In a recent article about pet supplements for the Science-Based Medicine Blog, I reviewed the dietary supplement Azodyl, marketed for kidney failure in dogs and cats. At the time, the evidence I was able to find was extremely limited, poorly controlled, and subject to a high risk of bias due to association of the research with the company marketing the products. My conclusion was that the theory behind the product was weakly plausible and the evidence insufficient to justify a firm conclusion about efficacy.
An abstract is being presented at the upcoming American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum which reports the results of a controlled study on the use of this product in 10 cats with chronic kidney disease.
M. Rishniw; S. Wynn
Azodyl Fails to Reduce Azotemia in Cats with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) When Sprinkled Onto Food
The study examined whether there was any difference between commonly measured blood markers of kidney disease, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine, in cats given Azodyl and cats given a placebo. The Azodyl was sprinkled on the food since this is commonly how the product is used (making cats take capsules is often difficult). The study was randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The criteria for confirming a positive effect were quite generous, however no difference was found between cats given Azodyl and cats given the palcebo.
The authors concluded:
Based on these results, Azodyl, applied by sprinkling onto food fails to reduce [BUN and creatinin] in cats with [chronic kidney disease]. Whether intact capsule administration reduces reduces azotemia in cats with [chronic kidney disease] remains unknown.
Though generally well-designed, this study was small, and of course single studies are almost never sufficient to provide the final word on a particular therapy. The issue of potential bias for or against a hypothesis is always hard to evaluate objectively, but I am unaware of any direct funding or other involvement of the company in this study. I do know that one of the authors, Dr. Susan Wynn, is a prominent researcher and advocate in the area of herbal and some other alternative therapies, so she certainly would not be expected to have a bias against the product. And negative findings in clinical research are inherently more reliable than positive findings because our studies and our psychology are designed to confirm our beliefs rather than refute them. So while the case is by no means closed, the balance of the very limited evidence is currently against any significant clinical value for this product.