At long last, there is a published veterinary clinical trial of a cannabis-based treatment! As I say in nearly every article I write, a single study neither definitively proves nor disproves even the specific hypothesis being studied, much less all of the other claims that might be made about the treatment being studied. Nevertheless, this is an important and welcome beginning to the process of a science-based evaluation of cannabis as a potential therapy for veterinary patients.
Gamble L-J, Boesch JM, Frye CW, Schwark WS, Mann S, Wolfe L, Brown H, Berthelsen ES and Wakshlag JJ (2018) Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Clinical Efficacy of Cannabidiol Treatment in Osteoarthritic Dogs. Front. Vet. Sci. 5:165. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00165
This study was conducted at the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. It had two components. First, 4 beagles were given a commercial cannabis-based product containing predominantly cannabidiol (CBD), with low levels of THC and other compounds, in an olive oil base. Previous research has suggested that an oil-based formula is much more readily absorbed than other oral forms of CBD. The investigators measured the blood levels of CBD obtained at two doses (2mg/kg and 8mg/kg), and calculated the half-life of elimination, which provides an estimate of how long these blood levels may be maintained and, thus, how often it might be necessary to give a drug to achieve effective levels. These beagles were also observed for any obvious adverse effects.
The second component of the study was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover clinical trial looking at the potential effects of the product on measures of pain and function in dogs with arthritis. 22 dogs were enrolled in the study, and 16 completed the trial and were included in the data analysis. Two validated owner-employed scales of pain and function were used, the Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI) and the Hudson Visual Analogue Scale (Hudson). The dogs were also evaluated for pain, lameness, and weight-bearing by veterinarians. Some objective measures were used as well (force-plate measurements), but due to the fact that most dogs were lame in multiple legs, these data were unreliable and so not included in the analysis.
The design involved randomly assigning dogs to receive 4 weeks of either CBD or placebo treatment and evaluation at 2 and 4 weeks, then a washout period followed by a switch to the other treatment. Bloodwork was also done at the start of each treatment and at 2 and 4 weeks into the treatment for both placebo and CBD periods. An olive oil placebo with anise and peppermint oil was used as a placebo to mimic the appearance and odor of the CBD product (no measures were used, however, to determine if the owners and vets were effectively fooled by this technique). The subjects received the CBD, at the 2mg/kg dose, or the placebo every 12 hours.
The patients were mostly medium to large dogs (18-50kg), and about 2/3 were females. The subjects had arthritis in a variety of joints, and 9/16 were taking either carprofen or meloxicam during the study. The authors indicated that fish oil and glucosamine/chondroitin were also permitted but didn’t report whether any of the subjects were taking these agents.
This component of the study showed significant absorption of CBD. The higher dose, not surprisingly, resulted in blood levels more than 4 times those achieved with the lower dose. There is no reliable data, in dogs or any other species, for how much CBD one has to get into the blood to achieve a desirable effect or how much might cause harm, so this preliminary data is useful. It isn’t yet clear, however, what concentration should be seen as a therapeutic target or as an upper limit.
The elimination half-life was about 4 hours. This suggests that to maintain consistent blood levels, it might be necessary to dose this product 3-4 times per day. As the authors indicate, longer-term pharmacokinetic studies with a variety of dose and administration intervals are needed before the optimal amount and frequency can be known.
There were statistically significant and clinically meaningful decreases from baseline in CBPI and Hudson indices at 2 and 4 weeks during the CBD dosing, and there were no changes in these levels during the placebo period. Veterinary assessments more mixed, with decreases in pain measures during CBD administration but no apparent effect on lameness or weight-bearing (as opposed to NSAID use, which did reduce lameness score as well as pain)
Bloodwork showed few changes during the treatment and placebo periods. Creatinine and BUN increased during both periods, and this was associated with NSAID use, however the numbers always stayed within the normal range. The only clinical laboratory change that appeared meaningful was an increased in the liver enzyme alkaline phosphatase (ALK) in dogs receiving CBD. Previous research has shown that CBD affects the cytochrome enzyme system in the liver, and this kind of change in lab value is likely a reflection of this. The ALK elevation by itself does not suggest any harm to the liver, but the effects of CBD on the cytochrome system could lead to interactions with other drugs, which could present safety or efficacy concerns for these drugs.
The authors did not report any adverse effects in the study subjects, but they also did not report any mechanism for monitoring or evaluating undesirable effects, so it’s unclear whether any formal monitoring of adverse effects was done as part of the study.
All research studies have strengths and limitations which must be taken into account in order to determine how much confidence to place in the results and the extent to which the results can be applied to real-world patients, who may differ from the research subjects in various ways. The major strength of this study was a solid design incorporating most of the major tools for minimizing bias and other errors.
The subjects were randomly assigned to treatment order, and the crossover design further reduces potential differences between treatment and placebo groups that can confuse the results. Both owners and veterinarians were blinded to the treatment, though there was no specific measurement of whether the method used for blinding was successful. About half of the owners were “intimately involved in veterinary medical care,” presumably being vets or veterinary technicians/nurses. It is unclear how many of the owners had previous experience with medical or recreational cannabis and might have been able to distinguish the treatment product from the placebo.
Appropriate statistical methods were employed, and the outcome measurement tools (the CBPI and Hudson index) were established and validated measures of clinically relevant signs.
The authors themselves acknowledge that the sample size of 16 dogs is a limitation of this study. Extensive evidence shows that smaller studies are more likely to generate unreliable results which don’t accurately predict the effects of treatments in larger populations.
It is also concerning that 27% of the subjects initially enrolled dropped out of the study, since loss to followup greater that 20% is often considered a risk for bias in such studies. The authors report the reasons for dropout of 5 of the 6 patients not included, and there is no obvious pattern of differences in withdrawal between the study and control periods to suggest these cases would affect the final results.
The subjects were predominantly large breed and about 2/3 were female. This is reasonably representative of the population of dogs seen for treatment of arthritis in general practice, but it does limit the generalizability of the study results to small-breed dogs.
Both the pharmacokinetic and clinical trial components of the study were short (24 hours after single dose, and 4 weeks respectively). These are reasonable and practical starting points for clinical research, but longer-term studies are needed to better evaluate optimal dosing and the effects of CBD over the long term.
The outcome measurements used were subjective instruments, but they were both commonly used and formally validated tools, and the assessors were blinded, so this likely had little impact on the results. Meaningful improvement on objective measures would certainly be a desirable indication of the true impact of CBD on arthritis symptoms.
The fact that many of the owners were apparently veterinary professionals is also an interesting wrinkle to this study. Certainly, this is not representative of the general pet-owning population, and both the use and evaluation of CBD products might very well be different in the hands of owners without medical training. However, the blinding of the owners (if it was effective) should at least diminish any impact of this on the results.
There was no apparent placebo effect in this study, which is highly unusual for an arthritis study, especially one using subjective measurement instruments. The authors suggest one explanation for this may be that so many owners were veterinary professionals and might be less susceptible to placebo effects. This is a common but inaccurate notion, and studies of other arthritis treatments have shown that caregiver placebo effects impact veterinarians to nearly the same extent as pet owners. It’s not clear what, if any implication this lack of a placebo effect might have for the results of the study in general, but it is a little odd.
Also concerning is the lack of any reported adverse effects of the CBD. Human trials showing benefits from CBD and other cannabis-based treatments have consistently showed relatively high rates of minor side effects, as well as some that limit the tolerability of the treatment. This is actually a good sign since any real, truly effective medicine is going to have some risks and undesirable effects that have to be balanced against its benefits. Any study showing no adverse effects at all is a bit worrisome since it could be a sign the treatment is not truly active or that the study did not properly detect side effects that may emerge once the treatment is more widely used in the real world.
There are a couple of other interesting issues that arise in this study which are not, strictly speaking, limitations of the study itself but which might influence the application of the results to clinical practice.
The only treatments reported for study subjects other than the CBD and placebo were NSAIDs, either meloxicam or carprofen. The authors indicated that fish oil and glucosamine/chrondroitin were allowed, but they didn’t report whether or not any subjects were taking these. Glucosamine and chondroitin very likely have no meaningful clinical effects, so this would probably not have affected the results. There is some weak evidence that fish oil, however, might improve arthritis symptoms, so hopefully this was not an overlooked variable in this study.
NSAID use was associated with improvement in pain and in function, as expected. Whether or not the CBD had more or less impact given with or without concurrent NSAID use could not be determined from this small study. This is an important open question given that it seems many owners are choosing CBD as a first-line therapy prior to using NSAIDs due to beliefs about the safety and efficacy of the two treatments that are not always evidence based. One of the most common problems in human medicine is the unanticipated interactions between new drugs and other treatments that emerge when drugs go from carefully controlled studies to widespread use, and this will have to be kept in mind going forward with cannabis in veterinary patients.
The authors also mentioned that a significant reason for choosing the 2mg/kg dose was that the the cost of the product was prohibitive for larger dogs at higher doses. Cost is always a consideration in the use of veterinary treatments, since many owners are limited in what they are able and willing to spend on veterinary care. Unfortunately, the more work a company puts into developing and testing a product and ensuring good quality control, the more expensive that product is likely to be.
Given the abundance of untested and unregulated cannabis products on the market, several of which have already proven unreliable in quality, it is possible that owners may use the data for this product as justification for using CBD and then choose another, cheaper product that hasn’t undergone the same clinical testing or quality control. I have seen this happen in the past, when a probiotic product with better supporting research evidence than others on the market was often refused by clients, and ultimately withdrawn from the market, partly due to its higher cost.
Quality control has been a particular problem for cannabis-based remedies, with many failing government or independent testing of their contents and label claims. It is important for pet owners to realize that research evidence is often specific to the treatment tested, and it can’t always be generalized to other products that claim to be similar. While I don’t endorse any particular product over others in the absence of head-to-head comparison studies, which are almost never done, I would caution veterinarians and owners not to make the assumption that one encouraging arthritis study for one product validates the use of all the other products out there.
In the same vein, this study is very specific to arthritis in dogs. It says nothing whatsoever about the use of CBD for other conditions, including epilepsy, pain associated with other diseases, nausea, etc. These uses for CBD have to be validated in their own right. And other cannabis-based compounds also cannot be assumed to be safe and effective, for arthritis or anything else, based on this study of CBD. In medicine, the details matter a lot, and generalizing from even good studies such as this is a dangerous practice.
One small study of CBD for arthritis is not one giant leap for cannabis-based medicines in pets. Additional studies on the pharmacology and clinical effects, both positive and negative, need to be conducted, and rash generalizations from this study to other compounds, other conditions, other species, and other products is not justified.
That said, this is a good-quality study with limitations that are important but certainly not fatal. It is an excellent beginning to the science-based use of cannabis in dogs. Based on the existing evidence, including this study, I believe it is reasonable to consider oral CBD as a treatment for dogs with arthritis with the following caveats:
- Other treatments with better supporting evidence, such as calorie restriction for weight loss and NSAIDs, should be attempted first
- This product or others with verifiably similar formulation and quality control should be used
- Patients must be closely monitored for adverse effects and potential drug interactions which are almost certain to appear in larger, more diverse populations of patients than used in this study
As I have said before, the evidence for cannabis as a medical therapy is limited but encouraging and growing rapidly. The political and legal climate appears to be changing in ways that will hopefully make it easier to conduct the needed research and make use of cannabis products that can demonstrate safety and efficacy for veterinary patients. This study is unquestionably an important milestone, and I look forward to more and better evidence and ultimately the integration of cannabis, where justified, as yet another tool in the toolbox of science-based veterinary medicine.
Thank you so much for this update, skeptvet. I was trying to decide whether to try CBD oil for my dog’s arthritis and was finding a lot of confusing information online. So I came to your site to see if you had covered CBD oil, and voila, there it was on the home page. I appreciate it!
Glad it was useful!
Im torn between thinking this is good new , for the obvious reasons or bad news because now its just ammunition for those who want to believe its a cure all for everything and anything .
Hello! I’m sorry for the unrelated comment, but I couln’t find any information on this on your website. My dog suffers from Atopic Dermatitis due to allergies. His vet suggested me to try give him Quercetin. She’s not into the “natural mania”, but she says this particular supplement works and that it is supported by scientific evidence. Is it true? I’ve indeed found some articles about it:
The issue with this supplements, as with most, is that there are no studies actually showing it is safe or effective in actual dogs with atopy. The studies you cite are all lab animal and test tube studies. These are useful in understanding the chemical properties if a compound, and in suggesting hypotheses to test in clinical trials, but they don’t actually show whether or not something works in the real world. The classic example is that bleach kills cancer cells in the lab, but you sure wouldn’t inject it into cancer patients to treat real diseases. Sadly, most things that look promising in the lab have some limitation that isn’t discovered until they are tested in real patients.
For now, the evidence for using this in allergic dogs is all anecdotal, and that is pretty unreliable. It would be great to see a clinical study, but until then we can’t really say if it is truly safe or if it really works.
Ok, thank you! So you totally advise against it? Not even a “give it a try”? I was really hopeful because sometimes he is miserably itchy… Unfortunately, I cannot afford something like Atopica, and his vet says recurrent treatments with prednisone are not recommended due to possible long term side effects… Thanks!
@ Mary Sheppard
Please consider consulting a board certified veterinary dermatologist. It was the only thing that helped my dog diagnosed with allergies/atopic dermatitis over 5 years ago.
Otherwise I would definitely try the treatments that your vet is suggesting.
Trust me, there is no cheap way out of this.
There is no cure. There is effective treatment for environmental allergies but it is lifelong. Flareups happen, but they are not as bad. My dog has been receiving allergen specific immunotherapy for over 4 years with good effect.
It is what it is. I gave up cable and rarely eat out.
Huh. I would actually consider trying this for my arthritic dog. She is on gabapentin, and intermittent fish oil (though I worry about hypervitaminosis). She is very lean and gets a good deal of gentle exercise. Will ask my vet.
I would worry about the possibility of cognitive effects in elderly dogs though. Does that happen with CBD? I’ll also ask my own vet but I would expect that by virtue of your interests you are more up on this than the average bear.
The answer is we don’t know. CBD shows much less psychoactive effects than THC in humans, but people on some of the clinical trials do sometimes report unpleasant experiences, and this is sometimes bad enough to make them stop using it. On the other hand, it has some potential to reduce anxiety and sleep disturbances, which are a major part of the cognitive function problems experienced by older dogs, so it is hypothesized to be a potential therapy for this (though there are no clincal studies on this subject yet). Just one more of the many unanswered questions!
The study did not look at CBD as an isolated chemical. From the cited paper: “The industrial hemp used in this study was a proprietary hemp strain utilizing ethanol and heat extraction with the final desiccated product reconstituted into an olive oil base containing ~10 mg/mL of CBD as an equal mix of CBD and carboxylic acid of CBD (CBDa), 0.24 mg/mL tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), 0.27 mg/mL cannabichromene (CBC), and 0.11 mg/mL cannabigerol (CBG); all other cannabinoids were less than 0.01 mg/mL.” How does this impact the findings?
The CBD was nearly 2 orders of magnitude greater in concentration or more than the other compounds, so it is unlikely the others had a significant impact on the effects of the product, though this cannot be completely ruled out by this one study. The existing pre-clinical literature and clinical studies in humans suggest that the concentrations of these other cannabinoids should be below the threshold for any clinical effects. This literature also suggests that CBD antagonizes THC to some extent, which would further reduce the impact of this compound, at least, on the results. Also, dogs are much more sensitive to THC than humans because they have a greater density of cannabinoid receptors in the CNS. Since they showed none of the effects usually seen with THC toxicosis in dogs, this also suggests that the concentration was low enough not to be a meaningful factor.
Hopefully, as the literature grows, we will learn more about the oral dose and blood levels that are associated with both positive and negative clinical effects of individual cannabinoids and the effects of combinations at different relative dosages.
Thank you so much for sharing this! My Saint Bernard – at a healthy, lean 130 lbs – was very recently diagnosed with pretty nontrivial arthritis in his lower back, and it’s been tough to find info on CBD (especially out here in Colorado) that describes it as anything other than the medicinal second coming of christ.
This definitely makes me less hesitant to give it a shot once we’ve solidified his pain med regimen (which is a bit tricky, since he’s got some minor kidney/liver trouble that we are trying to avoid exacerbating with some of the go-to prescription meds for the poor guy’s pain).
Hopefully we’ll have more studies and more precise info soon!
Pingback: New study on CBD oil in dogs - Poodle Forum - Standard Poodle, Toy Poodle, Miniature Poodle Forum ALL Poodle owners too!
Thank you for sharing this. Is there a way to find the list of drugs in which cbd has potential interactions?
Unfortunately, there is no specific list because we don’t know yet. Any drug which is metabolized through the cytochrome P450 system may potentially have interactions, but it’s too complex a system to predict easily, which is why additional research and post-marketing surveillance are going to be so important, and why it is crucial that people talk to their vet about putting their pet on CBD so they can look at any other drugs the patient is on and take a guess at the potential for interactions.
Here are just a couple of papers that illustrate how complicated all of this is:
Thanks so much for the quick response. This is what I’ve been fearing since I had to make the decision to let go of my first dog last year. I was giving him CBD for several of his ailments. He got a bacterial infection and was given metronizolde by my vet. My gut told me to research interactions and also ask the vet about it. They told me there weren’t interactions between the two, so I put my trust in them. They also told me to wait a day for the CBD to leave his system. I’m not even sure how long that actually takes. My other dog caught the same infection and she wasn’t on CBD. She pulled through and my first dog didn’t. I’ve been grieving and heartbroken for over a year thinking that the interaction between the two is what lead to his death.
Am I understanding this correctly? The CBD oil was given orally, meaning it was ingested, presumably with food? See below link to another study that shows discouraging results for this method. Some manufacturers suggest sublingual administration instead of oral.
(BTW, does sublingual really mean literally under the tongue or is anywhere on the gums equivalent?)
This is a very old reference. More recent studies have shown that the oral bioavailability of CBD is actually quite high if given in an oil-based preparation. This study measured oral uptake, and so did this one.
If you choose to try CBD Oil (as I did recently for my dog with Lymphoma), START SMALL and build up to the suggested dosage. I did not and my dog got diarrhea pretty bad, and others in my support group reported the same. I feel horrible that I made my dog sick.
So glad you’re here for people Skeptvet. Don’t ever think you’re alone, unseen/unheard, or wonder if it’s all worth it. It’s worth it! xo The living beings in our lives depend on our help via evidence-informed decisions, as well as a whole lot of comforting routine, touch, smiling conversation, play and regular veterinary care. Thank You!!
Aw shucks! 🙂
Thanks for the support!
Can you/readers recommend a brand of CBD oil that has worked on arthritis? I am encouraged by the study, but have read the importance of reviewing lab certificates when deciding on a brand. Unfortunately, the glut of CBD products for dogs has made it near damn impossible to comb through. While the % are easy to decode, it’s far too difficult to figure out which brand/lab/certificates are in fact true to form. I would love to hear from any readers here…
There isn’t enough information to be clear if one brand is better than another. The study was conducted on a particular brand, and they do offer. a certificate of analysis, but it is possible other brands might be equally effective, we just don’t have any evidence to decide.
More research is getting done on CBD then ever before, this is good news. I look forward to when the public realizes the potential benefits of CBD as an alternative treatment method to traditional medicines. The truth is CBD naturally occurs and humans experimenting with CBD to treat pain is a promise of good health. Are you open to alternative medicines?
The problem with alternative medicine is the belief that because something is “natural” or because people have tried it and believe in it that somehow that means anything. I am happy to recommend CBD when there is good research evidence that it is safe and effective for a particular problem and not before, just like any other medical treatment
DariK, Endoca brand is independently lab tested & the results are posted by batch online. It is one of a very few tested by the FDA that actually did contain the levels that it claimed to. Independently verifiable levels was something I was perticularly interested in after reading about bogus products.
Thank you JRiver!
And, thank you, thank you SkeptVet for your amazing, invaluable insights. Your blog is immensely helpful for those of us wary of the vet system.
Following is a link to an article summarizing the most recent animal studies with CBD that have concluded and been submitted for publication along with an overview of studies that are enrolling/ongoing. I spent 16 years in sales as a pharma rep on the human health side (15 with Merck), and I don’t blindly follow the natural is better mantra. I am a firm believer in studies and am happy to see more and more research around CBD. I just find it interesting that many veterinarians will routinely prescribe a prescribe a big pharma human medication that is not FDA approved for use in animals under AMDUCA but are unwilling to give something like CBD a try. Lets take Gabapentin, under AMDUCA a vet could prescribe this for the same conditions it is indicated for in people which would be post herpetic neuralgia and seizures. Yet vets (not saying you) routinely Rx for OA pain, post surgical pain, and anxiety in dogs. It just seems a little disingenuous. Now that Dr. McGrath’s study at CSU has been concluded there is almost as much research on the use of CBD for seizures in dogs as there is for Gabapentin (I could only find 2 small studies on PubMed for GABA for treating seizures in canines…maybe I missed the big study that vets are looking to???)
I don’t know how much resistance there is to CBD among veterinarians. I am not aware of any surveys showing that vets are opposed to it in principle. However, the reality is that it is still illegal on both a federal and state level for vets to prescribe any cannabis-based remedies, so it is not really fair to suggest that vets are refusing to prescribe it. In any case, OTC CBD product are ubiquitous, and a huge number of my clients are using them. I am happy to summarize the evidence for them (so far very limited but promising) and discuss other issues (e.g. lack of quality assurance in unregulated OTC products, lack of data in cats, etc.) just as I do for every other therapy I discuss.
As for gabapentin, I agree there is very little evidence to support its use as an analgesic in dogs, and we should be telling clients this and not relying on it. NSAIDs and opioids are much better supported, but people seem to have unreasoning fear of both these days, which leads vets to things like tramadol and gabapentin despite little reason to think they are as effective. Thisdoesn’t really have anything to do with the CBD issue, but I agree that the evidence for gabapentin isn’t nearly strong enough to support how widely it is being used.
I would think there is practically zero evidence for gabapentin in companion pets – since there is, to my knowledge, only a handful of evidence studies in humans, for those conditions specified (and no real new research over the years it has been on the market). There are numerous side effects for gabapentin as reported by humans, they are similar to, and worse than, combination or high dose antidepressants. I’m one of those cases, and I can tell you, it’s a crap drug that may only work for 50% of the people it’s prescribed for (the rest go on to Lyrica, which carries it’s own set of nasty side effects – I can only hope to god that vets never prescribe Lyrica to pets!). Physicians like to titrate up the dose, which generally only complicates the problem and increases the side effects and serious adverse reactions. My experience is of course, anecdotal in this regard, but it bothers me something fierce that vets are prescribing this for pets, particularly since they cannot tell you which of the numerous side effects they are most likely experiencing (or that in some pets, may be completely ineffective, but I find it hard to believe pets wouldn’t experience more than one awful side effect).
Interesting discussion. It’s very awkward to raise concerns about the efficacy of drugs a vet wants to prescribe. And I feel like they should already be aware of the current thinking on gabapentin and tramadol (not the case with my regular vet’s partner).
I was wondering, Skeptvet, if you have seen studies on Galliprant, which is supposed to be much safer for liver, kidneys, and GI tract than other NSAIDs. An ER vet prescribed it for my dog a few days ago and I’m wondering about other risks. (He needs to be on an NSAID long-term for a spinal problem and arthritis, but recently had to discontinue Rimadyl since he started vomiting a lot.)
I haven’t seen studies (other than the manufacturer’s insert), but like any NSAID, galliprant also has similar side effects (vomiting, diarrhea, inappetance, ulcers, etc), so even though they claim a better safety margin for liver/kidney issues, there are still potential GI issues. It would also still require regular monitoring/blood work.
My old German Shepherd has the most severe case of spondylosis his vet has ever seen. We are currently on Gabapentin 300 mg, 100 mg of Tramadol, and 500 mg of methocarbomal every 8 hrs,in addition to Amantadine 100 mg once daily and 20 mg of Pred once daily. We tried Galliprant and it worked but he wouldn’t eat,so we started Pred. We’ve been at this for two weeks and I’ve been meticulous in recording his meals and meds. My boy is really weak in the hind end now. I am thinking of trying CBD oil as a last resort. Any advice from anyone?
Deanna, your dog is on quite the cocktail of what should be considered effective, depending on the severity (save for the gabapentin, but that’s only my opinion).
I would ask your vet to review the drug combination for potential side effects (dizziness, sedation, weakness as a result of side effects, not necessarily the spondylosis) – although if your vet hasn’t already considered it, make sure there is no spinal cord compression (would require a myelogram for example) – in which compression from a bone spur relating to spondylosis can in fact, cause weakness and partial to full paralysis – in that event, surgery may be considered.
Can’t help with the CBD oil question, as skeptvet’s article pretty much spells it out, that it’s only one study with limitations, and there is some risk with unknown effects combining drugs with this or any other substance.
Pingback: Woofer Madness: Cannabis, Companion Animals and What Legalization Means for Your Pets – Ada McVean
We have nursed five dogs with herniated discs that were not operable due to age or considered that the disc would heal . All did really well with a combination of prednisone, diazepam and gabapentin. Tramadol works for pain and didn’t seem to have any other side effects, but gabapentin seemed to have a superior effect with pain on movement (such as the dog turning over) being substantially reduced after a few days of administration and making them a lot more comfortable, All the dogs recovered very well after 8 weeks of confinement and were easily weaned off the gabapentin.
I have an older mixed breed 75 lb dog with OA that has made it more difficult for him to walk due to rear leg weakness. He has been on Metacam for 10 days and shows some improvement. I was wondering about CBD, but have read that mice given CBD developed liver failure.
Skeptvet, I’d like to ask you if you’ve seen anything about CBD regarding liver injury or if you’ve come across any new evidence that is compelling for or against its use in dogs.
I am curious too. My vet recently suggested “Hemp CBD” for my dog with occasional signs of early arthritis. We tried glucosamine a while back but quickly discontinued it as it would make him vomit.
I said I would think about Hemp CBD, however the cost is prohibitive (expensive)
So, that won’t be happening.
I keep him walking 2-3 miles a day at his own pace, plus he’s on a weight management food to lose a pound or two. These things appear to help.
Just my opinion but I don’t think he needs this med right now. Also, I am concerned about the lack of research and potential side effects.
Both of the clinical studies of CBD in dogs published recently (for arthritis and for seizures) have shown increased liver enzymes, and this is a recognized side effect in humans. So far, none of the dogs have shown signs of illness, but whether this might happen over long-term use or at sufficiently high doses isn’t clear. Experimental evidence has so far failed to find a “lethal” dose of cannabis, so acute toxicity is unlikely, but I think we just don’t know the potential risks of long-term use, and any dog on CBD for months or years should be monitored regularly, including with blood testing.
That’s my concern as well, skeptvet….long-term use. Accumulation over a considerable amount of time. (and more-so on the top of my list, quality control and available research – oh what am I saying, we need a huge body of reliable research and evidence).
Thank you so much for sharing this update skeptvet. Waiting to see how cannabis industry’s growth.
Pingback: More Good News on CBD and Canine Arthritis |
Pingback: Evidence Update: Discouraging News for CBD & Arthritis in Dogs |
Pingback: Is CBD Oil Good For Dogs? The Real Truth – ChewdUp