Osteoarthritis pain in dogs: does cannabidiol oil improve pain scores and activity? — POSSIBLE

In dogs with osteoarthritis, does cannabidiol oil vs placebo improve pain scores and activity?

Shelf #671 · gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule

POSSIBLE: Blinded, placebo-controlled trials of cannabidiol (CBD) in osteoarthritic dogs disagree by outcome type. Owner- and veterinarian-rated pain and comfort scores improved in two small trials — Gamble 2018 (randomised, owner- and veterinarian-blinded crossover; 22 dogs recruited, 16 completing and analysed; CBD oil 2 mg/kg twice daily; Canine Brief Pain Inventory and Hudson activity scores showed decreased pain and increased activity, p<0.01) and Verrico 2020 (randomised, double-blind; 20 large dogs; naked CBD 20 or 50 mg/day or liposomal CBD 20 mg/day for 4 weeks; pain decreased and mobility increased in a dose-dependent fashion). But the trials measuring objective endpoints did not confirm a benefit: Mejia 2021 (double-blinded crossover, 23 dogs completing) found no differences between CBD and placebo at any time point on objective gait analysis, activity counts or clinical metrology instruments, and Talsma 2024 (double-blind crossover, 42 dogs enrolled; CBD oil 5 mg/kg twice daily) found some evidence of improvement versus placebo on subjective instruments and blinded veterinary assessments but not on objective outcome measures. Design class (a): randomisation and blinding are established by carded records (Gamble's own wording is 'randomized placebo-controlled, veterinarian, and owner blinded, cross-over'; Verrico and Mejia carry publication type Randomized Controlled Trial and MeSH Double-Blind Method). The honest limits: samples are small (16–42 dogs), treatment periods short (4 weeks to 45 days), preparations and doses differ between trials, and CBD products are unregulated, so results attach to the tested preparations rather than to 'CBD' generally; liver-enzyme signals recur (alkaline phosphatase increased in Gamble; liver-enzyme elevations in 14 dogs during CBD in Mejia; greater alkaline phosphatase rises when CBD was combined with NSAIDs in Talsma). Drafted Nov 10, 2026 (VetMed build, topic #671); all figures from records fetched and verified at drafting.

Gamble 2018: CBD oil 2 mg/kg twice daily decreased pain and increased activity scores (p<0.01) in a blinded crossover trial; alkaline phosphatase rose during CBD treatment

Randomized placebo-controlled, veterinarian- and owner-blinded, cross-over study (record's own wording)

Who: Dogs: client-owned dogs with clinically and radiographically confirmed osteoarthritis — 22 recruited, of whom 16 completed the crossover and were included in the analyses (full-text record). Each dog received CBD oil (a CBD-rich industrial hemp extract oil; 2 mg/kg orally every 12 hours) and placebo oil, each treatment for 4 weeks with a 2-week washout period; veterinary assessment and owner questionnaires (Canine Brief Pain Inventory and Hudson activity scores) were completed at baseline and at weeks 2 and 4 of each period. A separate single-dose pharmacokinetic phase used 2 and 8 mg/kg.

Result: Canine Brief Pain Inventory and Hudson activity scores showed a significant decrease in pain and increase in activity with CBD oil (p<0.01), and veterinary assessment showed decreased pain during CBD treatment (p<0.02). Pharmacokinetics showed an elimination half-life of 4.2 hours at both doses with no observable side effects in that phase; owners reported no side effects, but serum chemistry showed an increase in alkaline phosphatase during CBD treatment (p<0.01). The authors conclude that 2 mg/kg of CBD twice daily can help increase comfort and activity in dogs with osteoarthritis.

Watch out: Small (16 dogs analysed) and short, and the significant outcomes are owner/veterinarian scores rather than objective gait measures. The study was financially supported by the product's maker (ElleVet Sciences, per the full-text record's funding statement): the tested preparation is a specific CBD-rich hemp extract oil, and because CBD preparations are unregulated and differ between products, this result does not automatically transfer to other CBD oils.

Gamble LJ, Boesch JM, Frye CW, Schwark WS, Mann S, Wolfe L, Brown H, Berthelsen ES, Wakshlag JJ. Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Clinical Efficacy of Cannabidiol Treatment in Osteoarthritic Dogs. Front Vet Sci. 2018;5:165. PMID: 30083539. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: none in the record

Verrico 2020: in 20 large osteoarthritic dogs, daily CBD decreased pain and increased mobility in a dose-dependent fashion over 4 weeks; liposomal CBD 20 mg/day matched naked CBD 50 mg/day

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (record's own wording and title; publication type: Randomized Controlled Trial; MeSH includes Double-Blind Method)

Who: Dogs: 20 large domestic dogs with an affirmative diagnosis of osteoarthritis, randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 (full-text record) to coconut-oil placebo, naked (non-liposomal) cannabidiol 20 mg/day, naked cannabidiol 50 mg/day, or liposomal cannabidiol 20 mg/day, administered daily for 4 weeks in a study in which owners and veterinarians were blinded; owners assessed their dogs with the Helsinki Chronic Pain Index.

Result: In the veterinary study, CBD significantly decreased pain and increased mobility in a dose-dependent fashion among animals with an affirmative diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Liposomal CBD (20 mg/day) was as effective as the highest dose of nonliposomal CBD (50 mg/day) in improving clinical outcomes. Hematocrit, comprehensive metabolic profile and clinical chemistry indicated no significant detrimental impact of CBD administration over the 4-week analysis period. The record's abstract reports the direction and significance of these effects but no numeric pain scores.

Watch out: Only 20 dogs across four groups (5 per group), one 4-week course, and endpoints are owner/veterinarian clinical assessments rather than objective gait or activity measurement. Preparation matters on this record itself: the liposomal formulation matched a 2.5-fold higher dose of naked CBD, so milligram doses cannot be read across products. The paper's in-vitro and mouse experiments are not carded — this shelf rests on the canine clinical study within the record.

Verrico CD, Wesson S, Konduri V, Hofferek CJ, Vazquez-Perez J, Blair E, Dunner K, Salimpour P, Decker WK, Halpert MM. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of daily cannabidiol for the treatment of canine osteoarthritis pain. Pain. 2020;161(9):2191-2202. PMID: 32345916. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animals · Dogs · Mice · Arthralgia*/drug therapy, veterinary · Cannabidiol*/therapeutic use · Cannabis · Double-Blind Method · Osteoarthritis*/complications, drug therapy, veterinary · Dog Diseases*/drug therapy · Disease Models, Animal

Mejia 2021: no difference between CBD and placebo on objective gait analysis, activity counts or metrology instruments at any time point in 23 osteoarthritic dogs; liver-enzyme elevations in 14 dogs during CBD

Prospective, double-blinded, crossover, placebo-controlled study (record's own wording; publication type: Randomized Controlled Trial; MeSH includes Double-Blind Method)

Who: Dogs: 23 client-owned dogs with naturally occurring osteoarthritis of appendicular joints that completed the study. Baseline data were acquired for 4 weeks, followed by random allocation to either placebo or cannabidiol treatment for 6 weeks, followed by 6 weeks with the opposite treatment. Outcome measures included objective gait analysis, activity counts (via accelerometry) and clinical metrology instruments. The record's abstract does not state the CBD dose or name the preparation.

Result: There were no differences noted between groups at any time point for any of the recorded outcome measures. Adverse events associated with CBD administration included elevation in liver enzymes (n=14) and vomiting (n=2).

Watch out: This is the honest counterweight on the shelf: outcomes that owner expectation cannot move — gait analysis and accelerometer counts — showed no CBD effect, in the same double-blind crossover design class as the positive trials. Because the abstract does not state the dose or preparation, the null cannot be tied to a specific product or dose from this record.

Mejia S, Duerr FM, Griffenhagen G, McGrath S. Evaluation of the Effect of Cannabidiol on Naturally Occurring Osteoarthritis-Associated Pain: A Pilot Study in Dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2021;57(2):81-90. PMID: 33450016. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animals · Cannabidiol/administration & dosage, therapeutic use* · Cross-Over Studies · Dog Diseases/drug therapy* · Dogs · Double-Blind Method · Female · Male · Osteoarthritis/drug therapy, veterinary* · Pain/prevention & control, veterinary · Pain Measurement/veterinary · Pilot Projects · Prospective Studies · Treatment Outcome

Talsma 2024: CBD oil 5 mg/kg twice daily showed some evidence of improvement versus placebo on subjective instruments and blinded veterinary assessment, but not on objective measures, in 42 dogs with mobility disorders

Prospective, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study (record's own wording; publication type is Journal Article — no Randomized Controlled Trial publication type on this record)

Who: Dogs: 42 client-owned dogs with diagnosed mobility impairments enrolled in a prospective, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study; 38 finished the study and 39 were included for at least partial analysis. Baseline data were collected for 10–14 days, followed by random allocation to placebo or CBD oil (5 mg/kg orally every 12 hours, masked placebo at equal volume) for 45 days, with a 30-day washout between periods. Outcome measures included objective gait analysis, accelerometry and clinical metrology instruments; CBD plasma levels and serum biochemistry were also collected, and some dogs were concurrently receiving NSAIDs.

Result: Compared to baseline, dogs receiving CBD showed evidence of improved outcomes based on blinded veterinary assessments and accelerometer data. Compared to placebo, dogs receiving CBD showed some evidence of improved outcomes on the Canine Brief Pain Inventory, client-specific outcome measures and blinded veterinary assessments, but not for objective outcome measures. There was evidence of increased alkaline phosphatase when CBD was co-administered with NSAIDs compared to CBD administration alone, and of ALT elevations with CBD and NSAID co-administration without evidence of increase over CBD alone; in the small number of dogs worked up, there did not appear to be clinically apparent liver damage.

Watch out: The enrolled population was 'mobility impairments', broader than confirmed osteoarthritis alone, and the record reports its comparisons qualitatively ('some evidence') without effect sizes in the abstract. The subjective-versus-objective disagreement seen here is the recurring pattern across this shelf.

Talsma B, Elam LH, McGrath S, Zhou T, Webb CB, Duerr FM. Evaluation of the effect of cannabidiol administration with and without nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in dogs with mobility disorders: a prospective, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study. Front Vet Sci. 2024;11:1449343. PMID: 39386246. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: none in the record

Synthesis: CBD improves owner- and veterinarian-rated pain scores in some blinded trials, but objective gait and activity measures have not confirmed a benefit — POSSIBLE

Synthesis

Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Gamble 2018 (randomised blinded crossover, 16 dogs analysed, CBD-rich hemp extract oil 2 mg/kg twice daily), Verrico 2020 (randomised double-blind, 20 large dogs, naked or liposomal CBD 20–50 mg/day), Mejia 2021 (double-blinded crossover, 23 dogs completing, objective endpoints) and Talsma 2024 (double-blind crossover, 42 dogs enrolled, CBD oil 5 mg/kg twice daily).

Result: Synthesis: (1) Subjective pain and comfort instruments improved with CBD in Gamble 2018 (pain and activity scores, p<0.01) and Verrico 2020 (dose-dependent decreases in pain and increased mobility), and partly in Talsma 2024 (questionnaire instruments and blinded veterinary assessments versus placebo). (2) Objective endpoints disagreed: Mejia 2021 found no difference on objective gait analysis, accelerometry or metrology instruments at any time point, and Talsma 2024 found no benefit on objective outcome measures versus placebo. (3) Safety signals in these short trials are consistent: alkaline phosphatase increased during CBD in Gamble, liver-enzyme elevations occurred in 14 dogs during CBD in Mejia, and alkaline phosphatase rose further when CBD was combined with NSAIDs in Talsma. The supported claim is a possible benefit on perceived pain and comfort, not a demonstrated improvement in measured gait or activity.

Watch out: Preparations genuinely differ between trials (a specific CBD-rich hemp extract oil; naked vs liposomal CBD; preparations not named in the record) and CBD products are unregulated, so a result for one preparation is not a result for 'CBD' generally. No carded trial ran longer than 45 days (about 6 weeks) per treatment period. Cannabidiol as add-on treatment in canine epilepsy is a different disease home (Shelf #292); its records are not re-carded here.

Synthesis of Gamble LJ et al. PMID: 30083539; Verrico CD et al. PMID: 32345916; Mejia S et al. PMID: 33450016; Talsma B et al. PMID: 39386246. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.

Back to the library index · VetMed home

VetMed is an educational resource, not veterinary advice.