Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How firocoxib and tepoxalin affect stomach healing in dogs
By Goodman, L et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2009·University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Effects of firocoxib and tepoxalin on healing in a canine gastric mucosal injury model.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of six mixed-breed dogs had gastric lesions created for research purposes and were treated with either firocoxib, tepoxalin, or a placebo for a week. The results showed that dogs treated with firocoxib had larger lesions compared to those given tepoxalin or the placebo, suggesting that firocoxib may slow down the healing process. Interestingly, while tepoxalin reduced certain substances in the stomach lining, it did not lead to larger lesions than the placebo. Overall, firocoxib appeared to hinder healing, while tepoxalin did not significantly affect the healing process.
People also search for: dog stomach ulcer treatment · firocoxib side effects in dogs · tepoxalin for dog gastric issues
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of dual cyclooxygenase (COX) and lipoxygenase inhibition on canine gastric mucosal healing. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effects of putative dual COX and 5-lipoxygenase inhibition with that of COX-2 selective inhibition on gastric mucosal lesion healing in dogs. ANIMALS: Six normal adult mixed-breed research dogs. METHODS: Gastric body and pyloric lesions were induced by endoscopic biopsy. Dogs were treated with tepoxalin, firocoxib, or placebo for 7 days in a randomized 3-way crossover study design. Healing was evaluated on days 2, 4, and 7 of treatment by endoscopic lesion scoring. Eicosanoid concentrations in plasma and at the lesion margins were determined on days 2, 4, and 7. Repeated measures analyses were performed. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided with P < .05. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using Tukey's test. RESULTS: Significant treatment differences were noted in the pyloric lesion area measurements. Overall, the firocoxib group had larger lesions than the placebo (P= .0469) or tepoxalin (P= .0089) groups. Despite larger pyloric lesions in the firocoxib group, mucosal prostaglandin production did not differ significantly from placebo. In contrast, the tepoxalin group had significantly lower pyloric mucosal prostaglandin production compared with the firocoxib (P < .0001) or the placebo (P < .0001) groups but pyloric lesions were not significantly larger than those of the placebo group (P= .7829). CONCLUSION: COX-2 inhibition by firocoxib slowed wound healing by a mechanism independent of prostaglandin synthesis. Suppression of mucosal prostaglandin production by tepoxalin did not alter mucosal lesion healing compared with placebo.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19175721/