REGALWISE WHITE GERMAN SHEPHERDS
You came to the right place for answers on Pano!
In discussions with many people and research on our own about
antibiotics, I'd say we have a pretty good handle on the problem.
Here are some reprinted correspondence on the topic that should help
answer some of your questions and maybe raise a few more.
To: John Peck
I (ELSyd) am the person who first brought this chloramphenicol
treatment for pano to the dog world in general, as far as I know. It
usually works in three days, sometimes as little as one day. We had a
tremendous dispute over it in the beginning, when I first innocently
told people about it, only hoping to help. When a dog has severe pan
(as we call it in the northwest), and is laying on his back, unable to
bear the pain of laying on his legs, doesn't eat, is feverish, depressed,
atrophied, practically suicidal, and there is something that will
definitely STOP IT RIGHT NOW, with very little risk, and for a very
short term treatment, and people tell you you are misusing the antibiotic
for such a "minor", "self-limiting", "harmless" , etc. condition, it makes
you wonder how important it is to be "right" to some people.
This treatment was first tried by a Veterinary radiologist who was
fascinated by the similarity between pan and bone infections, and tried
it on some Great Danes who were very afflicted. They got better totally in
3 days. every other dog he tried it on got better, totally. He wrote a
paper on it. A vet named Rick Scherr in Great falls Montana read the
paper, and tried it on Rottweilers. They got better in three days. He Then
gave it to my friend Sara McLaughlin who had a bitch puppy of mine who
could hardly walk. She got better in three days, and never got it again.
A client tried it on the bitch's brother who got better in 24 hrs., and
went ahead the next day and won his futurity class. I have used it, and
I was very lackadaisical, neglected to give the evening dose 2 or 3
times. He got better in 4 days. Another friend used it, gave it up after
5 days, he got better on day 6., after MONTHS of pain.
Thank you for your open mind. It is extremely frustrating to
have a treatment for a condition that is so very painful and debilitating,
and have it called snake oil, and being told you are causing the downfall, of
the 'last of the great antibiotics" If something that causes so much
agony, that robs a dog of his puppy hood,that keeps him at home and
unsocialized, that hurts his owners who love him, isn't worth an
antibiotic, I don't know what is. Syd
From: John Peck
I originally treated pano experimentally with antibiotics in the
spring and summer of 1991, this after I had observed that pano cases in
the kennel rarely appeared individually, that once one case had
occurred two or three more were likely, that these cases occurred in
pups of different litters and different ages, the only condition being
that the given pup had not had pano previously. I pointed these
observations out to a vet. He quoted the textbook wisdom that no
infectious agent had ever been identified, that there was no potential
of contagion. Then he concurred that my observations gave rise to doubt
of that conventional wisdom. He asked what I wanted to try. I selected
the highly penetrating tetracycline derivative minocycline. We mutually
acknowledged the risked of treating puppies with tetracyclines and then
the rather steep cost of minocycline. We then proceeded.
It was effective.
A short while ago Ronda advised me of a rather old remark and query,
yours, and asked my opinion. The sudden death of my wife in the summer
of 1991 had caused me to set aside and/or more or less forget many things.
The above was among those things. With the prompt from Ronda I recalled
the earlier beginning and related it to her. In the interim since 91 I
have had considerable interest in chloramphenicol regarding the
suppression of intestinal flora in parvo and corona cases and in the
treatment of certain clostridium infections. Its extreme penetration, the
ability to reach a site of infection about anywhere in the living system,
make it especially useful. I have no irrational fears regarding it. I
was able to determine from various sources that the risk of serious
consequences during any rational course of therapy with it is in the
neighborhood of 1 in 25,000. In fact, the greatest hazard deriving from
chloramphenicol therapy arises from vaccinating during the treatment
when this particular antibiotic may suppress desired immunological
responses. In view of this knowledge I gave Ronda the go ahead to
institute chloramphenicol therapy when a pano case made its appearance.
Such a treatment is in progress as I write and appears to be effective.
It is conceded that the MDs, DVMs etc. as a general rule do have an
irrational fear of chloramphenicol. Even the free circulation of
horror stories concerning the agent do not excuse this manifestation of
ignorance. The toxicological hazards of the stuff appear to be related
to its core of nitrobenzene. An idiosyncrasy in the metabolism of
chloramphenicol can give rise to the serious blood related toxicologies
associated with nitrobenzene itself but such metabolic defects are very
rare. Excessive or heavy doses for long periods of time also involve risks.
But these usages do not constitute rational therapy.
Chloramphenicol is an older antibiotic and considerable research has
been invested in improving it in one way or another. A sulfur substituted
derivative, thiamphenicol, was developed. While safer than
chloramphenicol it was also less effective. From thiamphenicol a fluorine
substituted derivative, florfenicol, was prepared. It has broader
spectrum, higher potency and more ability to overcome bacterial resistance,
especially of the acetytransferase type, the one that enables a bacterium
to become resistant to several classes of antibiotics including the
tetracyclines, the erythromycins and the chloramphenicols all at once.
Research and development on florfenicol was completed some 15 to 20 years
ago and brief references are made to it in Merck Vet. Manuals prior to the
But florfenicol appears to have become available to veterinarians
only recently (early 1996) under the proprietary name of Nuflor.
Nuflor has two disadvantages. It is a relatively viscous liquid
making for injection difficulties. Its use is only approved in cattle.
But I am able to report that subcutaneous injection in dogs at the rate
of 25mg/kg/48hrs is safe and effective. Injection difficulty is offset
by persistence. It is only administered once every two days. If one
accepts that the hazards of chloramphenicol are more or less entirely
due to its nitrobenzene core then the reduced dosage and dose frequency
of florfenicol render it safer than chloramphenicol by about one power
of 10 on that basis alone. It must be noted that this above is an off
label use and most small animal vets develop diarrhea over that.
But if you have any friends who raise cattle.....