PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Intranasal maropitant reduces upper respiratory signs in shelter cats

By Parncutt, John et al.·Published in Journal of feline medicine and surgery·2025·Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Australia·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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 intranasal maropitant on clinical signs of naturally acquired upper respiratory disease in shelter cats.

Species:
cat

Plain-English summary

A group of shelter cats with upper respiratory disease (FURD) were treated with either an intranasal medication called maropitant or a saline solution for a week to see if it would help their symptoms, which included eye and nose discharge. After the treatment, there was no noticeable difference in improvement between the two groups. Both groups showed similar levels of clinical signs like conjunctivitis and nasal discharge. This means that maropitant didn’t provide any additional benefits over the saline treatment for these cats.

People also search for: cat upper respiratory disease treatment · maropitant for cats · feline conjunctivitis home remedy

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that intranasally administered maropitant citrate would reduce the severity of clinical signs of feline upper respiratory disease (FURD) in shelter cats with naturally acquired disease. METHODS: Shelter cats with clinical signs of FURD were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal maropitant diluted in saline (maropitant citrate 10 mg/ml q12h, diluted 1:10 with sterile 0.9% saline) or intranasal 0.9% saline q12h for 7 days. Clinical disease severity was measured at entry into the study and again after completion of 7 days of treatment using a visual analogue scale to assess four separate clinical signs: conjunctivitis, blepharospasm, ocular discharge and nasal discharge. Total disease severity was also calculated. Cats received other medications for FURD as per standard shelter protocols, and all investigators were masked to group assignments. A Mann-Whitney U-test was performed to compare the clinical improvement score (CIS) between the treatment and control groups. RESULTS: There were 34 cats in the maropitant treatment group; 27 cats served as placebo controls. Groups did not differ in age, sex distribution, nature of disease, administration of other medications for FURD or baseline clinical disease severity. There was no significant difference in CIS between the maropitant treatment and control groups for conjunctivitis, blepharospasm, ocular discharge, nasal discharge or total disease severity after 7 days. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found no significant difference in outcomes for cats with FURD when treated with intranasal maropitant compared with treatment with intranasal saline. Further investigations would be required before intranasal maropitant could be recommended as the standard of care for FURD.

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/40008570/