Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comparing paracetamol/codeine and meloxicam for postoperative analgesia in dogs: a non-inferiority trial
  1. Mariana Pacheco1,
  2. Toby G Knowles1,
  3. James Hunt2,
  4. Louisa S Slingsby1,
  5. Polly M Taylor3 and
  6. Joanna C Murrell1
  1. 1 Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, UK
  2. 2 Cave Veterinary Specialists, Wellington, UK
  3. 3 Taylor Monroe, Ely, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joanna C Murrell; jo.murrell{at}


Background There are limited published data on the analgesic efficacy of paracetamol/codeine in dogs.

Methods Prospective, randomised, blinded, positive-controlled clinical trial with 70 dogs (paracetamol/codeine, n=46; meloxicam, n=24) undergoing surgery. Drugs were administered orally 2 hours before and for 48 hours after surgery at the licensed dose. Anaesthesia was standardised. Dogs received buprenorphine 6 hourly for the first 24 hours after surgery. Outcome assessments were made pretrial and at regular intervals up to 48 hours after extubation and comprised the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Score-Short Form, visual analogue scale for sedation and inflammation and mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT). Non-inferiority of paracetamol/codeine compared with meloxicam was defined using a non-inferiority margin (Δ) against the 95 per cent confidence interval of the difference between the treatment means.

Results Pain scores were low in both treatment groups. With the exception of MNT all upper 95 per cent confidence intervals for the differences between outcome variable treatment means were within +Δ for each variable, establishing non-inferiority for each outcome variable.

Conclusions Paracetamol/codeine is a useful perioperative analgesic that within the context of the perioperative analgesia regimen studied (methadone premedication, buprenorphine for the first 24 hours after surgery) shows non-inferiority to the NSAID meloxicam.

  • paracetamol
  • dogs
  • peri-operative pain
  • meloxicam
  • analgesia
View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Twitter @VetPolly

  • Funding MP was funded by a PetSavers Masters Degree by Research grant for the duration of the study.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the University of Bristol ethical review committee (VIN/13/042).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.