netherlands, each lactating cow was photographed from a ventral, lateral, and caudal position. A scoring system with 6 categories of severity of UCD was proposed based on the ventral photographs. Cow measures such as udder width and depth, and front quarter attachment were determined from the lateral and caudal photographs. A questionnaire was conducted on each farm during farm visits. Udder cleft dermatitis, defined as a score 3 or higher, was detected in 5.2% of the 948 cows involved in this study. Within-herd prevalences of UCD ranged between 0 and 15% and UCD was found in 16 (80%) of the participating farms. Cows with a deep udder (relative to the hock), large front quarters, and a small angle between udder and abdominal wall were more likely to develop UCD. Production level and use of a footbath were identified as being positively associated with herd-level UCD prevalence. Herd size and average bulk milk somatic cell count did not seem to be associated with UCD prevalence. Because of the small herd sample size, no firm conclusions were drawn on herd-level risk factors. However, results from this study can be used in designing a future longitudinal UCD study. The prevalences of UCD found in the present study illustrate the current UCD situation in the Netherlands. Our results demonstrate that multiple potential risk factors of UCD could be identified at both the cow and herd level.

Background Immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are associated with an abnormal immune response, resulting in a disturbed homeostasis and chronic inflammation. Most canine dermatological IMIDs (cDIMIDs), such as allergies, autoimmune and immune‐mediated diseases, require long‐term treatment with immunosuppressive drugs with potential adverse effects. In general, nutraceuticals are thought to be safe. As a result, there is a tendency for the more frequent use of nutraceuticals in veterinary medicine. Objectives The aim of this review was to present evidence‐based proof for the use of various nutraceuticals in the treatment of cDIMIDs and, where possible, to provide conclusions to guide their use in veterinary dermatological practice. Methods A comprehensive literature search on common cDIMIDs and nutraceuticals was performed. Only peer‐reviewed articles published in English and related to the study topic were included. A total of 64 eligible publications were classified in five categories based on study design and substantively assessed on additional criteria such as standardisation of diets and number of included animals. For final appraisal, classification of major, minor or no evidence was used whereby efficacy was based on clinical outcome measurements. Conclusions Minor evidence for the beneficial use of several nutraceuticals, including essential fatty acids, niacinamide and probiotics, was found for treatment of specific cDIMIDs. These nutraceuticals may improve clinical signs or reduce the required dose of concurrent medication (e.g. drug‐sparing effect) in some dogs. Some nutraceuticals also may be used for long‐term maintenance therapy. Despite some promising findings, major evidence for the use of nutraceuticals in cDIMIDs is lacking, warranting further research.

BackgroundAllergen‐specific immunotherapy (ASIT) is an effective therapy for canine atopic dermatitis (cAD). Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is potentially beneficial in decreasing time to clinical effectiveness.ObjectiveTo compare clinical efficacy of six monthly ILIT injections combined with three monthly injections of lokivetmab (LVM) with monthly LVM monotherapy at Day (D)168. To monitor dogs treated with ILIT for an additional six months of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).AnimalsThirty‐six client‐owned dogs with cAD.Materials and MethodsIn this double‐blinded, randomised study, dogs received either six monthly injections of ILIT combined with three monthly LVM injections (ILIT group) or six monthly LVM injections (LVM group). Monthly evaluations with pruritus Visual Analogue Scale (pVAS), Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index, 4th iteration (CADESI‐04) and medication scores (MS) were undertaken. Owners completed a Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire. Treatment success was predefined as ≥50% reduction in pVAS and CADESI‐04 score ≤ 10. After D168, the ILIT group continued with SCIT until subjective assessment at 12 months.ResultsThe treatment benchmark at D168 was achieved by 11.1% of the ILIT group and 11.8% of LVM group. A significant decrease in mean pVAS and CADESI scores was observed in both groups (p < 0.001). The ILIT group had a trend towards higher MS compared to LVM. QoL was better in LVM (p = 0.01). At 12 months subjective good‐to‐excellent response in 77.8% of dogs in the ILIT/SCIT group was seen.Conclusion and Clinical RelevanceThe efficacy of this ILIT protocol was comparable with LVM monotherapy at six months. When ILIT was continued with SCIT, a favourable response was seen.