Distal tarsal joints osteoarthritis: Evidence behind bisphosphonates and NSAIDs to improve lameness
a Knowledge Summary by
Julia Dubuc DMV, DÉS, DACVS-LA, M.Sc, MRCVS 1*
1University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonnington Campus, Sutton Bonnington, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD
*Corresponding Author (julia.dubuc@nottingham.ac.uk)
Vol 5, Issue 1 (2020)
Published: 28 Feb 2020
Reviewed by: Michael Schoonover (DVM, MS, DACVS-LA, DACVSMR) and Elisabeth Swann (BSc, PGCert, MA)
Next review date: 25 July 2020
DOI: 10.18849/VE.V5I1.204
PICO question
In lame horses affected by osteoarthritis of the distal tarsal joints (bone spavin), are bisphosphonates more effective than NSAIDs in long-term alleviation of lameness?
Clinical bottom line
Category of research question
Treatment
The number and type of study designs reviewed
Two papers were critically reviewed. There was one field study and a multicentric randomised double-blind placebo control study
Strength of evidence
Weak
Outcomes reported
Each study looked at the effect of either Tiludronate or Firocoxib on alleviation of tarsal lameness. Both Tiludronate and Firocoxib, while administered independently, provided some degree of relief (for up to 120 days) and improved the lameness related to tarsal osteoarthritis
Conclusion
Since no study was found to directly compare the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and bisphosphonates and that none evaluate the long-term effects of these treatment options on lameness, it is not possible to recommend one treatment option over the other to alleviate lameness caused by tarsal osteoarthritis in horses
How to apply this evidence in practice
The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.
Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.
Clinical scenario
You are presented with an 18-year-old retired 3 star eventer, predominantly used now for low level work in the manège. The owner reports the horse lacks impulsion prior to jumping and that he now engages both hindlimbs much less under saddle. On lameness exam, no proper lameness is observed, but the full flexion of both hindlimbs is clearly positive. You elect to perform bilateral tarsal radiographs, which highlight periarticular osteophytes over the dorsomedial aspect of both the distal intertarsal and tarsometatarsal joints. On the dorsoplantar view, some lysis of these joint spaces is observed and is surrounded by sclerosis. You diagnose the horse with bilateral osteoarthritis (OA) of the distal tarsal joints.
The evidence
Only two relevant studies were identified, one of which is a field study with no mandatory radiographs required to enter the study, indicating the horses included were not necessarily diagnosed with distal tarsal joints OA. The second study is a randomised double-blind placebo control study, but it was not entirely blinded. The level of evidence of the studies summarised below is low regarding the use of bisphosphonates as a treatment for distal tarsal joint OA. There is a more substantial body of literature focusing on the use of bisphosphonates as a treatment of navicular syndrome in horses. There is no study in the literature providing a direct comparison of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and bisphosphonates for the long-term alleviation of lameness related to distal tarsal joints OA and for navicular syndrome.
Summary of the evidence
Population: | Horses from 25 states in the USA. Age: mean 13.3 years old (yo) (range 18 months–32 yo) Breeds:
Inclusion criteria:
|
Sample size: | Initial n=467 enrolled
Final n=390 were included for analyses |
Intervention details: | For each horse:
|
Study design: | Field study |
Outcome Studied: | Subjective assessment of the lameness by a veterinarian on day 7 and 14, using the AAEP Lameness Scale scoring guide. |
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
Initial diagnosis of OA:
|
Limitations: |
|
Population: | Adult horses from 13 centres and multiple countries Age: mean 11 yo (range 5–20 yo) Weight: mean 540.2 kg (range 304–748) Inclusion criteria:
|
Sample size: | Initial n=108 enrolled
Final n=87 were included for analyses |
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Randomised double-blind placebo control study
Multicentric (13 centers) and multinational |
Outcome Studied: |
|
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
|
Limitations: |
|
Appraisal, application and reflection
There is no prospective clinical study comparing the effects of NSAIDs versus bisphosphonates on improvement of lameness related to bone spavin in horses. There are two generations of biosphosphonates. The early generation, contains nitrogen and includes tiludronate and clodronate, which are considered less potent. The latest generation comprises pamidronate and zoledronate and are highly potent.
There are more publications looking into bisphosphonates as a treatment for navicular disease (Denoix, J. M. et al., 2003; Dyson, S. J. et al., 2005; Mitchell, A. et al., 2019; and Whitfield, C.T. et al., 2016), but the work of Gough et al. (2010) appears to be the only publication found by the author on the use of bisphosphonates as a treatment for bone spavin in horses. A review of the efficacy of tiludronate in horses (Kamm, L. et al., 2008) mentions several smaller studies, namely a case series (Riccio, B. et al., 2002) and clinical observations (Dyson, S. J. et al., 2004) that were never officially published. None of these provide sufficient evidence that bisphosphonates are truly beneficial in cases of distal tarsal joints OA.
In both of the publications presented here, lameness is used as the principal outcome evaluated to determine if either firocoxib or tiludronate are effective in improving the lameness of the horses with distal tarsal joints OA. As lameness evaluation is a very subjective process and taken together with the fact both studies are “multicentric”, the accuracy of the outcome evaluation is questionable. Unlike more recent studies on the topic (Mitchell, A. et al. 2019 and Whitfield, C.T. et al. 2016), no inertial sensor system nor ground-mounted stationary force plate system was employed. Further publications with more objective lameness evaluations and other measured outcomes are needed. For example, in a similar study comparing the efficacy of phenylbutazone versus firocoxib in horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis (Doucet, M. Y. et al., 2008), lameness was used as the outcome evaluated, as well as other more objective measures: reaction to manipulation/joint flexion, joint swelling, joint circumference and range of motion.
In the study by Orsini et al. (2012), the lamenesses were graded on the AAEP Lameness Scale (Grade 0–5) by a veterinary surgeon on days 0, 7 and 14, but were also graded by the horses’ caregivers on days 7 and 14. As there was no placebo or control group in this study, none of these individuals were blinded and all were aware the horse was under treatment with firocoxib. In the study by Gough et al. (2010), the lameness was graded on a scale of 0-10 by a veterinary surgeon on days 0, 60 and 120 in a randomised double-blind placebo control study. However, the authors state that horses not responsive to treatment at day 60 could receive the standard dose of tiludronate at that time, voiding the double-blind aspect of the study design. These breaches in study designs introduce biases, namely in the assessment of the lameness and this greatly impacts on the reliability of the results.
Interestingly, the author only found the study from Orsini et al. (2012) looking at firocoxib as an NSAID medication for distal tarsal joints OA and “none” using phenylbutazone. The study from Orsini et al. (2012) is in fact a clinical trial investigating the efficacy of firocoxib in management of musculoskeletal pain and lameness associated with osteoarthritis. While 197/390 (50.5%) of the horses had signs of musculoskeletal pain or lameness associated with one joint, 79/197 (40.1%) of these were thought to involve the tarsus (radiographs were not mandatory to confirm the diagnosis). The results are presented in such a way that it is not possible to determine how many of these horses affected with tarsal OA really improved because of firocoxib administration. The authors report 80% improvement of lameness overall after 14 days. In a very similar study (Doucet, M. Y. et al., 2008), published prior to the above mentioned, there was no difference in lameness scores between the firocoxib group (0.1 mg/kg, PO, SID for 14 days) and the phenylbutazone group (4.4 mg/kg, PO, SID for 14 days) for pain related to naturally occurring osteoarthritis (which was confirmed radiographically prior to entering the study). In the latter as in the former, there is no clear groups separating the effect of each NSAIDs on horses affected by tarsal OA compared to any other degenerative joint disease. However, the author chose not to present the work of Doucet here as all horses fell under one large category: naturally occurring OA.
Based on the current literature, there is insufficient evidence to advocate for the use of NSAIDs more than bisphosphonates or the contrary for the treatment of distal tarsal joints OA in horses. The longest follow-up period was 4 months in the study from Gough et al. (2010) and 2 weeks for Orsini et al. (2012). There is a need for a prospective double-blind clinical trial including one bisphosphonates group, one NSAID group and one control group with long-term follow-up of the horses lameness as well as other more objective outcomes.
For an overview of the efficacy and effects of bisphosphonates in horses with navicular disease, the reader can consult recent publications, including different administration routes: IM (Mitchell, A. et al. 2019), IV or intravenous regional limb perfusion (IV-RLP) (Whitfield, C.T. et al. 2016; Schoonover, M.J. et al. 2019).
Methodology Section
Search Strategy | |
Databases searched and dates covered: | CAB Abstracts 1973 to Week 28 2018
PubMed NCBI 1910 to Week 28 2018 |
Search strategy: | CAB Abstracts
PubMed
|
Dates searches performed: | 25/7/2018 and 27/7/2018 |
Exclusion / Inclusion Criteria | |
Exclusion: |
|
Inclusion: |
|
Search Outcome | ||||||
Database |
Number of results |
Excluded – other languages |
Excluded – Not relevant to PICO |
Excluded – duplicates |
Excluded – conference papers or proceedings not published, book chapters |
Total relevant papers |
CAB abstracts |
72 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 10 | 2 |
PubMed |
45 | 1 | 23 | 21 | 0 | 0 |
Total relevant papers |
2 |
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
RCVS Knowledge was supported in producing this Knowledge Summary by an educational grant from Petplan Charitable Trust.
Intellectual Property Rights
Authors of Knowledge Summaries submitted to RCVS Knowledge for publication will retain copyright in their work, and will be required to grant to RCVS Knowledge a non-exclusive licence to publish including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell, distribute and otherwise use the materials in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to licence or permit others to do so.
Disclaimer
Knowledge Summaries are a peer-reviewed article type which aims to answer a clinical question based on the best available current evidence. It does not override the responsibility of the practitioner. Informed decisions should be made by considering such factors as individual clinical expertise and judgement along with patient’s circumstances and owners’ values. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help inform and any opinions expressed within the Knowledge Summaries are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the RCVS Knowledge. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the content. While the Editor and Publisher believe that all content herein are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication, they accept no legal responsibility for any errors or omissions, and make no warranty, express or implied, with respect to material contained within. For further information please refer to our Terms of Use.