Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Laurie Bergman x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search


Objective—To obtain information regarding diagnostic and treatment approaches of veterinarians and attitudes and beliefs of clients about a common clinical problem, urine marking in cats.

Design—Cohort study.

Study Population—70 veterinarians providing care for urine-marking cats and 500 owners of urine-marking cats.

Procedure—Veterinarians were interviewed via telephone regarding criteria for diagnosis of urine marking and recommended treatments. Cat owners who responded to recruitment efforts for a clinical trial for urine-marking cats were interviewed via telephone regarding whether and from what sources they sought help to resolve the marking problem.

Results—Almost a third of veterinarians did not seem to correctly distinguish between urine marking (spraying) and inappropriate urination. Those that did make this diagnostic distinction reported recommending environmental management and prescribing medication significantly more often that those that did not make this distinction. Seventy-four percent of cat owners sought help from their veterinarians for urine marking; other common sources of information were the Internet and friends. Among those who did not consult a veterinarian, the most frequently cited reason was that they did not think their veterinarian could help. Among cat owners who consulted their veterinarians, 8% reported receiving advice on environmental hygiene and 4% on environmental management (limiting intercat interactions), although veterinarians who correctly diagnosed urine marking reported giving such advice 100 and 83% of the time, respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results may serve as a model for obtaining information critical to developing veterinary continuing education and public outreach programs for animal owners for various diseases. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:1282–1286)

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association


Objective—To determine whether clomipramine differs from fluoxetine in reducing feline urine marking; whether reduction of marking continues in cats treated > 8 weeks; whether recurrence of marking, after abrupt drug withdrawal, is less in cats treated > 8 weeks; and whether cats that are successfully treated but resume marking after drug withdrawal can be successfully treated again with the same drug regimen.

Design—Positive-controlled, double-masked clinical trial.

Animals—22 neutered cats (2 females, 20 males) ≥ 1 year old with objectionable urine marking.

Procedure—Cats that marked vertically ≥ 3 times/wk were treated with fluoxetine (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb], q 24 h, PO) or clomipramine (0.5 mg/kg [0.23 mg/lb], q 24 h, PO) for 16 weeks, and efficacy was compared. Recurrence of marking was determined after abrupt withdrawal of fluoxetine at 16 or 32 weeks. Reduction in marking in cats treated with fluoxetine for 8 weeks after returning to marking following drug withdrawal was compared with the initial 8 weeks of successful treatment.

Results—Efficacy of fluoxetine and clomipramine was similar. Treatment > 8 weeks revealed increasing efficacy in reduction of marking. Return of marking after termination of fluoxetine administration occurred in most cats. Cats successfully treated initially with fluoxetine responded similarly to repeated treatment.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Clomipramine and fluoxetine were equivalent in treating urine marking. Longer treatment increased efficacy. Most cats return to marking after abrupt drug withdrawal. A second course of treatment can be expected to be as effective as the first. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;226: 378–382)

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association