Hi all, I’m in kind of a reflective mood this morning, so decided to add these additional general thoughts of my own. Even though they’re not specific to Hannah, this seems like the right place to put them. Joan and Kevin, I think you *both* have good points to be made. Everybody keep in mind that I’m not a vet and the following are just my personal musings. But over the nearly twenty years now that trilostane has been used to treat canine Cushing’s, it frustrates me enormously that no truly ideal mode of monitoring testing has emerged.
For a long time, the ACTH was considered to be the gold standard, and probably still is by many clinicians. However, it’s always been recognized that there can be a definite disconnect between ACTH numerical results and the actual clinical picture that a dog presents. The numbers can look good, but the dog may not be looking so good him/herself. In recent years, the pre-pill baseline cortisol test has been advanced as a less expensive and perhaps even more accurate gauge of trilostane effect. However, I think it has shown its limitations, as well. Meaning that once again, the test results and the physical appearance/wellness of the dog may be inconsistent at times and the *best* method to monitor trilostane remains a big question mark.
I am not knowledgeable enough to understand how or why either form of cortisol testing may be missing the mark. Regardless, I totally agree with Joan that, imperfect as the testing may be, whenever possible it is much safer to test via one or the other method rather than to forgo testing altogether. However, since the testing isn’t perfect, we also need to be vigilant about using our eyes and our guts when it comes to our dogs. And — this is where Kevin comes in — I agree that there may be instances where an owner may opt to give trilostane a try even if testing isn’t an option. We all agree that isn’t ideal. But I might have found myself in exactly that situation myself, out of desperation to help my dog. He was so incapacitated by his Cushing’s symptoms that he had virtually no quality of life left. If the choice had been between euthanasia or giving unmonitored trilostane a try, I would have chosen the latter. Back in 2003 when he was treated, trilostane was not FDA approved nor available for purchase in the U.S. So I ended up importing the human version of the medication from the U.K. and my dog became the first trilostane patient for my specialist. People here who are familiar with my Barkis’ story know that things didn’t end up as we had wished. We were lucky that we could pay for all the monitoring testing. But still, he was an example of a misfit between the monitoring test results (which were good) and the clinical results (which ended up being not so good). Our assumption remains that his decline was due to an expanding pituitary Macroadenoma and not due to ill effects from over-medication. But I’ll truly never know for sure.
What I do know is that treating him with the trilostane seemed to be our best hope at the time, and I nearly broke my leg running to the mailbox to claim his first shipment when it arrived from England. Had I not been able to afford the testing, I would have shouldered the risk of starting at a low dose even without the benefit of testing. That’s how uncomfortable he was. I would have shouldered that risk. Definitely not ideal, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
So those are my thoughts for today, probably worth little more than two cents! But there you have it. And God bless all our babies who bravely struggle each day to conquer this disease…
Marianne