PICO question In dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis, is meloxicam superior to carprofen for reducing patient discomfort?   Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Only two papers have compared the efficacy between meloxicam and carprofen in the treatment of dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Both of the papers were clinical, prospective and randomised trials. Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported One randomised controlled clinical trial compared the level of efficacy between meloxicam and carprofen in reducing pain and discomfort in dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis1. Orthopaedic surgeons found dogs treated with either meloxicam or carprofen showed significant improvement in ground reaction forces (GRF). The study emphasised that dogs treated with meloxicam had GRF values that returned to normal baseline values, with owners also commenting on gait improvement. This study however, had a low sample size, did not use a validated metrology instrument for assessment by owners and the data used to assess GRF was not conclusive on all parameters to favour meloxicam. An additional study was evaluated but this also had very small case numbers, no control group and gave no detailed statistical analysis2. The paper descriptively suggests meloxicam to show a better response than carprofen but there was no scientific analysis or evidence to statistically support and validate this. Conclusion Both meloxicam and carprofen are validated as effective treatments for canine osteoarthritis but it cannot be suggested that meloxicam is superior to carprofen as the available evidence is weak. To accurately assess this, a future clinical study using validated metrology instruments, adequate sample sizes and proper statistical analysis is required.   How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.  

There is an erratum to this paper published in Veterinary Evidence Vol 6, Issue 4 (2021):

PICO question In routine canine caesareans, is alfaxalone a superior anaesthetic induction agent than propofol in increasing the rate of survival and vigour of neonates?   Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Three randomised positive clinical trials have compared the efficacy between alfaxalone and propofol in routine canine caesarean sections for increased neonatal survival and vigour Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported Although two studies found alfaxalone to be associated with higher Apgar scores for neonates than propofol, each study nonetheless revealed positive vigour and high survival rates from the use of either alfaxalone or propofol. The evidence is too weak to suggest that one induction agent is superior to another. The selection between the two induction agents may not be the main concern in regard to neonatal depression and 24 hour survival post-delivery, provided that the entire canine caesarean protocol is thoroughly and carefully studied Conclusion Text here   How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.  

PICO question In cats with idiopathic feline urinary tract disease (FLUTD), are glucocorticoid or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs more effective than placebo or no treatment in reducing clinical signs attributable to cystitis?   Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Three randomised controlled trials have examined the efficacy of prednisolone or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in reducing the clinical signs of feline lower urinary tract disease compared to a placebo whilst one retrospective cohort study compared the reoccurrence of FLUTD in cats treated with meloxicam and without meloxicam Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported One small controlled trial compared prednisolone to a placebo and found no clinical differences in dysuria, microscopic haematuria, and occult blood for cats diagnosed with idiopathic non-obstructive feline lower urinary tract disease (FLUTD) hospitalised for 10 days. The study however had a very small sample size. Furthermore, the external validity of the study to similar patients discharged to their home environment is unclear. The second small controlled trial compared meloxicam to a placebo in cats diagnosed with obstructive FLUTD. Statistical analysis was applied to determine if there were significant differences in voiding behaviour, general demeanour, haematuria, food intake and abdominal pain as assessed by the veterinarians in charge during hospitalisation and owners at discharge. No statistically significant differences (P>0.05) were calculated between the two treatment groups based on the owner questionnaire and veterinarian assessment but small samples in each treatment probably limited statistical power. The third small controlled trial compared the reoccurrence of feline idiopathic cystitis (FIC), related clinical signs and recurrent urinary obstruction in cats at 10 days, 1, 2 and 6 months after discharge when treated with phenoxybenzamine and alprazolam, with or without the addition of meloxicam. No statistically significant differences were found in the reoccurrence of obstructed or non-obstructed FIC for cats treated with either meloxicam or no meloxicam. However, full details of each intervention group were not sufficient to assess for balance of prognostic factors, subjective scoring of clinical signs was not detailed, and the study was underpowered for the actual obstruction rates reported. The fourth paper was a retrospective cohort study that examined the association of different treatment factors with 30 days reobstruction. The study found no significant association between the use of meloxicam and the rate of reobstruction but a number of confounders were present Conclusion Three small randomised controlled trials and a single retrospective cohort study failed to find a significant association between the use of glucocorticoids or NSAIDs with severity of FLUTD clinical signs or risk of reobstruction. Clinical outcome measures were heterogeneous and studies were significantly underpowered and/or at risk for bias and/or confounding. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of either drug category in decreasing time to resolution or severity of clinical signs in cases of idiopathic FLUTD or FIC   How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.