Skip Navigation


eCAM Advance Access originally published online on October 29, 2007
eCAM 2009 6(3):365-373; doi:10.1093/ecam/nem136
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
6/3/365    most recent
nem136v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hielm-Björkman, A.
Right arrow Articles by Raekallio, M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hielm-Björkman, A.
Right arrow Articles by Raekallio, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© 2007 The Author(s).
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Evaluating Complementary Therapies for Canine Osteoarthritis Part I: Green-lipped Mussel (Perna canaliculus)

Anna Hielm-Björkman1, Riitta-Mari Tulamo1, Hanna Salonen2 and Marja Raekallio1

1Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 57, Fi-00014, Finland and 2Huhtakoukku 16, 02340, Espoo, Finland

A green-lipped mussel (GLM) preparation was evaluated in a randomized, double-controlled and double-blinded clinical trial. It was hypothesized that the treatment effect would be less than that of the positive control (carprofen) but more than that of the negative control (placebo). Forty-five dogs with chronic pain and a radiographic diagnosis of osteoarthritis that were randomly allocated into one of three groups completed the study. All dogs were fed the test products or placebo for 8 weeks. The dogs were evaluated four times, at 4-week intervals. Six different variables were assessed: veterinary-assessed mobility index, two force plate variables, owner-evaluated chronic pain index and pain as well as locomotion visual analogue scales (VASs). Intake of extra carprofen was also evaluated. A chi-squared and a Mann–Whitney test were used to determine significance between groups. When changed to dichotomous variables, there were more dogs in the GLM than in the placebo group that improved, according to veterinary-assessed mobility, owner-evaluated chronic pain index and pain VAS (P = 0.031, P = 0.025, P = 0.011, respectively). For the same three, the odds ratio and their confidence interval were over one. The extent of improvement was significantly different between the GLM and the control in veterinary-assessed mobility (P = 0.012) and pain VAS (P = 0.004). In conclusion, GLM alleviated chronic orthopedic pain in dogs although it was not as effective as carprofen. As no side-effects were detected, GLM may be beneficial in dogs e.g. when non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs cannot be used.

Keywords: Controlled – dog – Lyproflex® – nutraceutical – OA – placebo

For reprints and all correspondence: Anna Hielm-Björkman, DVM, CVA, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 57, FI-00014, Finland. Tel: +358-400885255; Fax: +358-9-19157298; E-mail: anna.hielm-bjorkman{at}helsinki.fi

Received March 20, 2007; accepted July 12, 2007


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.