Multicentre, controlled, randomised and blinded field study comparing efficacy of suxibuzone and phenylbutazone in lame horses.
Authors: Sabaté D, Homedes J, Salichs M, Sust M, Monreal L
Journal: Equine veterinary journal
Summary
# Editorial Summary Whilst suxibuzone (SBZ) has previously demonstrated a lower potential for gastric ulceration than phenylbutazone (PBZ) in horses, this multicentre, randomised, controlled and double-blinded field trial was the first to directly compare their clinical efficacy for lameness. Over 155 lame horses across multiple practices received either PBZ (4.4 mg/kg bwt for 2 days, then 2.2 mg/kg bwt for 6 days) or SBZ (6.6 mg/kg bwt for 2 days, then 3.3 mg/kg bwt for 6 days), with lameness progression monitored by attending clinicians and daily ingestion records kept to assess acceptability. Although unadjusted analysis suggested SBZ had statistically superior efficacy (odds ratio 2.7; P = 0.016), this advantage disappeared when baseline imbalances were corrected, indicating both drugs performed equivalently in relieving lameness; however, SBZ demonstrated significantly superior oral acceptability (96.1% versus 77.2%; P = 0.001). For practitioners managing lameness with NSAIDs, SBZ represents a viable alternative to PBZ that delivers comparable therapeutic benefit alongside improved compliance due to better palatability—an advantage that may prove particularly valuable when treating horses that are difficult feeders or reluctant to consume medications.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •SBZ and PBZ are therapeutically equivalent for treating lameness in horses, so choice can be based on other factors like cost and availability
- •SBZ has better palatability and is more likely to be consumed when given with food, reducing the risk of treatment non-compliance
- •Consider SBZ as a preferred option if horses are known to be difficult feeders or if reducing gastric ulcer risk is a secondary clinical concern
Key Findings
- •SBZ and PBZ showed no significant difference in efficacy for alleviating lameness after adjustment for baseline covariates (initial apparent advantage of SBZ was confounded)
- •SBZ had significantly higher product acceptability than PBZ when administered orally with food (96.1% vs 77.2%; P=0.001)
- •Both drugs administered at equivalent therapeutic dosages over 8 days (high dose days 1-2, maintenance dose days 3-8)
- •SBZ represents a viable therapeutic alternative to PBZ without compromising lameness relief while improving oral tolerability