Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives

This study investigated the prevalence of feline chronic gingivostomatitis in urban feral cats in South Korea and analysed its risk factors.

Methods

Three hundred and forty-five feral cats that visited the hospital for neutering using a trap–neuter–return approach were screened for feline chronic gingivostomatitis based on clinical criteria. In addition, we determined if body weight, sex and the presence of tongue lesions are risk factors for feline chronic gingivostomatitis. The difference in severity due to the presence or absence of risk factors, and the relationship between gross findings and histopathological lesions, were analysed by grading lesion severity.

Results

Feline chronic gingivostomatitis was diagnosed in 92 cats. Disease prevalence did not significantly differ with body weight and sex but was significantly related to tongue lesions.

Conclusions and relevance

The prevalence of feline chronic gingivostomatitis in urban feral cats in South Korea was 26.6%. It was significantly more prevalent in cats that had tongue lesions. Severity was also significantly associated with tongue lesions. Feline chronic gingivostomatitis may be associated with an infectious agent that causes tongue lesions.

Keywords

Feline chronic gingivostomatitis gingivostomatitis stomatitis prevalence

Introduction

Feline chronic gingivostomatitis (FCGS) is a severe inflammatory syndrome involving the immune system that affects the oral mucosa.¹ FCGS lesions may occur in multiple areas, from the gums in the oral cavity to the pharynx, and the lesions may be observed as tumour-like nodules due to multiple plasma cell infiltrations.² This disease was previously called plasma cell stomatitis-pharyngitis,³ chronic faucitis⁴ and lymphocytic plasmacytic stomatitis,⁵ depending on the lesion distribution and pattern. However, according to the latest literature, it is now named FCGS.⁶

Cats affected by FCGS show clinical signs such as anorexia, bad breath, drooling, reduced grooming and weight loss due to severe pain.⁷ They can become very debilitated and difficult to treat. Therefore, euthanasia is sometimes considered. In tissue samples of the oral mucosa affected by FCGS, lymphocytes and plasma cells are predominantly observed. In contrast, relatively few neutrophils, mast cells and Mott cells have been observed, thus showing the characteristics of chronic inflammation.⁸

A biopsy is a valuable method for diagnosing FCGS. However, the disease can only be confirmed by identifying the clinical lesion characteristics. Hence, exclusion of neoplastic lesions is used more than confirmation in clinical practice.⁹

The oral mucosa of FCGS cats is characterised by a more severe inflammation than that visible in dental diseases or tartar accumulation. If these inflammatory lesions are observed beyond the gingival mucosa, they are subsequently diagnosed as FCGS.²

FCGS is mostly characterised by bilateral inflammation of the mucosa of the caudal oral cavity, known to distinguish FCGS from other oral diseases.^10,11 Although the cause and mechanism of FCGS have not yet been clearly elucidated, recent immunological studies have reported that FCGS exhibits immunological characteristics caused by intracellular pathogens, such as viruses.^12–14

Many studies have been conducted on the relationship between FCGS and viruses, such as feline calicivirus, feline herpesvirus-1, feline immunodeficiency virus and feline leukaemia virus. Although a causal relationship has not yet been established, many studies have provided consistent evidence that calicivirus may be associated with FCGS.^15–20

Calicivirus is easily transmitted via direct contact, and causes respiratory and acute stomatitis signs. Risk factors for caliciviruses are free-roaming behaviour and environments where many cats live together, such as shelters and kennels.²¹ Ulcers in the tongue are one of the characteristic clinical signs of calicivirus. In addition, the tongue is a site where the virus is easily detected.²²

A recent study investigated the relationship between cohabitation environment or external environment accessibility and the prevalence of FCGS.²³ In that study, the prevalence of FCGS was higher in cats that lived together than in those that lived alone. For each additional cat, the risk of FCGS increased by 70%. As no significant relationship between outdoor accessibility and FCGS was found in the same study, there are likely other FCGS-inducing factors relating to cohabitation in addition to the cause of infection. Therefore, periodic reinfection by chronic carrier cats and stress caused by dense breeding have been suggested as causes.²³

The prevalence of FCGS ranges from 0.7% to 12%.^24–26 To the best of our knowledge, the prevalence of FCGS in feral cats has not yet been reported. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence of FCGS in feral cats and determine whether weight, sex and tongue ulcers, or traces of ulcers – typical signs of calicivirus infection – act as risk factors for FCGS. We hypothesised that the prevalence of FCGS in feral cats would be higher than reported in previous studies, and that a higher prevalence of FCGS would be noted in cats with tongue lesions.

Materials and methods

This study included 345 cats (182 males and 163 females) captured and brought to the Gang-Buk Woori Animal Medical Center in Gangbuk-gu, Seoul, South Korea, for neutering from March to November 2021.

Neutering surgery in the context of a trap–neuter–return operation was performed under general anaesthesia with a combination of ketamine (5 mg/kg), medetomidine (0.03 mg/kg) and butorphanol (0.15 mg/kg) administered intramuscularly. We also used a trap divider to humanely confine the cat at one end of the trap after measuring its body weight. Both FCGS diagnosis and lesion recording were conducted during recovery from anaesthesia.

FCGS was diagnosed by applying the clinical criteria suggested previously.²⁴ First, inflammation of the mucosa of the oral cavity, including at least one of the visible gingival margins immediately adjacent to the teeth, whole visible gingival mucosa from the teeth to the mucogingival junction, buccal mucosa, caudal oral mucosa, palatoglossal folds, soft palate and pharynx may sometimes be affected. Second, gingivitis usually extends beyond the mucogingival junction. Third, the severity of the inflammation is worse than that visible in other dental diseases. Fourth, the affected areas are frequently oedematous, proliferative and ulcerated. Fifth, the inflamed areas are usually bright red in colour and often bleed spontaneously on very mild trauma (eg, swabbing; Figure 1).

Figure 1

Clinical lesion characteristics of feline chronic gingivostomatitis. (a) Normal mucosal surfaces of the oral cavity, free gingival margin (green arrow), attached gingiva (blue double arrow), mucogingival junction (white arrows) and alveolar mucosa (yellow double arrow). (b) Gingivitis. (c) Alveolar mucositis score 3 (bleeding induced by gentle pressure). (d) Alveolar mucositis score 4 (spontaneous bleeding). (e) Mucosa of the caudal oral cavity (red circle), bordered medially by the palatoglossal folds (asterisk) and fauces, dorsally by the hard (square) and soft palate (triangle) and rostrally by alveolar and buccal mucosa (circle). (f) Caudal stomatitis

Oral inflammatory lesions were graded by the same operator using a previously reported scoring system.²⁷ Caudal stomatitis and alveolar mucositis intensity scores were evaluated using a five-degree system: grade 0 (no lesion); grade 1 (mild inflammation, non-ulcerative, non-proliferative, not spontaneously bleeding and not bleeding even with slight pressure); grade 2 (moderate inflammation, non-ulcerative, slightly proliferative and not spontaneously bleeding even with slight pressure); grade 3 (moderate, ulcerative or ulceroproliferative inflammation, without spontaneous bleeding, but with bleeding when slight pressure is applied); and grade 4 (severe, ulcerative or ulceroproliferative inflammation with spontaneous bleeding). Surface areas in caudal stomatitis were scored using five degrees: 0 (absence of lesions); 25 (<25% of the total surface area); 50 (25–50%); 75 (50–75%); and 100 (>75%). Finally, the global caudal stomatitis intensity score (GCSIS) was calculated using the following formula: GCSIS = (caudal stomatitis intensity score × surface area score)/100.

Tongue lesions were defined as the loss of tongue papillae due to ulcers on the dorsal aspect of the tongue. Congestion and bleeding on palpation were evaluated as ongoing ulcers. If exfoliated papillae were identified and epithelialised, they were recorded as scars from previous ulcers.

Tissue samples were collected from 10 cats. Histopathological grades were evaluated on a four-grade scale (0, 1, 2 and 3), based on a previous study.¹² Two cats per severity grade of the mucosa of the caudal oral cavity were selected to determine whether there was a difference between clinical and histopathological severity of lesions in cats with tongue lesions.

Statistical analysis was performed using the commercial programme StatPlus:mac LE (AnalystSoft). A P value <0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance. The continuous variable (body weight) was assessed for normality via the Shapiro–Wilk test and by visual inspection of Q-Q plots. For those with approximately normal distribution, the sample means were compared between the FCGS and non-FCGS groups via an independent t-test. For dichotomous variables (presence or absence of tongue lesion and sex), the FCGS and non-FCGS groups were compared using the χ² test. The Mann–Whitney one-sided non-parametric test was used to assess the differences in lesion scores according to the presence or absence of tongue lesions in FCGS. The correlation between histopathological grade and clinical intensity score (GCSIS and alveolar mucositis intensity score) was assessed using Spearman’s correlation analysis.

Results

The prevalence of FCGS in urban feral cats in South Korea was 26.7% (92/345 cats). There were no significant differences according to sex and body weight (Table 1).

Table 1

Prevalence (26.7%) of feline chronic gingivostomatitis in 345 cats and comparison between measurements

Variable	FCGS (n = 92)	Non-FCGS (n = 235)	P value
Sex
Male	54	128	0.182
Female	38	125	0.182
Weight (kg)
Male	4.37 ± 0.78	4.43 ± 0.95	0.659
Female	3.41 ± 0.72	3.50 ± 0.62	0.457

Data are presented as n or mean ± SD

FCGS = feline chronic gingivostomatitis

As shown in Figure 2, FCGS was identified at significantly higher rates in cats with tongue lesions than in those without. Moreover, a significant difference in the lesion severity scores was observed between cases of FCGS with and without tongue lesions. Table 2 shows the lesion intensity scores in cats diagnosed with FCGS.

Figure 2

Prevalence and severity scores according to the presence of tongue lesions. (a) Normal feline tongue papillae. (b) Tongue ulcers (asterisk). (c) Traces of ulcers, exfoliated papillae (arrows). (d) The presence of tongue lesions is significantly associated with feline chronic gingivostomatitis (FCGS). (e) Severity according to the presence or absence of tongue lesions in FCGS. GCSIS = global caudal stomatitis intensity score; AMIS = alveolar mucositis intensity score

Table 2

Intensity scores of caudal stomatitis and alveolar mucositis in 92 cats with feline chronic gingivostomatitis*

GCSIS²⁷*	No. of cats	AMIS²⁷	No. of cats
0 to <1	46 (50)	0	7 (7.6)
1 to <2	22 (23.9)	1	9 (9.8)
2 to <3	8 (8.7)	2	27 (29.3)
3 to <4	10 (10.9)	3	41 (44.6)
4	6 (6.5)	4	8 (8.7)

Data are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated

Global caudal stomatitis intensity score (GCSIS) = (caudal stomatitis intensity score × surface area score)/100

AMIS = alveolar mucositis intensity score

Among all FCGS cats, the prevalence of alveolar mucosa inflammation was 92.3%, and that of inflammation of the mucosa of the caudal oral cavity was 79.3% (Table 3).

Table 3

Overall distribution of lesions in 92 cats with feline chronic gingivostomatitis

Lesion location	No. of cats
Alveolar mucosa	85 (92.3)
Mucosa of the caudal oral cavity	73 (79.3)
Palatoglossal fold	66 (71.7)
Soft palate	14 (15.2)
Hard palate	1 (1.0)

Data are presented as n (%)

There was a positive correlation between histopathological severity grade and clinical lesion severity score (ρ = 0.669) (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Histopathological grade according to the caudal stomatitis intensity and surface area score. (a,c,e,g,i) Gross and (b,d,f,h,j) histological findings with haematoxylin and eosin staining. (a,b) Intensity score 0, surface area score 0 and histopathological grade 1. (c,d) Intensity score 1, surface area score 25 and histopathological grade 3. (e,f) Intensity score 2, surface area score 50 and histopathological grade 2. (g,h) Intensity score 3, surface area score 75 and histopathological grade 3. (i,j) intensity score 4, surface area score 100 and histopathological grade 3. Yellow circle indicates the caudal oral mucosa; asterisk indicates the tissue collection site (3 mm biopsy punch); scale bar = 25 µm. (k) Histopathological severity grade based on the clinical lesion score

Discussion

In this study, FCGS was diagnosed in 92/345 feral cats (prevalence rate 26.6%). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report the prevalence of FCGS in feral cats. The prevalence rate of FCGS has been previously reported to be 0.7–12%. In 2004, Verhaert and Van Wetter²⁵ reported a prevalence rate of 12%; however, the population assessed for oral disease treatment was mixed. In 2007, a study by Healey et al²⁴ targeted domestic cats that visited a primary hospital and reported a prevalence of 0.7%, while in 2009, Girard et al²⁶ reported a prevalence of 5.5% in a study of colony cats that had no contact with the external environment. The studies on prevalence reported to date have been performed with groups in which there was a guardian or in which contact with other cats could be controlled. However, as the cats in the present study were exposed to the external environment, contact with other cats could not be controlled. This marks an important difference from other studies. It is known that feral and free-living domestic cats form colonies around food sources.²⁸ It is also well known that they have a high prevalence of infectious diseases due to their behaviour and lifestyle.²⁹ Contrary to previous studies, the high prevalence of FCGS in the feral cats in our study suggests that FCGS may have an infectious mechanism.

In this study, no significant difference in the prevalence of FCGS was identified between males and females, similar to most previous studies. However, some studies found high rates of FCGS in neutered males.^24,25 A higher prevalence of FCGS was also identified in males than in females in this study, although the difference was not statistically significant. In addition, the number of males was higher among captured cats, which may be because male feral cats have home territories that are 2–3 times larger than those of females.²⁹

Anorexia due to oral pain causes weight loss, which is one of the main clinical signs of FCGS. Herein, a significant difference in body weight (P <0.001) was confirmed between males and females. Therefore, we analysed them separately and found that there was no significant difference in body weight between cats with or without FCGS. Possible reasons for these results are as follows: FCGS cats with severe clinical signs may have been eliminated from the wild because they could not eat well or because they were not attracted to food due to oral pain; thus, a relatively small number of cats were captured (Table 2). Alternatively, the weight loss due to FCGS could be smaller than the variation (female body weight SD 0.65, male body weight SD 0.90) in body size between each cat.

Tongue lesions were identified in 112/345 cats. All lesions were identified as traces of ulcers. Tongue lesions were found in 61/92 cats diagnosed with FCGS (66%), which is significantly higher than the proportion in cats not diagnosed with FCGS (51/253 [20%]). Furthermore, the severity scores were significantly higher in FCGS cats with tongue lesions compared with those without lesions. The relationship between calicivirus load and tongue ulcers, but not between viral load and lesion severity, has been found to be statistically significant.²⁷ Based on previous studies and the findings of this study, the severity of FCGS lesions can be predicted as it tends to increase over time if the virus is severe enough to cause lesions on the tongue. However, in the current study, no cats with tongue ulcers were identified upon examination, probably because no cats with severe clinical signs were captured.

Inflammation of the alveolar mucosa (prevalence 92.3%) and the caudal oral mucosa (79.3%) was identified in FCGS cats, similar to previous studies.² Inflammation of the soft and hard palates was observed at low rates. Interestingly, in cats with inflammation of the soft and hard palates, inflammation was also observed in all caudal oral mucosa, alveolar mucosa and palatoglossal folds. There was no significant difference in the severity of alveolar mucosal lesions between FCGS cats with and without soft and hard palate inflammation (P = 0.326). However, the severity of the lesion was high in the caudal oral mucosa (P = 0.008). Hence, the soft and hard palate inflammation in FCGS appears to be related to the mechanisms leading to inflammation of the caudal oral mucosa.

A previous study reported a positive correlation between clinical severity score and histopathological severity grade.¹² Owing to the difference between the clinical severity score scale (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) used in this study and the histopathological grade scale (0, 1, 2 and 3), which was used in the previous study, a direct comparison was impossible. Additionally, the prediction of the histopathological grade at a low clinical severity score was not well matched (Figure 3). Of the two cats with a clinical severity score of 0, one was diagnosed with FCGS in the alveolar mucosa and the other was not. Although the small sample size prevented generalisation, FCGS can still be histopathologically diagnosed, even if the mucous membrane appears normal when there is a lesion on the tongue. A study with larger sample sizes is necessary to clarify this issue.

A limitation of this study is that the same set-up and study were not conducted with a control group, such as the general population of domestic cats in the same area. In addition, as not all tongue lesions are caused by calicivirus alone (eg, herpesvirus), there is a limitation in that it cannot be confirmed whether there is a history of infection with calicivirus. Although the lesions on the tongue were all traces of ulcers, they may be the clinical signs of FCGS, and they may be considered indicators of severe FCGS.

Conclusions

This is the first study to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of FCGS in free-roaming street cats in Seoul, South Korea. In this study, the prevalence of FCGS in urban feral cats was 26.6%. Tongue lesions were identified as risk factors for FCGS; sex and weight were not. The present results suggest that FCGS is likely to have an infectious mechanism, and colony breeding should be restricted, as with other infectious diseases, to prevent further disease.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff at Gang-Buk Woori Animal Medical Center and Yi-Chul Lee DVM, as well as Editage () for English language editing.

Accepted: 11 September 2022

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

The work described in this manuscript involved the use of non-experimental (owned or unowned) animals. Established internationally recognised high standards (‘best practice’) of veterinary clinical care for the individual patient were always followed and/or this work involved the use of cadavers. Ethical approval from a committee was therefore not specifically required for publication in JFMS. Although not required, where ethical approval was still obtained, it is stated in the manuscript.

Informed consent

Informed consent (verbal or written) was obtained from the owner or legal custodian of all animal(s) described in this work (experimental or non-experimental animals, including cadavers) for all procedure(s) undertaken (prospective or retrospective studies). No animals or people are identifiable within this publication; therefore, additional informed consent for publication was not required.

ORCID iD

Dae-Hwan Kim

References

Lee

Verstraete

Arzi

. An update on feline chronic gingivostomatitis. Vet Clin N Am Small Anim Pract 2020; 50: 973–982.

Hennet

. Chronic gingivo-stomatitis in cats: long-term follow-up of 30 cases treated by dental extractions. J Vet Dent 1997; 14: 15–21.

White

Rosychuk

Janik

. Plasma cell stomatitis-pharyngitis in cats: 40 cases (1973–1991). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992; 200: 1377–1380.

Reubel

Hoffmann

Pedersen

. Acute and chronic faucitis of domestic cats. A feline calicivirus-induced disease. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1992; 22: 1347–1360.

Lommer

Verstraete

. Concurrent oral shedding of feline calicivirus and feline herpesvirus 1 in cats with chronic gingivostomatitis. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2003; 18: 131–134.

Meuten

. Tumors in domestic animals. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2016, pp 526–527.

Lommer

. Efficacy of cyclosporine for chronic, refractory stomatitis in cats: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical study. J Vet Dent 2013; 30: 8–17.

Rolim

Pavarini

Campos

, et al. Clinical, pathological, immunohistochemical and molecular characterization of feline chronic gingivostomatitis. J Feline Med Surg 2017; 19: 403–409.

Winer

Arzi

Verstraete

. Therapeutic management of feline chronic gingivostomatitis: a systematic review of the literature. Front Vet Sci 2016; 3: 54. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2016.00054.

10.

Hennet

Camy

Mcgahie

. Comparative efficacy of a recombinant feline interferon omega in refractory cases of calicivirus-positive cats with caudal stomatitis: a randomised, multi-centre, controlled, double-blind study in 39 cats. J Feline Med Surg 2011; 13: 577–587.

11.

Farcas

Lommer

Kass

, et al. Dental radiographic findings in cats with chronic gingivostomatitis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 244: 339–345.

12.

Harley

Gruffydd-Jones

Day

. Immunohistochemical characterization of oral mucosal lesions in cats with chronic gingivostomatitis. J Comp Pathol 2011; 144: 239–250.

13.

Arzi

Mills-Ko

Verstraete

, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of fresh, autologous mesenchymal stem cells for severe refractory gingivostomatitis in cats. Stem Cells Transl Med 2016; 5: 75–86.

14.

Arzi

Clark

Sundaram

, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of fresh, allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells for severe refractory feline chronic gingivostomatitis. Stem Cells Transl Med 2017; 6: 1710–1722.

15.

Reubel

George

Higgins

, et al. Effect of chronic feline immunodeficiency virus infection on experimental feline calicivirus-induced disease. Vet Microbiol 1994; 39: 335–351.

16.

Dowers

Hawley

Brewer

, et al. Association of Bartonella species, feline calicivirus, and feline herpesvirus 1 infection with gingivostomatitis in cats. J Feline Med Surg 2010; 12: 314–321.

17.

Quimby

Elston

Hawley

, et al. Evaluation of the association of Bartonella species, feline herpesvirus 1, feline calicivirus, feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus with chronic feline gingivostomatitis. J Feline Med Surg 2008; 10: 66–72.

18.

Addie

Radford

Yam

. Cessation of feline calicivirus shedding coincident with resolution of chronic gingivostomatitis in a cat. J Small Anim Pract 2003; 44: 172–176.

19.

Poulet

Brunet

Soulier

. Comparison between acute oral/respiratory and chronic stomatitis/gingivitis isolates of feline calicivirus: pathogenicity, antigenic profile and cross-neutralisation studies. Arch Virol 2000; 145: 243–261.

20.

Thomas

. Prevalence of feline calicivirus in cats with odontoclastic resorptive lesions and chronic gingivostomatitis. Res Vet Sci 2017; 111: 124–126.

21.

Radford

Belak

Boucraut-Baralon

, et al. Feline calicivirus infection. ABCD guidelines on prevention and management. J Feline Med Surg 2009; 11: 556–564.

22.

Schulz

Hartmann

Mueller

, et al. Sampling sites for detection of feline herpesvirus-1, feline calicivirus and Chlamydia felis in cats with feline upper respiratory tract disease. J Feline Med Surg 2015; 12: 1012–1019.

23.

Peralta

Carney

. Feline chronic gingivostomatitis is more prevalent in shared households and its risk correlates with the number of cohabiting cats. J Feline Med Surg 2019; 21: 1165–1171.

24.

Healey

Dawson

Burrow

, et al. Prevalence of feline chronic gingivo-stomatitis in first opinion veterinary practice. J Feline Med Surg 2007; 9: 373–381.

25.

Verhaert

Van Wetter

. Survey of oral diseases in cats in Flanders. Vlaams Diergeneeskd Tijdschr 2004; 73: 331–341.

26.

Girard

Servet

Biourge

, et al. Periodontal health status in a colony of 109 cats. J Vet Dent 2009; 26: 147–155.

27.

Druet

Hennet

. Relationship between feline calicivirus load, oral lesions, and outcome in feline chronic gingivostomatitis (caudal stomatitis): retrospective study in 104 cats. Front Vet Sci 2017; 4: 209.

28.

Crowell-Davis

Curtis

Knowles

. Social organization in the cat: a modern understanding. J Feline Med Surg 2004; 6: 19–28.

29.

Lepczyk

Lohr

Duffy

. A review of cat behavior in relation to disease risk and management options. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2015; 173: 29–39.

Prevalence of feline chronic gingivostomatitis in feral cats and its risk factors

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Conflict of interest

Funding

Ethical approval

Informed consent

ORCID iD

References