Abstracts
Information for Authors on Supporting Original Studies, Free Communications and Posters
The Program Committee invites our global colleagues in dermatology and related disciplines (pathology, immunology, internal medicine, parasitology, oncology, and microbiology) to submit abstracts for Supporting Original Studies, Free Communications and Posters for presentation at the 10th World Congress of Veterinary Dermatology (WCVD10) to be held July 25-29, 2024 in beautiful Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstracts may be submitted for a Supporting Original Study, Free Communication (oral presentation) or Poster. Supporting Original Studies will be presented in one of the congress State of the Art streams and must match one of the six congress themes. Free Communications and Posters may describe novel scientific or clinical findings in any area of veterinary or comparative dermatology; they may but do not have to match the congress themes.
Deadlines for abstract submissions
• Supporting Original Studies
– Submission – October 01, 2023
– Confirmation of acceptance – December 01, 2023
– Submission of the full manuscript for publication in Advances in Veterinary Dermatology – May 15, 2024
• Free Communications and Posters
– Submission – November 17, 2023
– Confirmation of acceptance – January 31, 2024
• Abstracts submitted after the deadlines will not be considered under any circumstances.
Other information about the submission process
• All submissions will be acknowledged by email.
• All authors are required to submit their abstract on-line through the congress website (https://vetdermboston.com)
• Abstract submissions cannot be submitted by any other means (including portable drives, printed formats, fax or email).
• Instructions for submission are also available on the Congress website (https://vetdermboston.com/abstracts)
1. Supporting Original Studies
Supporting original studies (SOS) are major clinical or basic science research studies with high impact and broad general interest to veterinary dermatology. These must match one of the six congress themes. At the congress, authors of SOSs will present their work in a lecture (20-25 minutes plus 5-10 minutes for questions) during the plenary sessions following the State of the Art (SOA) and Supporting Review (SR) lectures. Authors must adhere to these timings. Presentation requirements will be sent to authors prior to the congress.
Six congress themes
| # | theme | description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Innovations in Dermatology | For example, innovative therapies, diets, diagnostic tools and techniques, including the use of technology, and artificial intelligence. |
| 2 | Immunodermatology | The skin as an immune organ in health and disease with pathomechanisms, diagnostic tests, and treatments. |
| 3 | Otology | Advances in otic biology and pathology, diagnosis, and treatment. |
| 4 | Dermatology and One Health | Our increasingly interconnected world impacts what diseases we see and how we practice; examples include emerging diseases and pathogens due to climate change, zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial stewardship, responsible use of parasiticides, and sustainable veterinary practice. |
| 5 | Atopic disease and allergy | State of the art updates on pathogenesis, diagnosis and management of atopic disease, and allergies. |
| 6 | Skin Biology in Health and Disease | Understanding the skin as a complex and dynamic ecosystem and exploring novel approaches to promote healthy skin structures and diverse microbiomes. |
Abstract selection
SOSs will be selected by the Program Committee on a competitive basis following blinded review. The selection will be based on scientific merit and fit with the congress themes.
Abstracts submitted for an SOS that are not selected for presentation may, at the reviewers’ discretion, be reconsidered for presentation as a Free Communication or Poster. In this case, author will be asked to submit a shortened abstract (250 word maximum).
SOS abstract submission
Authors of SOSs must submit a short (500 word maximum) abstract of their study to the Program Committee. If the abstract is selected for presentation as an SOS, submission of a full scientific manuscript of publication quality will be subsequently required (deadline May 15, 2024). The abstract will be printed in the WCVD10 abstract supplement of the journal Veterinary Dermatology; the full manuscript will be published in Advances in Veterinary Dermatology Volume 10 within 12 months of the congress.
Abstract requirements and expectations
Please see the section below for the SOS abstract requirements and expectations. There is also an example of a high quality abstract that was accepted for presentation at an earlier congress.
Remuneration
Fully-paid congress registration, air travel/train tickets and accommodation will be provided to the presenting author (i.e. one per abstract) of an SOS. No honorarium is paid for presenting the lecture.
2. Free communications and posters
These are clinical or basic science research studies on any theme of more limited scope and/or of interest to a potentially narrower audience. These may but do not need to match the congress themes (see above). Authors of Free Communications will be expected to present their study at a designated time within one of the Free Communication streams. These are approximately 12 minutes long with 3 minutes for questions – authors must adhere to these timings. There is no oral presentation for Posters, but authors are expected to attend their poster for a short assigned time period during the Congress to facilitate discussion with other delegates. Presentation and poster requirements will be sent to authors prior to the congress.
Abstract selection
Abstracts for Free Communications and Posters will be selected by the Program Committee on a competitive basis following blinded review. The selection will be based on scientific merit.
Free Communication and Poster abstract submission
Authors of Free Communications and Posters must submit a short (250 word maximum) abstract of their study to the Program Committee. If the abstract is selected for presentation it will be printed in the WCVD10 abstract supplement of the journal Veterinary Dermatology. A full manuscript is not required. The full study may be published in any journal provided that it is not submitted for publication until after acceptance by WCVD10.
Authors of Free Communications and Posters may request a preference for presentation format (i.e. oral or poster presentation) at the time of submission. However, it is likely that oral presentation time will be limited at the Congress, and we cannot guarantee that the author’s first choice of presentation format will be available. The final decision as to whether an abstract is accepted as a Free Communication or as a poster lies with the Program Committee.
Abstract requirements and expectations
Please see the section below for the Free Communication and Poster abstract requirements and expectations. There are also examples of a high quality abstracts for case series, clinical studies and laboratory research projects that have been accepted for presentation at earlier congresses.
Remuneration
The Congress regrets it is unable to provide financial support or travel/accommodation expenses to authors of Free Communications or Posters.
3. Abstract guidelines
Authors must carefully follow the exact guidelines for the abstract formats. Abstracts that do not conform to these guidelines and/or exceed the word limits will not be accepted.
Submission, editing and withdrawal
Submitted abstracts must be complete and are regarded as final. Revisions may only be initiated by the Program Committee. Abstracts may be withdrawn until April 30, 2024 by notifying the Program Committee Chairs by email ([email protected]). No withdrawals are possible after this date and the abstract will be published in the congress proceedings. Abstracts may have minor editing for spelling, grammar and/or style by the Program Committee and authors will not always have an opportunity to review such editing before publication in the supplement to Veterinary Dermatology. However, authors will be informed of any editing that affects the scientific content and interpretation of their abstract and will have an opportunity to review such editing prior to publication.
Conflict of interest
The primary author is required to complete and submit the disclosure statement. This must be completed even if there are no disclosures to be made. Abstracts without a disclosure statement will not be considered.
Language
Abstracts will not be accepted unless written in clear English. Any major variant (e.g. US or British English) is acceptable, although spelling etc. may be edited for a consistent style after acceptance. International authors are strongly recommended to have their submissions checked and read for clarity by an individual who speaks English as their primary language.
Clinical case reports
Case reports describing only one animal (rather than a case series) are unlikely to be selected for Free Communications. They are welcome as submissions for the poster sessions where there is sufficient merit (e.g. a condition, diagnostic procedure and/or treatment new to veterinary dermatology and/or in a new species).
Original material and publication
Abstracts submitted for any type of presentation must report original material that has not been previously presented, in part or in completely, as a short communication or poster at any prior national or international veterinary, medical, or scientific meeting. SOS full manuscripts must be submitted for publication in Advances in Veterinary Dermatology Volume 10. Full manuscripts for Free Communications and Posters may be submitted for publication in any journal once the abstract has been accepted for presentation at WCVD10.
Format and style for all abstracts
The following information describes the format and style that applies to all abstracts (i.e. SOS, Free Communication and Poster.)
• Font: 12 pt Arial font only in single space; left justified, word wrap & no hyphenation.
• Heading – left justified at the top with a space line between each section:
– Title – bold, no capital letters except for proper names. Do not include product names in the title – just the active component.
– Authors – not bold but in capitals with Initials and Last Name only (i.e. no titles or qualifications)
– Affiliations – not bold but in italics; Name of department, School/Institution, City, Country. Do not include addresses. Use symbols (not superscripts) to assign affiliations to authors.
– Example: Quality of life for dogs with dermatological disease C. SMITH*, S. SMITH†, L. SMITH‡, G. R. T. SMITH§, P. SMITH¶ and A. SMITH** *Pets Veterinario, Borgo Sangimino (CN), Italy †Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK ‡College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA §Laboratory of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan ¶Animal Dermatology Clinic, Los Angeles, CA, USA
**Institute for Human Genetics, Freiburg, Germany
• Abstract text – the body of the abstract should contain:
– A brief statement of the study objective.
– A brief statement of the methods.
– A statement of the results – these must be complete (though concise) and final:
Wherever possible, data should include numbers of animals, actual values and a measure of variance (e.g. SD, SEM or 95% confidence intervals). Authors should avoid only reporting percentage changes or p-values – by themselves these are unlikely to be accepted.
It is not acceptable to state “results will be discussed”.
The results presented at the congress in oral or poster format must match those in the abstract.
– A brief conclusion, emphasising the impact of the study.
• General styles and other points:
– Spell out any abbreviation in full on the first mention.
– Do not use carriage returns (Enter key) at the ends of lines within a paragraph – use the software’s word-wrap feature with hyphenation turned off.
– For commercial products include the manufacturer’s name and address – e.g. “ciclosporin (Atopica: Elanco Animal Health, Greensboro, NC)”.
– Drug doses should be given as mg/kg q12h or q24h etc. unless there are specific reasons (e.g. topical administration, mg/m2 dosing, weekly or less frequent administration etc.).
– Laboratory data must be reported in SI units or SI-derived units (https://www.bipm.org/en/about-us/ for more information). Use ‘L’ for litre, not ‘l’.
– Units of measurement should be given as (for example) TEWL 16.5 g/m2/h.
– Drug names must be based on the rINN system (https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standards/inn/inn-lists) – e.g. cefalexin, meticillin, ciclosporin etc.
– P values should be given as P = 0.005 or ≤0.05; down to 0.0001; use up to two numbers: 0.0055 or 0.0058. Note upper case P & in italics.
– Breed names are adjectives not nouns, so it is Siamese cat, not ‘Siamese’ or Labrador retriever, not ‘Labrador’. Breed names are capitalized only if they are proper names, e.g. ‘German shepherd dog’ not ‘German Shepherd Dog’ and ‘mixed breed dog’ not ‘Mixed Breed Dog’.
– Numbers up to and including 10 are spelled out (i.e. one to ten) unless associated with time (days, weeks, months, etc.).
– It is acceptable to summarize data as follows to conserve text: 3/9 dogs.
– Use the following abbreviations: h for hours, min for minute, sec for seconds.
– Take care not to use ‘l’ (ell) for ‘1’ (one) or capital ‘I’ (i), ‘O’ (capital O) for ‘0’ (zero), or ‘ß’ (German esszett) for ‘’ (Greek beta) etc.
– We regret that figures, graphs, tables, illustrations and references are not permitted in the abstracts due to space constraints.
• Funding: Use bold, no italics (e.g. Source of funding: Acme Corporation, Miskatonic University, or Source of funding: Self-funded etc.).
• Conflict of interest: Use bold, no italics. This must be completed, stating ‘none declared’ if appropriate. See the example abstracts for examples of conflict of interest statements.
• When finished with your abstract, count the words (excluding title, author list, affiliations and funding) to ensure you have not exceeded the prescribed limits:
– 500 words for SOSs.
– 250 words for Free Communications and Posters.
– Abstracts exceeding these limits will not be accepted.
4. Example abstracts
These are examples of high quality abstracts that have been accepted for previous congresses. They are here to help guide authors in preparation of their abstracts. Their inclusion here does not imply any endorsement of the findings or commercial products by the Program Committee or WCVD10. Adherence to the abstract guidelines does not guarantee that the abstract will be accepted for presentation at WCVD10.
Supporting original study
Serological cross reactivity between beef, lamb and cows’ milk allergen extracts in in dogs
J. BEXLEY*, T.J. NUTTALL†, B. HAMMERBERG‡, R.E.W. HALLIWELL†
*Avacta Animal Health, Wetherby, UK
†Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Roslin, UK
‡College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Immunological adverse food reactions (AFRs) may involve IgE-mediated hypersensitivity. It is important to know if there is antigenic cross-reactivity so that potentially cross-reactive allergens can be avoided in diet trials. The aim of this study was to identify patterns of co-sensitisation and cross-reaction among food allergens. An IgE based serological assay using 19 food allergens was performed in 469 dogs. Pairwise comparisons were used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) for each allergen pair (p<0.0006 with Holm-Bonferroni correction). With the exception of egg, white fish and potato at least 60% of the allergen comparisons were significantly associated. However, 39/44 related allergen pairs were significantly associated compared to 80/127 unrelated allergens (p=0.001). The mean (SD) logE OR of significantly associated related allergens (3.4 [0.9]) was greater than non-associated related allergens (2.7 [1.5]) or unrelated allergens (2.7 [1.0]) (p<0.0001). These results suggest that there is cross-reaction or co-sensitisation among related food allergens. To test this, 191 sera from dogs with atopic dermatitis and/or AFRs were analyzed for IgE against beef, lamb, cows’ milk and turkey. Inhibition ELISAs were performed on sera positive to at least two of the allergens to assess allergenic cross reactivity between beef, lamb and cows’ milk. The concentration of each heterologous allergen required to achieve 50% of the inhibition with the homologous allergen was determined using the straight-line portion of the standard curve. At least one positive reaction was found in 60% of sera: beef (n=90), cow’s milk (n=86), lamb (n=81) and turkey (n=0). There were no significant differences in levels of beef, lamb or cows’ milk-specific IgE (p>0.05). IgE responses to beef and lamb were strongly correlated (r=0.93): 75/90 beef-positive sera were also lamb-positive and 75/81 of lamb-positive sera were positive to beef. IgE responses to lamb and milk were moderately correlated (r=0.62): 57/81 of lamb-positive sera were milk-positive and 57/86 milk-positive sera were positive to lamb. Correlations between beef and milk were weaker (r=0.59): 62/90 beef-positive sera were also positive to milk and 62/86 of milk-positive sera were positive to beef. With beef as the coating ELISA allergen, 50% inhibition was achieved in 27/27 sera by lamb and 16/20 by milk. With lamb as the coat, 27/27 sera were inhibited by beef and 17/23 by milk. With milk as the coat, 10/19 sera were inhibited by lamb and 14/16 by beef. Inhibition by turkey (the negative control) was rare (2/29 sera with the lamb coat, 1/21 with milk and 0/27 with beef). All the homologous positive control ELISAs showed >90% inhibition. These results suggest that there is significant co-sensitisation and/or cross-reaction among food allergens. These associations appear to be more frequent and stronger among related than unrelated groups of allergens. The inhibition ELISAs with beef, lamb and cow’s milk extracts show that the association among these related allergens is the result of cross-reactivity rather than co-sensitisation. These results have important implications for clinicians wishing to avoid potentially cross-reactive antigens when formulating diets for diagnostic trials. Further studies with more foods are therefore required.
Source of funding: Avacta Animal Health, Wetherby, UK
Conflict of interest: J. Bexley is an employee of Avacta Animal Health. T. Nuttall and R.E.W. Halliwell work on a consultancy basis for Avacta Animal Health. B. Hammerberg and North Carolina State University own the rights to the monoclonal antibody used in the assay.
Free communication or poster – case report or case series
Certifect-triggered pemphigus foliaceus in dogs: clinical, histological and immunological characteristics
P. BIZIKOVA*, K. LINDER†‡ and T. OLIVRY*,†
*Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
†Center for Comparative Medicine and Translational Research,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
‡Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
A recently launched topical ectoparasiticide containing fipronil, amitraz and S-methoprene (Certifect, Merial, Duluth, GA) has been associated with the development of an acantholytic pustular dermatitis similar to that of Promeris-triggered pemphigus foliaceus (PF). Our objectives were to describe the clinical and immunological features of this PF-like cutaneous adverse drug reaction (CADR). Twenty dogs with a probable or definitive (Naranjo scale) diagnosis of PF-like CADR were identified between May 2012 and February 2013. Most dogs were middle-aged or older (median: 9 yrs) and of large size (median: 24 kg). In six dogs (30%), the PF-like lesions remained confined to the site of application, while 14 dogs (70%) exhibited lesions at distant sites. One or two applications of Certifect were sufficient to trigger PF-like lesions in seven (35%) and six (30%) dogs, respectively. Systemic signs were reported in eight dogs (40%), all with lesions extending to sites distant from application areas. Tissue-bound antikeratinocyte IgG were detected in the lesional epidermis of 8/18 (44%) cases by direct immunofluorescence, while serum antikeratinocyte IgG were detected in 9/14 (64%) cases by indirect immunofluorescence. Autoantibodies were found to target canine desmocollin-1 in 11/14 dogs (79%), but not canine desmoglein-1, by indirect immunofluorescence on transfected cells. These immunological findings were similar in cases with localized and distant disease. In conclusion, Certifect is capable of triggering the development of an acantholytic pustular dermatosis that clinically, histologically and immunologically closely matches Promeris-triggered PF and naturally occurring autoimmune PF in dogs.
Source of funding: Self-funded
Conflict of interest: None declared
Free communication or poster – laboratory study
Expression patterns of selected desmosomal, tight and adherens junction proteins in an experimental model of canine atopic dermatitis skin lesions
T. OLIVRY*,† and S.M. DUNSTON†
*Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine
†Center for Comparative Medicine and Translational Research,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
In recent years, the stratum corneum was found to be important for providing a functional barrier against environmental allergens in humans and animals with atopic dermatitis (AD). Recently, the expression of intercellular epidermal tight junction proteins was shown to be reduced in human AD, thereby providing further evidence for defective epithelial permeability in this disease. We studied the expression of selected upper epidermal desmosomal, tight and adherens junction proteins in an experimental model of canine AD. Two types of control and house dust mite (HDM) extract-containing patches were applied to the skin of six Maltese-beagle atopic dogs hypersensitive to HDM. Patches were left on for 48 h and biopsies were collected 24 h after removal. Normal canine skin served as another control. Frozen skin sections were stained by indirect immunofluorescence for corneodesmosin (CDSN), desmoglein-1 (DSG1), desmocollin-1 (DSC1), claudin-1 (CLDN1) and E-cadherin (CDH1). Each expression pattern was assessed for its continuity on the entire epidermis of each section. The immunostaining of DSG1, DSC1 and CDH1 was intercellular and continuous in all control and HDM patches. In contrast, the immunoreactivity of CDSN and CLDN1 was discontinuous in 12/12 and 8/12 HDM patches, respectively, but in none of the control patches and normal skin (Fisher’s exact test, P < 0.001). These observations suggest that HDM allergens, either via proteolytic digestion and/or because of induced allergic inflammation, might affect the integrity of corneodesmosomal and tight junction proteins. Ensuing intercellular junction alterations could promote further penetration of allergens through the epidermis.
Source of funding: Self-funded
Conflict of interest: None declared
Free communication or poster – clinical trial
Efficacy of a 0.0584% hydrocortisone aceponate spray in feline eosinophilic dermatoses: an open label pilot study
V. SCHMIDT*, N.A. MCEWAN*, C.A. REME†, T.J. NUTTALL*
*The University of Liverpool School of Veterinary Science, Leahurst, UK.
†Virbac SA, Carros, France
This study evaluated the efficacy of a 0.0584% hydrocortisone aceponate (HCA) spray (Cortavance®; Virbac SA) in nine cats with idiopathic eosinophilic dermatoses and/or atopic dermatitis. The cats initially received two sprays/100cm2 of skin once daily. Clinical lesions (a validated Feline Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index [FeDESI]), pruritus (visual-analogue-scale with grade descriptors), and owner assessments of efficacy, tolerance and ease of use (1 = very poor to 5 = excellent) were assessed every 14 days. The frequency of treatment was reduced to every other day at D28 in cats with a >50% reduction in FeDESI and pruritus scores. Two cats were lost to follow up at D28 and D42. Intention to treat data were analysed. FeDESI (mean [SD]: D0 41.7 [16.5] and D56 6.4 [4.5]; p<0.0001) and pruritus (D0 61.4mm [21.3] and D56 11.1mm [12.4]; p<0.0001) scores significantly decreased throughout the trial. The owner scores for tolerance (median [range]: D14 4 [1-5] and D56 4 [3-5]; p=0.007) and ease of use (D14 3 [2-5] and D56 4 [2-5]; p=0.02) significantly increased during the trial, but there was no change in the efficacy scores(D14 and D56 4 [3-5]; p=0.27). There were no adverse effects attributable to the HCA spray, no significant changes in weight (mean [SD]: D0 5.1kg [1.5] and D56 5.1kg [1.6]; p=0.51) and no significant changes in haematology, biochemistry or urinalysis (n=3). Six cats required every other day treatment and three required daily treatment. In conclusion, HCA spray appeared to be effective and safe in this group of cats.
Source of funding: Virbac SA, Carros, France.
Conflicts of interest: CA Reme is an employee of Virbac SA. NA McEwan and TJ Nuttall have received other research funding, lectures fees and consultancy payments from Virbac SA.