Immune‐mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA) causes severe anemia in dogs and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Treatment with various immunosuppressive and antithrombotic drugs has been described anecdotally and in previous studies, but little consensus exists among veterinarians as to the optimal regimen to employ and maintain after diagnosis of the disease. To address this inconsistency and provide evidence‐based guidelines for treatment of IMHA in dogs, we identified and extracted data from studies published in the veterinary literature. We developed a novel tool for evaluation of evidence quality, using it to assess study design, diagnostic criteria, explanation of treatment regimens, and validity of statistical methods. In combination with our clinical experience and comparable guidelines for humans afflicted with autoimmune hemolytic anemia, we used the conclusions of this process to make a set of clinical recommendations regarding treatment of IMHA in dogs, which we refined subsequently by conducting several iterations of Delphi review. Additionally, we considered emerging treatments for IMHA in dogs and highlighted areas deserving of future research. Comments were solicited from several professional bodies to maximize clinical applicability before the recommendations were submitted for publication. The resulting document is intended to provide clinical guidelines for management of IMHA in dogs. These guidelines should be implemented pragmatically, with consideration of animal, owner, and veterinary factors that may vary among cases.

Immune‐mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in dogs. IMHA also occurs in cats, although less commonly. IMHA is considered secondary when it can be attributed to an underlying disease, and as primary (idiopathic) if no cause is found. Eliminating diseases that cause IMHA may attenuate or stop immune‐mediated erythrocyte destruction, and adverse consequences of long‐term immunosuppressive treatment can be avoided. Infections, cancer, drugs, vaccines, and inflammatory processes may be underlying causes of IMHA. Evidence for these comorbidities has not been systematically evaluated, rendering evidence‐based decisions difficult. We identified and extracted data from studies published in the veterinary literature and developed a novel tool for evaluation of evidence quality, using it to assess study design, diagnostic criteria for IMHA, comorbidities, and causality. Succinct evidence summary statements were written, along with screening recommendations. Statements were refined by conducting 3 iterations of Delphi review with panel and task force members. Commentary was solicited from several professional bodies to maximize clinical applicability before the recommendations were submitted. The resulting document is intended to provide clinical guidelines for diagnosis of, and underlying disease screening for, IMHA in dogs and cats. These should be implemented with consideration of animal, owner, and geographical factors.

Evidence-based guidelines for the performance of thromboelastography in companion animals were generated through this process. Some of these guidelines are well supported while others will benefit from additional evidence. Many knowledge gaps were identified and future work should be directed to address these gaps and to objectively evaluate the impact of these guidelines on assay comparability within and between centers.

Background: Dogs with protein-losing enteropathy (PLE) have previously been reported to present with thromboembolism; however, the prevalence and pathogenesis of hypercoagulability in dogs with PLE have not been investigated so far.Hypothesis: Dogs with PLE are hypercoagulable compared with healthy control dogs. Animals: Fifteen dogs with PLE. Thirty healthy dogs served as controls (HC). Methods: A prospective study was performed including 15 dogs with PLE. All dogs were scored using the canine chronic enteropathy activity index (CCECAI). Thromboelastography (TEG) and other measures of coagulation were evaluated. Recalcified, unactivated TEG was performed and reaction time (R), kinetic time (K), alpha angle (a), and maximum amplitude (M A ) values were recorded. Nine dogs were reassessed after initiation of immunosuppressive treatment.Results: All dogs with PLE in the study were hypercoagulable with decreased R ( [33.5-49]) (all P o .001). Median antithrombin (AT) concentration was borderline low in PLE dogs; however, mean serum albumin concentration was severely decreased (mean 1.67 g/dL AE 5.1, reference range 2.8-3.5 g/dL). Despite a significant improvement in serum albumin and CCECAI, all 9 dogs with PLE were hypercoagulable at re-examination.Conclusions and Clinical Importance: The hypercoagulable state in dogs with PLE cannot be solely attributed to loss of AT. Despite good clinical response to treatment, dogs remained hypercoagulable and could therefore be predisposed to thromboembolic complications.

Objectives:Thrombosis is a well-recognized phenomenon in dogs and cats with a significant impact on morbidity and mortality. Despite growing awareness of thrombosis and increased use of antithrombotic therapy, there is little information in the veterinary literature to guide the use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications. The goal of Domain 1 was to explore the association between disease and thrombosis in a number of conditions identified as potential risk factors in the current veterinary literature, to provide the basis for prescribing recommendations.Design: A population exposure comparison outcome format was used to represent patient, exposure, comparison, and outcome. Population Exposure Comparison Outcome questions were distributed to worksheet authors who performed comprehensive searches, summarized the evidence, and created guideline recommendations that were reviewed by domain chairs. Revised guidelines then underwent the Delphi survey process to reach consensus on the final guidelines.Diseases evaluated included immune-mediated hemolytic anemia, protein-losing nephropathy, pancreatitis, glucocorticoid therapy, hyperadrenocorticism, neoplasia, sepsis, cerebrovascular disease, and cardiac disease.Settings: Academic and referral veterinary medical centers.

No abstract

Objective To systematically examine evidence surrounding definitions and reporting of data for viscoelastic testing in veterinary medicine. Design Standardized, systematic evaluation of the literature, categorization of relevant articles according to level of evidence and quality, and development of consensus on conclusions for application of the concepts to clinical practice. Setting Academic and referral veterinary medical centers. Results Databases searched included Medline, CAB abstracts, and Google Scholar. Conclusions All 4 standard thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) variables should be universally reported, and the reporting of shear elastic modulus in addition to maximum amplitude (MA) is encouraged. There is insufficient evidence to support universal usage of the coagulation index at this time. The K value and clot formation time are the most variable of the 4 parameters, with alpha angle, MA, and maximum clot firmness generally the least variable. Individual studies should report sufficient data on patients and institutional controls to enable definitions of hypo‐ and hypercoagulability to be evaluated post‐hoc, and it is recommended that all studies specifically report how these conditions were defined. In reporting data relating to fibrinolysis, the TEG variables LY30, LY60, CL30, CL60, and the ROTEM variables LI30, LI60, ML, LOT, and LT should be documented. Studies should report sufficient data on patients and controls to enable definitions of hyper‐ and hypofibrinolysis to be evaluated post‐hoc, and we suggest that standard TEG/ROTEM assays may be unable to detect hypofibrinolysis in companion animals. We recommend that every center establish reference intervals, which are specific to either TEG or ROTEM. These reference intervals should be established using veterinary clinical pathology guidelines, standardized protocols, and a minimum of 40 healthy animals. There are currently insufficient data in companion animals to suggest a utility for Vcurve variables beyond that of standard TEG variables.

Objectives: To systematically review available evidence and establish guidelines related to the risk of developing thrombosis and the management of small animals with antithrombotics. Design: Standardized, systematic evaluation of the literature (identified by searching Medline via PubMed and CAB abstracts) was carried out in 5 domains (Defining populations at risk; Defining rational therapeutic use; Defining evidence-based protocols; Refining and monitoring antithrombotic therapies; and Discontinuing antithrombotic therapies). Evidence evaluation was carried out using Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome generated within each domain questions to address specific aims. This was followed by categorization of relevant articles according to level of evidence and quality (Good, Fair, or Poor). Synthesis of these data led to the development of a series of statements. Consensus on the final guidelines was achieved via Delphi-style surveys.Draft recommendations were presented at 2 international veterinary conferences and made available for community assessment, review, and comment prior to final revisions and publication. Settings: Academic and referral veterinary medical centers.Results: Over 500 studies were reviewed in detail. Worksheets from all 5 domains generated 59 statements with 83 guideline recommendations that were refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys. A high degree of consensus was reached across all guideline recommendations. Conclusions:Overall, systematic evidence evaluations yielded more than 80 recommendations for the treatment of small animals with or at risk of developing thrombosis. Numerous significant knowledge gaps were highlighted by the evidence reviews undertaken, indicating the need for substantial additional research in this field. K E Y W O R D S ) for their dedicated contributions to this effort. We would also like to thank the members of the veterinary community who attended and contributed to the discussion of the guidelines during the 2018 EVECC Congress and IVECCS sessions and subsequently during the online open-comment stages. CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.