Evaluation of a fixed-dose combination of benazepril and pimobendan in dogs with congestive heart failure: a randomized non-inferiority clinical trial.

A fixed-dose combination tablet of benazepril and pimobendan (Fortekor Plus; Elanco Animal Health) was tested in dogs with congestive heart failure (CHF) caused by myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) in a three-arm, masked, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial in Japan. The test group (n = 34) received Fortekor Plus twice daily. Two control groups received registered formulations of benazepril (Fortekor; Elanco Animal Health) and pimobendan (Vetmedin; Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica) with administration of Vetmedin twice daily and Fortekor twice (Control I, n = 14) or once (Control II, n = 19) daily. Diuretics were used in 22 dogs (32.8%). Global clinical scores decreased significantly from baseline in all groups; there were no significant differences between groups, and non-inferiority of Fortekor Plus compared to Control I, Control II, and combined Control I + II groups was demonstrated. There were no significant differences between groups for relevant clinical chemistry and hematology variables or frequency of all adverse events. Frequency of emesis was significantly (p = 0.0042) lower in the Fortekor Plus (8.8%) group than in the Control I + II (39.4%) group. In conclusion, Fortekor Plus had non-inferior efficacy and was associated with significantly less emesis compared to Fortekor and Vetmedin in dogs with CHF caused by MMVD.

Comparison of oral robenacoxib and carprofen for the treatment of osteoarthritis in dogs: a randomized clinical trial.

The efficacy and tolerability of robenacoxib for the treatment of osteoarthritis in dogs were evaluated in a prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority design clinical trial. A total of 32 dogs presenting with osteoarthritis were allocated randomly to receive, orally once daily for 28 days, either 1-2 mg/kg robenacoxib (n=21) or 3.5-5 mg/kg carprofen (n=11). Dogs were assessed by clinicians and owners using numerical rating scale scores at baseline and days 14 and 28. The primary efficacy endpoint was the global functional disability score, which was the sum of clinician scores for standing posture, lameness at walk, lameness at trot, willingness to raise the contralateral limb and pain at palpation. There was a good to excellent level of efficacy in both treatment groups. Differences between days 14 and 28 compared to day 0 were significant for all 11 clinician and owner scores for robenacoxib, and for 6 of 11 scores for carprofen. The efficacy of robenacoxib was numerically superior to carprofen for all 13 endpoints, but differences were not statistically significant. For the global functional disability score, the estimated efficacy of robenacoxib was 1.244 (95% confidence interval 0.555-2.493) relative to carprofen. The tolerability of both treatments was good as assessed from adverse events, clinical signs, and hematology and serum biochemistry variables. In conclusion, once daily administration of robenacoxib tablets had noninferior efficacy and tolerability compared to carprofen for the treatment of the clinical signs of osteoarthritis in dogs.

Comparison of oral robenacoxib and ketoprofen for the treatment of acute pain and inflammation associated with musculoskeletal disorders in cats: a randomised clinical trial.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of robenacoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, for the treatment of acute pain and inflammation associated with musculoskeletal disorders in cats. The study was a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, blinded, non-inferiority design clinical trial comparing robenacoxib to ketoprofen. A total of 68 cats presenting with pain and inflammation associated with acute musculoskeletal disorders were recruited and allocated randomly to receive, orally once daily for 5-6 days, either 1.0-2.4 mg/kg robenacoxib (n=47) or 1mg/kg ketoprofen (n=21). The primary efficacy endpoint was the total clinician score, which was the sum of clinician numerical rating scale scores for pain, inflammation and mobility. Assessments were made at baseline, on day 2, and day 4 or 5. For the total clinician score, non-inferior efficacy of robenacoxib was demonstrated with a relative efficacy of 1.151 (95% confidence interval 0.872-1.494). Non-inferior efficacy of robenacoxib was also demonstrated for the secondary endpoint of the total owner score. Robenacoxib was superior (P<0.05) to ketoprofen for the owner's assessment of activity and human/animal relationship. The tolerability of both treatments was good as assessed by monitoring adverse events, clinical signs and haematology and serum biochemistry variables.

Comparison of injectable robenacoxib versus meloxicam for peri-operative use in cats: results of a randomised clinical trial.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of robenacoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, for the treatment of post-operative pain and inflammation in cats. The study was a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, blinded, non-inferiority design clinical study to compare robenacoxib to meloxicam. Ninety-six cats undergoing surgery at eight centres in Japan were allocated randomly to receive a single s.c. injection of robenacoxib (2 mg/kg, n=67) or meloxicam (0.3 mg/kg, n=29) shortly before induction of anaesthesia. Most cats underwent soft tissue surgery (n=87), mainly ovariectomy (n=68). Post-operative pain and inflammation were assessed at 3, 8 and 22 h after recovery from anaesthesia using numerical rating scales. For the primary efficacy endpoint (total clinician score), robenacoxib had significantly better efficacy than meloxicam, the relative efficacy ratio being 1.47 (95% confidence interval 1.19-1.78, P=0.0003). For the secondary efficacy endpoints, robenacoxib was superior to meloxicam when assessed on the basis of posture, behaviour, pain on palpation and overall pain control, while meloxicam was superior with respect to wound heat. No cat in either group required rescue analgesia therapy. In tolerability assessments, pain during injection and pain and inflammation at the injection site 22 h after recovery from anaesthesia were rated significantly less with robenacoxib compared to meloxicam. Both treatments were well tolerated on the basis of clinical observations and blood tests, with no significant differences between groups. In conclusion, single pre-operative administration of robenacoxib was well tolerated and had superior efficacy to meloxicam in reducing post-operative pain in cats.