Osteoarthritis pain in dogs: monthly bedinvetmab vs daily meloxicam — POSSIBLE

In dogs with osteoarthritis pain, is monthly bedinvetmab non-inferior to daily meloxicam, and how do adverse-event profiles compare?

Shelf #182 · gate-verified and approved by the developer

POSSIBLE: One randomised head-to-head trial — the only one found — found no statistically significant difference in efficacy, but it does not formally establish non-inferiority. Innes 2025 randomised 101 client-owned dogs with appendicular osteoarthritis in general practice (bedinvetmab 52, meloxicam 49) in an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group study; both groups' Canine Orthopaedic Index scores fell significantly from baseline (p < 0.001), the bedinvetmab group had a larger mean reduction that was not statistically significant, and the authors concluded the two products were equally effective. Two cautions cap this shelf at POSSIBLE: the trial was designed and hypothesised for superiority (the record states the hypothesis that bedinvetmab would demonstrate superior efficacy and safety), not as a non-inferiority trial with a pre-set margin, so 'no significant difference' is not proof of equivalence; and the trial was open-label while the primary endpoint is an owner-completed score, so expectation bias cannot be excluded. On safety the same trial favours bedinvetmab on counts: 4 adverse events were reported in the bedinvetmab group vs 17 in the meloxicam group, 9 of the meloxicam events being gastrointestinal system disorders, and more bedinvetmab dogs completed the study (44 vs 33). The placebo-controlled bedinvetmab trials are NOT carded here — they are home on Shelf #181; this shelf is the head-to-head question only. Drafted Nov 10, 2026 (VetMed build, topic #182); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.

Innes 2025: bedinvetmab's mean COI reduction was larger but not significantly so vs meloxicam; adverse events 4 vs 17, and more bedinvetmab dogs finished (44 vs 33)

Randomised, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial (record's own wording)

Who: Dogs: client-owned dogs with appendicular osteoarthritis recruited from general practices; of 190 screened dogs, 101 were block randomised 1:1 to bedinvetmab administered subcutaneously once a month (n = 52) or daily oral meloxicam (n = 49), in a multicentre clinical setting.

Result: Both treatment groups showed a significant reduction in Canine Orthopaedic Index (COI) scores relative to baseline (p < 0.001). The bedinvetmab group experienced a larger mean reduction in COI scores, but this was not statistically significant. A significant effect of the visit was observed, with later visits showing a significantly greater reduction in COI compared to Visit 2 (p < 0.001). The bedinvetmab group reported four adverse events, whilst the meloxicam group reported 17, with nine of those being gastrointestinal system disorders. More dogs in the bedinvetmab group completed the study (n = 44) compared to those in the meloxicam group (n = 33). The authors concluded that both products are equally effective in managing OA pain, with efficacy improving over time for both treatments, and that bedinvetmab was associated with fewer adverse events.

Watch out: Anchor correction: the draft described this as a non-inferiority study — the record does not. It states the hypothesis was that bedinvetmab would demonstrate SUPERIOR efficacy and safety compared to meloxicam, and reports no non-inferiority margin; a non-significant difference in a 101-dog superiority trial cannot by itself prove non-inferiority. The study was open-label and the primary endpoint (COI) is owner-completed, so owners knew which treatment their dog received. Adverse-event figures are event counts as reported in the abstract, not per-dog incidence rates, and the abstract reports no statistical test for the adverse-event comparison. The record also states the study received funding from 'Innes and Innes Partnership', which had a paid contract with Zoetis, and that the first two authors completed paid consultancy work for Zoetis in the past 2 years. The record is PubMed-not-MEDLINE and carries no MeSH terms.

Innes JF, Lascelles BDX, Bell D, Tulloch R, McVey A, Northcott C, Welbourn M, Higgins K, Horakova V, Maddox TW. A randomised, parallel-group clinical trial comparing bedinvetmab to meloxicam for the management of canine osteoarthritis. Front Vet Sci. 2025;12:1502218. PMID: 40196808. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: none in the record

Synthesis: similar pain relief in the one head-to-head trial, fewer reported adverse events with bedinvetmab — but non-inferiority was never formally tested

Synthesis

Who: Synthesis of the card above: Innes 2025 (101 randomised client-owned dogs with appendicular osteoarthritis in general practice, open-label, multicentre).

Result: The only direct comparison found says: (1) efficacy — both treatments reduced COI scores significantly from baseline, the between-group difference favoured bedinvetmab numerically but was not statistically significant, so the honest reading is 'no difference shown', not 'non-inferiority proven'; (2) adverse events — 4 events reported with bedinvetmab vs 17 with meloxicam (9 gastrointestinal), with study completion 44 vs 33 dogs, favouring bedinvetmab on tolerability in this trial; (3) whether bedinvetmab works at all against placebo is a different question, answered on Shelf #181, and those trials are deliberately not re-carded here. A blinded trial designed around a pre-specified non-inferiority margin would be needed to upgrade the equivalence claim.

Watch out: One open-label trial of 101 dogs carries this whole shelf. Owner-reported outcomes in an open-label comparison of a monthly injection against a daily tablet are vulnerable to expectation and convenience effects in both directions, and the adverse-event counts come from the same unblinded setting.

Synthesis of Innes JF et al. PMID: 40196808. Registry IDs as on the individual card.

Back to the library index · VetMed home

VetMed is an educational resource, not veterinary advice.