Correction updates canine Cushing’s saliva-monitoring study

CURRENT FULL VERSION: A correction has been issued for the BMC Veterinary Research paper, Feasibility and usefulness of in-hospital and at-home salivary sampling in healthy dogs and trilostane-treated dogs with Cushing’s syndrome: a prospective observational study. Based on the source material and indexing records, the correction concerns authorship metadata — likely the corresponding author designation or name spelling — not the study’s scientific findings. That makes this a housekeeping update, but one tied to a paper that touches a real clinical pain point: how to monitor dogs receiving trilostane for Cushing’s syndrome with less stress and better real-world accuracy. Similar recent corrections in veterinary journals have simply clarified the correct corresponding author and noted that the original article was updated, without changing the underlying science. (doaj.org)

The original study was published in 2025 and came from the University of Zurich group. Its premise was straightforward. Monitoring canine Cushing’s syndrome remains challenging, and in-clinic sampling can itself affect cortisol-related measures because hospital visits may increase stress. The investigators asked whether saliva sampling, including pet parent-collected samples at home, could be a more practical and less stress-sensitive option. They enrolled 10 healthy control dogs and 38 trilostane-treated dogs with Cushing’s syndrome in a prospective observational trial. (doaj.org)

What they found was mixed. Saliva collection worked in all healthy controls, both in hospital and at home. In dogs with Cushing’s syndrome, though, collection was much harder: in-hospital saliva sampling succeeded in 18 of 38 dogs, and at-home sampling succeeded in 7 of those 18. Among the small number of Cushing’s patients sampled in both settings, salivary cortisol was lower at home than in hospital, which supports the idea that the clinic environment may influence results. Still, the authors concluded the method needs further refinement before it can surpass current approaches such as prepill serum cortisol measurement. (doaj.org)

That conclusion fits with the broader literature. Trilostane has been the main medical treatment for canine hypercortisolism for roughly two decades, but the field still lacks a universally reliable monitoring test. A 2021 multicenter study comparing 12 monitoring approaches found that none of the evaluated variables could reliably distinguish well-controlled from undercontrolled dogs on its own, reinforcing the importance of structured clinical assessment. Cornell’s current testing guidance continues to recommend ACTH stimulation testing for monitoring trilostane treatment, started 4 to 6 hours after dosing, while other reviews suggest basal cortisol may help in limited scenarios but does not fully solve the problem. (academic.oup.com)

There was also an earlier conference presentation connected to this line of work at the 34th ECVIM-CA Congress, where investigators framed at-home salivary sampling as a way to reduce the impact of stress on cortisol testing in dogs with Cushing’s syndrome. That shows this was not a one-off idea, but part of an ongoing attempt to make monitoring more reflective of how dogs are actually doing outside the hospital. (academic.oup.com)

Why it matters: For practicing veterinarians, the correction itself does not change clinical decision-making. The more useful takeaway is that the underlying paper adds nuance to the search for lower-stress monitoring tools. At-home salivary cortisol is appealing in theory, especially for dogs that become anxious in clinic, but the real-world collection failure rate in affected dogs is a major barrier. For now, this looks more like an investigational adjunct than a near-term replacement for established monitoring that combines history, physical exam, pet parent observations, and conventional endocrine testing. (doaj.org)

The study also underscores a familiar issue in Cushing’s management: laboratory numbers and clinical control do not always line up neatly. In the salivary sampling study, several well-controlled dogs had prepill serum cortisol concentrations above the target range, while their at-home salivary cortisol values were low or undetectable. That kind of mismatch is exactly why many internists continue to emphasize the dog’s clinical picture, not just a single hormone result, when adjusting trilostane. (doaj.org)

One small but useful publishing point is that correction notices like this generally serve to clean up the scholarly record, not reinterpret the results. In another recent veterinary correction, a journal clarified that one author had been erroneously assigned as corresponding author and that the only corresponding author was another investigator; the article was updated, and the publisher’s standard note made clear that the claims remained those of the authors. That is the likely frame here as well: an authorship-record fix, not a change in evidence or recommendations.

What to watch: The next step will be whether researchers can improve collection techniques, increase sampling success in affected dogs, and validate salivary cortisol against meaningful clinical outcomes in larger cohorts. If that happens, at-home saliva testing could eventually become a useful add-on for selected patients, particularly where hospital stress complicates interpretation of standard monitoring. Until then, this correction is mainly a reminder to read the original study closely, and to see the science as promising, but not practice-changing yet. It is also a reminder that not all corrections are equal: some alter interpretation, while others simply correct author assignment and leave the article’s substance untouched.