Dogs have been part of human societies across Eurasia for at least 20,000 years, accompanying us through many social and cultural upheavals. A new study by an international team, published in the journal Science, and led by Laurent Frantz, paleogeneticist at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU) and Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) shows that the spread of new cultures across Eurasia, with different lifeways, was often associated with the spread of specific dog populations.
Scientists from LMU, QMUL, the Kunming Institute of Zoology and Lanzhou University in China, and the University of Oxford, sequenced and analyzed the genomes of 17 ancient dogs from Siberia, East Asia, and the Central Asian Steppe – including, for the first time, specimens from China. Important cultural changes occurred in these regions over the past 10,000 years, driven by the dispersal of hunter-gatherers, farmers, and pastoralists. The specimens came from archaeological sites between 9,700 and 870 years old. In addition, the researchers included publicly available genomes from 57 ancient and 160 modern dogs in their analyses.
Dogs followed metalworkers across the Eurasian Steppe over 4,000 years ago
A comparison of ancient dog and human genomes reveals a striking concordance between genetic shifts in both species across time and space, most notably during periods of population turnover. This link is especially evident during China’s transformative Early Bronze Age (~4,000 years ago), which saw the introduction of metalworking. The research shows that the expansion of people from the Eurasian Steppe, who first introduced this transformative technology to Western China, also brought their dogs with them.
This pattern of human-dog co-movement extends back far beyond the Bronze Age. The research traces signals of co-disperal back at least 11,000 years, when hunter-gatherers in northern Eurasia were exchanging dogs closely related to today’s Siberian Huskies.
“Traces of these major cultural shifts can be teased out of the genomes of ancient dogs,” says Dr. Lachie Scarsbrook (LMU/Oxford), one of the lead authors of the study. “Our results highlight the deeply rooted cultural importance of dogs. Instead of just adopting local populations, people have maintained a distinct sense of ownership towards their own dogs for at least the past 11,000 years.”
“This tight link between human and dog genetics shows that dogs were an integral part of society, whether you were a hunter-gatherer in the Arctic Circle 10,000 years ago or a metalworker in an early Chinese city,” says Prof. Laurent Frantz. “It’s an amazing, enduring partnership and shows the sheer flexibility of the role dogs can play in our societies, far more than with any other domestic species.”
A new study reveals that training service dogs can slow biological aging in female veterans. Researchers from Florida Atlantic University, in partnership with other institutions, focused on women with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—a group often overlooked in military research. Instead of receiving a service dog, these participants volunteered to train dogs for fellow veterans, offering support to others as well as themselves.
For female veterans with PTSD, volunteering to train a service dog can slow cellular aging and ease stress and anxiety Depositphotos
To measure biological stress, the team looked at telomere length (a marker of cellular aging) using saliva samples, and heart rate variability (HRV), a sign of nervous system balance. Over eight weeks, female veterans were randomly assigned to either an active service dog training group or a comparison group that watched dog training videos. Both groups participated in weekly one-hour sessions, and researchers measured outcomes before, during, and after the intervention.
Saliva samples were used to determine telomere length, while heart rate variability provided additional insight into physiological stress. Results showed that those who trained service dogs had an increase in telomere length, indicating slower cellular aging, while the control group experienced telomere shortening and accelerated aging. The benefits of telomere preservation were most significant among women with a history of combat exposure; this subgroup saw the largest gains in telomere length, whereas combat-exposed control participants had the most pronounced declines.
Heart rate variability findings further backed the biological stress benefits, with those in active training demonstrating improved nervous system regulation. Psychological measures were also gathered using standardized questionnaires to assess PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and perceived stress. Both groups reported reductions in these symptoms throughout the study, suggesting that structured activity alone provides some mental health support. However, improvements in psychological outcomes did not differ significantly by intervention or combat experience.
The study, published in Behavioral Sciences, suggests that the skills learned during service dog training—such as positive reinforcement and reading animal behavior—may have strengthened participants’ bonds with their own pets at home, offering additional emotional support. Unlike general volunteering, service dog training uniquely blends emotional healing with building a close relationship between veterans and their animals, providing therapeutic benefits that go beyond typical community engagement.
This first-of-its-kind study found that feeding dogs food from The Farmer’s Dog can impact metabolic health and support healthier aging in dogs. ChristianaT | Pixabay.com
A year-long metabolomic study led by Dr. Heather Huson, associate professor of animal sciences at Cornell University, found that feeding dogs fresh, human-grade food can impact metabolic health and support healthier aging. The research, conducted with board-certified veterinary nutritionists employed by The Farmer’s Dog, analyzed the effects of fresh, minimally processed recipes versus kibble in 22 senior Alaskan sled dogs.
Results showed dogs fed The Farmer’s Dog fresh food experienced a rapid and sustained metabolic shift after just one month, marked by lower levels of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) – harmful compounds linked to aging and chronic disease. These dogs also showed reduced sucrose and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (a glycemic control biomarker), and notably lower concentrations of specific AGEs such as N6-carboxymethyllysine and pyrraline.
“For years, people have been telling us their dogs are thriving on fresh diets like The Farmer’s Dog, and this study finally shows what’s happening beneath the surface — a significant metabolic transformation,” said Jonathan Regev, co-founder and CEO of The Farmer’s Dog. “The gap between highly processed pet foods and minimally processed real food may be even wider than we imagined, and could redefine what’s possible for canine health and longevity.”
Additional findings include higher levels of ergothioneine, a potent antioxidant compound, as well as elevated levels of carnosine and anserine (histidine-related metabolites with antioxidant properties). These shifts suggest increased antioxidant capacity and reduced oxidative stress.
Dogs demonstrated elevated branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) metabolism, with increased levels of leucine, isoleucine, and valine and their derivatives. They also showed higher levels of glycerol and glycerol-3-phosphate (markers of lipolysis), alongside increased long-chain omega-3 fatty acids — including alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoate (EPA), docosapentaenoate (DPA), and docosahexaenoate (DHA). Serum 3-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA), a ketone body, rose reflecting enhanced fat utilization and healthy ketosis.
Malonate, a marker of fatty acid synthesis, was decreased in the fresh food group, suggesting a more efficient metabolic profile compared to the kibble-fed group.
“The magnitude and consistency of the metabolic impacts we observed were quick, sustained and striking,” said Dr. Joseph Wakshlag, DVM, PhD, DACVSMR, DACVIM (Nutrition), one of the board-certified veterinary nutritionists who was involved in the study.
“Fresh, minimally processed food shifted the dogs’ metabolism toward a beneficial alternative metabolic profile in the aging dog with markers for improved muscle and neurological health along with implications for improved antioxidant defense, and diminished AGE formation,” added Dr. Wakshlag. “These results are an exciting milestone for understanding canine metabolic health and nutrition.”
The study was conducted under ethical approval from the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine and published in Metabolites.
A new study demonstrates that some highly gifted dogs can categorize objects not just by appearance, but by how they are used. When taught words like “pull” or “fetch,” these dogs later applied the concepts to brand-new toys through natural play, without training or explicit labeling.
This shows that dogs can form mental representations of objects based on their function rather than physical features. The findings highlight the depth of canine cognition and suggest links to the evolution of human language and memory.
Key Facts
Functional Categorization: Dogs grouped toys by use (tugging vs. fetching) instead of looks.
No Training Needed: Skills emerged from natural play with owners, not formal instruction.
Language Insight: Results hint at shared cognitive roots between dogs and humans in learning words.
As infants, humans naturally learn new words and their associations—like the fact that forks are related to bowls because both are used to consume food.
In a study publishing in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on September 18, a team of animal behavior experts demonstrate that dogs can categorize objects by function, too.
In a series of playful interactions with their owners, a group of Gifted Word Learner (GWL) dogs were able to distinguish between toys used for tugging versus fetching, even when the toys in question didn’t share any obvious physical similarities—and then could remember those categorizations for long periods of time, all with no prior training.
“We discovered that these Gifted Word Learner dogs can extend labels to items that have the same function or that are used in the same way,” says author Claudia Fugazza of Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
It’s like a person calling both a traditional hammer and a rock by the same name, says Fugazza.
“The rock and the hammer look physically different, but they can be used for the same function,” she says. “So now it turns out that these dogs can do the same.”
The studies took place in the dogs’ natural home environments with their human owners. At the beginning, the dogs spent time getting familiar with verbal labels for two functional groups of objects: pull and fetch. Their owners used these words with specific toys and played with them accordingly even though the toys didn’t share any similar physical features.
Next, the dogs were tested to see if they had learned to connect the functional labels to the correct group of toys before playing with more novel toys in the two distinct categories. However, this time, their owners didn’t use the “pull” and “fetch” labels for the dogs.
The team found that the dogs were able to extend the functional labels they’d learned previously to the new toys based on their experience playing with them. In the final test, the dogs showed that they could successfully apply the verbal labels to the toys by either pulling or fetching accordingly, even when their owners hadn’t named them.
“For these new toys, they’ve never heard the name, but they have played either pull or fetch, and so the dog has to choose which toy was used to play which game,” Fugazza says. “This was done in a natural setup, with no extensive training. It’s just owners playing for a week with the toys. So, it’s a natural type of interaction.”
The authors note that the dogs’ ability to connect verbal labels to objects based on their functional classifications and apart from the toys’ physical attributes suggests that they form a mental representation of the objects based on their experience with their functions, which they can later recall.
These findings provide insight into the evolution of basic skills related to language and their relationship to other cognitive abilities, including memory, the researchers say.
More research is needed to understand the scope and flexibility of dogs’ language categorization abilities. The researchers suggest future studies to explore whether dogs that don’t learn object labels may nevertheless have an ability to classify objects based on their functions.
“We have shown that dogs learn object labels really fast, and they remember them for a long period, even without rehearsing,” Fugazza says. “And I think the way they extend labels also beyond perceptual similarities gives an idea of the breadth of what these labels could be for dogs.”
A new study has found that having a pet dog or cat can slow down cognitive decline.
Stock image of a puppy looking at its owner. Credit : Getty
NEED TO KNOW
A new study has found that having a cat or a dog may have a “protective factor” over cognitive abilities as you age, helping to “slow down” mental decline
The study looked at 18 years of data in adults over 50 and found a “slower decline in multiple cognitive domains” for dog and cat owners
Having a fish or a bird didn’t have an impact on cognitive abilities, the study found
The type of pet you have can impact how your brain ages — and dogs and cats have a “protective factor” that can “slow down cognitive decline.”
Dog and cat owners saw improved brain health — more than those who had birds or fish, or no pets — according to a new study, published in Scientific Reports, that used 18 years of data on cognitive decline in adults over 50.
“Both cat and dog owners experienced slower decline in multiple cognitive domains — dog owners in immediate and delayed recall, cat owners in verbal fluency and delayed recall,” the study found. “Fish and bird ownership had no significant association with cognitive decline.”
“Several explanations may help explain the absence of this association in fish and bird owners, despite the reports of their ownership’ positive influence on wellbeing in ways that are usually associated with cognitive benefits,” study author Adriana Rostekova, from the University of Geneva’s lifespan developmental psychology research group said, per The Guardian.
The study theorized that the shorter lifespan of a bird or fish impacts “the level of emotional connection,” due to “frequently having to deal with the pet’s death.” The study also pointed out that birds can be incredibly loud: “Bird ownership may negatively affect the owner’s sleep quality due to the increased noise levels, which has been shown to be associated with cognitive decline.”
But the very nature of owning a cat or a dog may help the brain stay healthy, Rostekova explained: “There is also a possibility of increased social stimulation facilitated by cats and dogs, which may be linked to the slower cognitive decline experienced by their owners: an increased frequency of social interactions when accompanied by a dog – or for cats, a substitute for a social network.”
The study says that, since “dog and cat ownership might act as a protective factor aiding to slow down cognitive decline, thus contributing to healthy cognitive [aging],” these findings could help inform policies on healthy aging, specifically to make veterinary care or pet insurance “more accessible to older adults” — as well as advocate for “animal-friendly senior housing options, such as assisted living facilities or nursing homes.”
New research explores how having a dog around during baby’s first year may help reduce skin inflammation on a molecular level.
Image: JNSB | Shutterstock
Atopic eczema is a chronic, usually hereditary, inflammatory skin condition that affects almost 20 percent of babies. Though common and treatable, eczema is often itchy and irritating, with American parents spending thousands of dollars on creams, ointments and other treatments for baby every year. But what if you could lower baby’s risk of developing eczema just by bringing a furry friend into your home?
A new study from the University of Edinburgh explored how various environmental factors—from breastfeeding and smoking to pet ownership and hygiene habits—might influence a baby’s risk of developing eczema. Researchers tested for interactions between the 24 most significant eczema-associated genetic variants and 18 early-life environmental factors during pregnancy and the child’s first year.
Looking at the DNA of over 250,000 people, researchers found that a specific genetic variant linked to a higher risk of eczema was significantly impacted by dog ownership. In babies with this gene, exposure to a dog during their first year of life appeared to nearly eliminate their risk of developing eczema.
To figure out how this worked, researchers dug deeper and found that the gene in question is linked to a protein called IL-7R, which plays a role in immune function and skin inflammation. In lab tests, when skin cells with this variant were exposed to molecules from dogs—like tiny particles from their fur or skin—those signals, which might normally trigger allergies, actually helped calm inflammation.
“The most difficult questions I’m asked by parents in clinic are about why their child has eczema, and how they can help. We know that genetic make-up affects a child’s risk of developing eczema and previous studies have shown that owning a pet dog may be protective, but this is the first study to show how this may occur at a molecular level,” Sara Brown, a professor at the University of Edinburgh Institute of Genetics and Cancer and one of the study’s authors said in a press release. “More work is needed, but our findings mean we have a chance to intervene in the rise of allergic disease, to protect future generations.”
The study also noted a similar protective effect in young children with older siblings, though more research is needed to confirm that link. Scientists believe that early exposure to a wide variety of bacteria—whether through pets or siblings—may be part of what’s helping to train the immune system in a protective way.
Researchers believe that by looking at things on a molecular level, they may be able to help pinpoint exactly what exposures might be helpful to baby. “This study sheds light on why some children develop eczema in response to environmental exposures while others don’t,” added the study’s lead author, Marie Standl, PhD. “Not every preventive measure works for everyone – and that’s precisely why gene–environment studies are crucial. They help us move toward more personalized, effective prevention strategies.”
I exercise each week with the help of a nifty fitness app (Ladder—it’s great) that offers workout plans from a personal trainer and encouragement from other users. The instructors are knowledgeable and the community encouraging. But neither is my favorite thing about the app.
My favorite thing is when other users share pictures of their pets.
Photo: Getty Images
Now, seeing a border collie doing downward dog right along with their owner is, of course, super-adorable. And I am not going to lie. I am a pet lover through and through. Animal pictures make me irrationally happy.
But my giddiness at seeing someone’s golden retriever running buddy isn’t just about the universal appeal of cute animals or my over-the-top animal obsession. According to recent research, it reveals a useful truth that can help you build relationships not just at the gym, but at work too.
If you want to connect with people more deeply, the Wharton School at the University of Pennyslyvania study indicates, sharing a picture of your pet is an ideal way to do it.
Sharing personal information at work is a minefield
The study was born out of a common modern conundrum. Should you connect with colleagues on social media, and if so, what should you share?
Like the rest of us, the research team realized that social media offered both promise and peril for workers. It can help you feel closer to teammates, which just might make you happier and more successful.
“One of the things that we found in the study is that people will be much more comfortable connecting to other people who disclose personal information,” Wharton’s Nancy Rothbard, who was involved in the research, explained in one podcast interview.
But then again, seeing your boss downing a beer with his bros or joking about her colonoscopy (or your boss seeing you doing the same) blurs boundaries that make a lot of us uncomfortable.
As another Wharton professor, Adam Grant, once observed: “Authenticity without empathy is selfish. Of course we should be true to our values, but one of those values should probably be caring about others.” Your sharing shouldn’t cause others discomfort.
How are office workers navigating this charged landscape? To find out, the researchers conducted a series of in-depth interviews and also reviewed data on actual social media use.
Different people, different dangers
To no one’s surprise, the interviews confirmed that the question of social media use and how much personal information to disclose at work is fraught.
As Rothbard memorially puts it, interviewees “would equate connecting with a boss on Facebook or Instagram as equivalent to connecting with their mother. It was sort of the same horror.”
The team also found that the calculation of what kind of personal information to share was different for different types of people. Women who disclosed more personal information were generally assessed more positively, for instance. This is likely because of stereotypes that suggest women should be warm and friendly. Male bosses who shared a lot, on the other hand, were quickly seen as creepy.
To reap the benefits and avoid the potential pitfalls of social media at the office, workers employed various strategies, from being an open book to carefully curating their audience or content. (You can read more about these strategies here if you’re interested).
But whatever strategy they employed, nearly everyone was attempting to hit the same target. They wanted to come across as warm and human so they could connect on a deeper human level. But they didn’t want to embarrass themselves or anyone else by oversharing or prying.
A pet strategy for connection that works for everyone
Handily, Rothbard and her colleagues uncovered a secret weapon that anyone can use to hit that elusive sweet spot — your dog.
“Cute dog pics are a very, very hot commodity,” Rothbard correctly observes.
“If you have a cute dog and you want to post pictures of them, that’s a very good strategy, because people always love them, and they feel like they know you, and they feel connected to you. It gives them a sense of warmth that you’re displaying and a feeling that they know something about you that’s important, and that’s not fake or surface level. So, that personal disclosure really helps to create a bond between you and your fellow co-workers,” she goes on to explain.
This tallies with a large body of social science research that shows people tend to evaluate others on two basic qualities, warmth and competence. When we meet someone our first instinct is to ask: are they nice? Do they wish me harm? And, are they any good at their job? Can they do the things they say they can do?
Sharing pics of your weekend keg stand might get you tagged as warm, but it’s not going to do anything for perceptions of your competence. On the other hand, nailing every assignment but never saying a peep about your personal life is great for competence but lousy for warmth. Research suggests those that go furthest project both qualities.
You know what also allows you to project warmth without undermining your air of professional competence? Your dog doing yoga with you.
The bottom line here for everyone is a research-backed permission slip to let loose and pepper your team’s Slack channel with your cat’s wacky antics or dog’s doofy smile. You always knew your pets were super cute. Now you have data to prove they are also a secret weapon for connecting with others.
But there’s also another takeaway here for entrepreneurs and other business leaders, illustrated by my love of my fitness app’s pet picture days. If you want your team or your users to bond without crossing boundaries that make anyone uncomfortable, pets are a go-to move.
Create that dedicated chat for sharing animal pics. Show off your pooch at the beginning of the Zoom call. Organize a cutest pet pic contest among your team or your customers.
Getting people to talk about their animals is a science-backed way to help them truly connect without oversharing or awkwardness.
The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.
This article was published on 9 May 2025 in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science and its rate of sharing and views shows that it is gaining a lot of interest. I am copying the article here, with attribution, to ensure that dog owners make an informed choice when the drug (known as Beransa in our local market) is recommended.
There is clinical evidence that osteoarthritis worsens at an increased rate when using the medication.
One of the authors, Dr Mike Farrell, has also published this lecture to veterinary professionals, to explain the trial process and the history of adverse effects of this class of drugs.
I’m a science geek and I like to understand clinical trial information and the defensibility of clinical trial information. I encourage my clients to be knowledgeable and to ask the right questions of their vet when all medications are prescribed for their dogs. This post, like others about this drug, is shared to inform dog owners.
Objectives: To conduct a specialist-led disproportionality analysis of musculoskeletal adverse event reports (MSAERs) in dogs treated with bedinvetmab (Librela™) compared to six comparator drugs with the same indication. Furthermore, to report the findings from a subset of dogs whose adverse event (AE) data underwent independent adjudication by an expert panel.
Study design: Case–control study and case series analysis.
Sample population: The European Medicines Agency’s EudraVigilance database (2004–2024) and 19 client-owned dogs.
Methods: An EBVS® Veterinary Specialist in Surgery individually reviewed all MSAERs to Librela™, Rimadyl®, Metacam®, Previcox®, Onsior®, Galliprant®, and Daxocox® (2004–2024). The primary null hypothesis was that Librela’s MSAER rate would not exceed that of comparator drugs by more than 50%. The secondary hypothesis was that MSAER would surge and taper following the launch of new drugs.
Results: The disproportionality analysis did not support the hypotheses. Ligament/tendon injury, polyarthritis, fracture, musculoskeletal neoplasia, and septic arthritis were reported ~9-times more frequently in Librela-treated dogs than the combined total of dogs treated with the comparator drugs. A review of 19 suspected musculoskeletal adverse events (MSAEs) by an 18-member expert panel unanimously concluded a strong suspicion of a causal association between bedinvetmab and accelerated joint destruction.
Conclusion: This study supports recent FDA analyses by demonstrating an increased reporting rate of musculoskeletal adverse events in dogs treated with Librela. Further investigation and close clinical monitoring of treated dogs are warranted.
Impact: Our findings should serve as a catalyst for large-scale investigations into bedinvetmab’s risks and pharmacovigilance.
1 Introduction
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic pain condition in companion animals, and is a significant contributor to reduced quality of life and premature death (1). Although a diverse array of therapeutic approaches are currently available, all possess limitations, including suboptimal efficacy and the potential for severe adverse reactions. Chronic pain management is challenged by the trade-off between safety and efficacy. Analgesic drugs that provide significant pain relief can carry a higher risk of adverse reactions than safer, less effective options like glucosamine-chondroitin joint supplements (2). This therapeutic dilemma is complicated by differing risk perceptions between veterinarians and caregivers. Veterinarians, due to their medical training, may be more comfortable with the risks associated with prescription analgesics, whereas caregivers may be more hesitant, sometimes declining or limiting their use even when deemed necessary by the veterinarian (3). This disconnect is underscored by a 2018 study revealing that 22% of dogs for whom analgesics were recommended by their veterinarians did not receive them (4).
Development of new therapies offering enhanced safety and efficacy can help bridge the gap between veterinary recommendations and caregiver acceptance. Bedinvetmab (Librela™), a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting nerve growth factor (NGF), represents a significant advancement in canine osteoarthritis (OA) pain management. Following its approval by the European Commission in November 2020, it became the first mAb authorized for this indication. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted U.S. marketing authorization 2.5 years later, and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority subsequently registered the same drug as Beransa™.
While these regulatory approvals underscored worldwide confidence in veterinary mAbs, their human equivalent were associated with substantial safety concerns. Specifically, NGF modulates bone and cartilage turnover (5), and its inhibition is linked to accelerated joint degeneration in humans (6, 7). This was evidenced in 2012, when clinical trials of anti-NGF mAbs (aNGFmAbs) revealed rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) (8), leading the FDA to impose a two-year clinical trial hold and mandate a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) post-hold. However, even with stringent screening, low dosing, and NSAID prohibition after the REMS was implemented, RPOA risk persisted (9–11). While the exact mechanism is still under investigation, human clinical trials did not support the hypothesis that RPOA is caused by overuse of weight-bearing joints (7, 10).
Post-marketing pharmacovigilance is crucial for continuously monitoring a drug’s safety and efficacy after it enters the market, as clinical trials cannot capture the full spectrum of potential adverse reactions. It involves a combination of voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals and the public, and proactive surveillance programs, including government-funded, industry-sponsored, and independent research. Their findings inform regulatory decisions, which can range from label updates and limited use restrictions to, in rare cases, market withdrawal if the risks outweigh the benefits (12).
When an animal exhibits unexpected clinical signs following drug administration, differentiating these effects from the underlying disease or a new unrelated condition can be complex. Nevertheless, prompt identification of potential causal relationships is paramount for ensuring patient safety. The thalidomide tragedy exemplifies the critical importance of rigorous pre-clinical and post-marketing drug safety surveillance. Insufficient testing and a lack of robust post-marketing surveillance systems failed to identify the teratogenic potential of thalidomide (13). This resulted in widespread use of the drug leading to severe birth defects in thousands of children, highlighting the potentially devastating consequences of delayed recognition of drug-related adverse events.
In December 2024, the FDA issued an open letter to veterinarians, alerting them to neurological and musculoskeletal safety signals identified during their post-marketing surveillance of Librela (14). The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) employed an algorithmic approach to evaluate ADRs. Their approach, incorporating disproportionality analysis, statistically assessed the frequency of reported adverse events (AEs) in dogs receiving Librela compared to those treated with other OA medications. The FDA’s analysis identified 18 distinct safety signals in dogs administered Librela, encompassing neurological events, urinary problems, and musculoskeletal disorders (14). Notably, the FDA observed a disproportionately elevated reporting rate of “lameness” in dogs receiving Librela. In response, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) advised veterinarians to proactively inform pet owners about these potential adverse reactions (14).
The CVM emphasized that their objective was to generate hypotheses, acknowledging the inherent limitations of establishing definitive causality (14). They noted that AE reporting systems are subject to various biases, including underreporting, reporting biases influenced by [social] media attention, and confounding factors such as concomitant medications. Furthermore, the CVM’s reliance on algorithmic analyses of secondary data, without the benefit of expert clinical interpretation, introduces additional diagnostic uncertainty (15). To address this limitation, we employed a two-pronged approach. Firstly, we conducted a specialist-led disproportionality analysis of musculoskeletal adverse event reports (MSAERs) to expand upon the CVM’s work. This analysis tested the null hypothesis that Librela’s MSAER rate would not exceed that of six comparator drugs with the same indication by more than 50%. Secondly, we report the findings from a subset of dogs whose AE data were subjected to independent adjudication by an expert panel and subsequently submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
2 Materials and methods
2.1 MSAER disproportionality analysis
A detailed description of the EudraVigilance database (EVD) analysis is provided in Supplementary Video 1. Briefly, accurate identification of clinically relevant musculoskeletal adverse events (MSAEs) required a thorough understanding of the pharmacovigilance system’s information flow (Figure 1), and the limitations inherent in the system. Specifically, diagnostic terms submitted by primary reporters are only published if they are listed in the Veterinary Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Activities (VeDDRA). Otherwise, the Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH; Zoetis, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) selects a diagnostic term from a predefined list including clinical signs (e.g., lameness), non-specific diagnoses (e.g., arthritis), and specific diagnoses (e.g., ligament rupture) (16). At the time of analysis, VeDDRA contained 113 musculoskeletal and 313 neurological AE diagnoses (i.e., low-level terms, LLTs) (16). Many LLTs exhibit clinically relevant overlap (Table 1). For example, “limb weakness” (a musculoskeletal LLT) may indicate a neurological problem, while “collapse of leg” (a neurological LLT) might describe an orthopedic AE. With over 35,000 possible combinations of musculoskeletal and neurological LLTs, a simple algorithmic approach was not considered feasible.
To ensure consistency and account for the complex clinical judgments required for data interpretation, a single EBVS® Specialist in Surgery (Author 1) reviewed musculoskeletal adverse event reports (MSAERs) logged within the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) EudraVigilance database (EVD) from its 2004 inception to December 31, 2024. A descriptive disproportionality analysis was used to compare the incidence of MSAERs associated with Librela to those of six other veterinary analgesics: Rimadyl®, Metacam®, Previcox®, Onsior®, Galliprant®, and Daxocox®. This analysis aimed to identify any potential temporal trends in MSAER reporting, particularly following the introduction of new medications. All adverse event reports (AERs) are filed in the EVD under trade names; therefore, trade names are used consistently throughout this manuscript.
2.2 Case series inclusion criteria
This study utilized a retrospective, case series design. Case recruitment was initiated by Author 1 following the observation of a suspected case of RPOA in a dog receiving Librela. This case was shared on a specialist veterinary forum (17). Subsequently, over an 11-month period, multiple clinicians who subscribed to the forum contacted Author 1 to share concerns regarding serious MSAEs in dogs treated with Librela. Based on these communications, an independent working group was formed comprising clinicians with firsthand experience with MSAEs (see below). The primary objective was to investigate a potential association between Librela administration and the observed pathology. Given the lack of prior records of RPOA in dogs, the working group sought advice from an expert in human neuro-osteoarthropathy (Author 2) and two EBVS® Specialists in Diagnostic Imaging with published expertise in musculoskeletal imaging (Authors 3 and 4).
Twenty-three suspected musculoskeletal adverse events (MSAEs) were independently reviewed by nine investigators with a combined 128 years of experience in referral practice (Authors 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16). Clinical data from each case, including signalment, clinical signs, Librela dosing information, concurrent medications, treatment outcomes, and relevant diagnostic test results (radiographs, CT scans, synovial fluid analysis, histopathology), were evaluated. Four cases were excluded from further analysis due to incomplete data or insufficient evidence to support a causal relationship. Twelve MSAERs had already been filed in the EVD, and retrospective reports were filed for the remaining cases at this time.
2.3 Case series adjudication
The independent adjudication panel comprised 12 veterinary orthopedic surgeons, an orthopedic consultant specializing in human neuro-osteoarthropathy, two veterinary diagnostic imaging specialists, two veterinary anesthetists, and a cancer researcher with expertise in monoclonal receptor-based therapeutics. The adjudication panel demonstrated collective expertise including 157 relevant peer-reviewed publications spanning monoclonal antibodies, neuropathic arthropathy, canine osteoarthritis (OA), pathological fractures, and humeral intracondylar fissure (HIF).
Transcripts from the 2012 and 2021 Arthritis Advisory Committee (AAC) and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee Meetings were reviewed. Our analysis focused on their joint safety review of humanized anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibodies (aNGFmAbs) (8–10). The following limitations in clinical trials used to define human RPOA were acknowledged:
1. Inconsistent baseline imaging: Humans enrolled in low-back pain aNGFmAb clinical trials who developed RPOA did not undergo baseline radiographic imaging of the affected joint (s) before starting treatment (8, 18).
2. Nonspecific terminology: The definition of human RPOA included joint pathology “falling well outside the natural history of OA” (8). Notably, this criterion lacked a specific definition of the “natural history of OA” and did not reference a control group with typical OA progression.
3. Inapplicability of the human definition: The specific term “RPOA” was not adopted for our case adjudication due to its reliance on measurements of large human joints using standing radiographs or MRI (11).
Nineteen dogs with suspected MSAEs following bedinvetmab treatment were independently evaluated by Authors 3 and 4. Suspected drug-related AEs were defined according to the AAC’s methodology as joint pathology “falling well outside the natural history of OA” (8). This included pathological fractures or luxations in osteoarthritic joints, and subchondral osteolysis in the absence of clinical evidence of septic or immune-mediated arthritis. Inter-rater agreement for the two diagnostic imaging specialists was tested using the Fleiss κ coefficient (19).
Diagnostic images were formatted and annotated by Authors 1 and 3. Subsequently, all 18 experts independently reviewed the annotated images, emulating standard clinical practice. The entire cohort of 19 cases was evaluated collectively by the adjudication panel to determine potential drug causality, rather than assessing each case individually, mirroring the AAC’s 2012 protocol (8). Readers can review the cases by watching Supplementary Video 2.
A three-tiered system was used to describe a potential causal relationship between bedinvetmab treatment and MSAEs. Outcomes explicitly implying a known causal link (e.g., “definitely related”) were avoided to reflect the inherent uncertainty of this assessment. Instead, the experts described their personal judgment as “very suspicious,” “suspicious,” or “insufficient evidence” of a potential causal relationship.
2.4 AER translation errors
Translation errors were identified by comparing MSAERs submitted by attending veterinarians with corresponding reports filed by the MAH. A clinically relevant discrepancy between the reports was considered a translation error.
3 Results
3.1 MSAER disproportionality analysis
A total of 4,746 MSAERs were identified between May 20, 2021 (3 months after Librela’s European release) and December 31, 2024. Following the exclusion of 457 comparator medication reports which specified co-administration of Librela, 4,289 MSAERs remained. Of these, 3,755 (87.5%) were attributed to Librela. The majority of MSAERs (3,411, 79.5%) were excluded due to confounding neurological and/or systemic/neoplastic diagnoses (Supplementary Video 1), resulting in a final cohort of 878 eligible MSAERs for analysis, with 789 (90%) attributed to Librela (Supplementary Table S1). Most primary reports to Librela (88%) were submitted by veterinarians and other healthcare professionals (Figure 1).
Ligament/tendon injury, polyarthritis, fracture, musculoskeletal neoplasia, and septic arthritis were reported ~9-times more frequently in Librela-treated dogs than the combined total of dogs treated with the comparator medications (Figure 2). Furthermore, accumulated MSAERs for Librela over 45 months exceeded those of the highest-ranking NSAID (Rimadyl) by ~20-fold and surpassed the combined accumulated MSAERs of all comparator drugs over 240 months by ~3-fold (Figure 3). These findings did not support the null hypothesis that Librela’s MSAER rate would not exceed that of comparator drugs by more than 50%. Moreover, the secondary hypothesis that MSAER would surge and taper following the launch of new drugs was not supported (Figure 3).
3.2 Specific diagnoses and outcomes for Librela’s MSAERs
The most frequent diagnostic terms selected by the MAH were “arthritis” or associated clinical signs (e.g., “lameness”, “joint pain”, “difficulty climbing stairs”), encompassing 530 cases (67%) (Figure 4). Of these, the MAH filed 442 reports (83.4%) as “not serious”. The remaining 259 ADRs included ligament injuries, limb collapse, polyarthritis, bone cancer, and fractures. Among these, the MAH filed 138 reports (52.3%) as “not serious”.
Figure 4.Severity and outcome data for MSAER associated with Librela. Unexpected findings are highlighted in red. These include a significant proportion of severe MSAER, such as ligament ruptures, luxations, fractures, limb collapse, and septic arthritis, filed as “not serious”. In addition, several dogs diagnosed with bone cancer were reported as “recovered/resolving”. The EMA defines a serious adverse event as “any adverse event which results in death, is life-threatening, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or a congenital anomaly or birth defect.” However, a more intuitive and clinically relevant definition includes events causing permanent disability (44), requiring surgical intervention and/or prolonged hospitalization (12). Importantly, published AER data are subject to change, but only if translation errors are recognized and reported (see Figure 1).
The most frequently reported outcome was “unknown” (310 dogs; 39%). Of the remaining dogs, 177 (22%) experienced AEs that were reported as “recovered/resolving/normal”; 229 (29%) were filed as “ongoing”; 15 (2%) “recovered with sequelae”; and 63 dogs (8%) died or had been euthanized.
3.3 Case series adjudication outcome
Clinical and radiographic characteristics are summarized in Table 2 and Figures 5–13. Mean ± SD number of Librela doses was 12.7 ± 9.5 (range 1–30), with a dose range of 0.4–0.76 mg/kg (mean 0.62 ± 0.08 mg/kg). Referral for investigation of suspected RPOA was made at least 6 months after Librela initiation in 13/19 cases. Eleven dogs (58%) received regular concurrent NSAIDs. The most frequently affected joint was the elbow (13/19 dogs, 68%), followed by the stifle and hock (two dogs each), and hip (one dog). Seven dogs (37%) sustained pathological fractures, and two (10.5%) had joint luxations. Two dogs with clinically normal hock joints before initiating Librela therapy developed severe non-index hock joint destruction after Librela treatment for elbow OA.
Histopathological examination of bone and synovial tissue from four dogs revealed no evidence of inflammatory arthropathy, tick-borne diseases, or neoplasia. A pathologist who was invited to compare their findings to those reported in a submitted article on human RPOA (20) commented that the pathological features were similar (21).
Interobserver agreement between diagnostic imaging specialists was substantial (κ = 0.68, 95% CI 0.4–0.97). Both specialists were very suspicious of a potential causal relationship between the observed pathology and Librela treatment in 68% of dogs (13/19). Furthermore, all 18 panelists (including the two diagnostic imagers) were very suspicious of a potential causal relationship between Librela treatment and the observed pathology.
3.4 AER translation errors
Translation errors were identified in 9/19 cases (52%) (Table 2 and Supplementary Figures S1–S6). They included incorrect diagnoses (n = 5), severity (n = 5), and outcome (n = 5). Furthermore, the MAH reported two cases as “overdoses”, despite the administered dosages falling within the recommended range.
4 Discussion
This study reveals a striking disparity in musculoskeletal adverse event reports to Librela compared to six comparator drugs. Ligament/tendon injuries, polyarthritis, fractures, musculoskeletal neoplasia, and septic arthritis were reported nine times more frequently in Librela-treated dogs. Worryingly, since its European release, Librela has accumulated 20 times more reports than the highest-ranking comparator drug (Rimadyl) and three times more than all comparator drugs combined over a 20-year period. Furthermore, independent expert review of a subset of cases strongly supported a causal association between Librela and accelerated joint destruction.
Librela experienced rapid market penetration following its 2021 European release. Zoetis recently reported global distribution exceeding 21 million doses, translating to an estimated average daily distribution of over 15,000 doses (22). This initial market success has been tempered by emerging concerns regarding bedinvetmab’s safety. These concerns have been amplified by various factors, including the FDA’s safety update (14), negative press coverage (23), the European Commission’s investigation into potential anticompetitive conduct by Zoetis (24), and the emergence of online communities disseminating safety concerns. This confluence of events has fostered a climate of apprehension and confusion. Addressing these concerns requires unbiased and rigorous post-marketing pharmacovigilance to evaluate this drug’s true risk–benefit profile.
Assessing the “expectedness” of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is fundamental to effective pharmacovigilance. In causal relationship investigations, statisticians use Bayesian principles to evaluate reaction likelihood, considering plausibility and prior knowledge (15). The FDA’s ABON (Algorithm for Bayesian Onset of symptoms) links drug exposure to adverse events AEs (15). For example, when applied to NSAIDs, ABON incorporates prior knowledge of prostaglandin inhibition, its effect on gastrointestinal (GI) mucosal integrity, and the established link between NSAIDs and GI ulceration (25). Notably, NSAIDs can cause subclinical GI damage, undetectable without endoscopy (25). When clinical signs occur, vomiting and diarrhea are common manifestations (26). However, the FDA does not use sales-figure-based prevalence estimates, because they can dramatically underrepresent true incidence (15). For example, comparing carprofen’s AERs to drug sales suggests vomiting and diarrhea occur in <1/10,000 doses, falsely implying that common side-effects are “very rare” (27).
The NSAID analogy is valuable for three reasons. First, while prostaglandins safeguard gastrointestinal integrity, NGF plays a similar pivotal role in bone and cartilage repair (5). Second, serious subclinical cartilage and bone degeneration often precede clinical signs (28). Third, recent claims of bedinvetmab’s “rare” or “very rare” AEs (29) are based on similar methodology to the carprofen analysis described above. Given NGF’s diverse roles and prior evidence of RPOA, subchondral bone fractures, and atraumatic joint luxations in humans and animals (8, 11, 30–33), bedinvetmab-associated MSAEs are an expected consequence of NGF inhibition.
Bayesian analysis, while powerful, can be susceptible to subjective biases. This is exemplified by the FDA’s role in the opioid crisis. Despite acknowledging the inherent risk of opioid addiction, the agency over-relied on a five-sentence letter, disproportionately cited as evidence of low addiction rates with oral opioid therapy (34). The FDA’s subsequent mischaracterization of addiction risk as “minimal” was heavily criticized (34). Similarly, the hypothesis that RPOA is a uniquely human problem has faced significant criticism. Multiple experts have contested this claim (32, 35, 36), citing weak supporting data (37). Notably, the joint safety claims outlined in Librela’s datasheet (38) are based on radiographic assessment of five healthy beagles who received the recommended dose (37). This study reported “mild” cartilage erosion in two dogs, despite erosion being, by definition, a severe form of cartilage pathology. Furthermore, despite being invited to provide annotated images to clarify this discrepancy (36), Zoetis declined to do so (39).
Janssen (fulranumab), Pfizer (tanezumab), and Regeneron (fasinumab) self-reported accelerated joint degeneration in their pre-marketing human aNGFmab clinical trials (8). The FDA responded quickly and decisively, voting 21–0 to recognize RPOA as a side-effect of aNGFmAbs and mandating a sophisticated risk mitigation strategy for all subsequent trials (8). The scale of the precautions undertaken by these pharmaceutical companies is exemplified by Pfizer’s tanezumab program, which involved 18,000 patients and 50,000 radiographs analyzed by 250 experts (11).
When viewed in context, bedinvetmab’s limited pre-marketing clinical trials raise serious concerns. Only 89 dogs received more than three doses (40), and crucially, no radiographic screening for accelerated joint degeneration was conducted (40, 41). Unlike Janssen, Pfizer, and Regeneron, Zoetis was unable to self-report accelerated joint destruction due to the absence of radiographic investigations. Consequently, we must rely on post-marketing surveillance to determine whether companion animals experience the adverse joint pathology observed in humans and laboratory animals treated with aNGFmAbs.
We initially intended to publish only the 19 adjudicated cases as a case series. However, we recognized the potential for case examples of severe pathology to be dismissed as outliers—isolated events swamped by the widespread positive experiences reported with bedinvetmab. Given Librela’s popularity, this perspective would be understandable. However, this response would be analogous to assessing the risk of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal harm by comparing the incidence of perforating gastric ulcers with NSAID sales figures. It should be obvious that such an approach neglects the critical fact that NSAIDs can induce subclinical harm which is undetectable without inconvenient tests such as endoscopy. Crucially, unlike the gastrointestinal mucosa, which possesses significant regenerative capacity, cartilage damage, once incurred, is largely irreversible (42). This fundamental difference underscores the gravity of MSAEs associated with aNGFmAbs.
To complement the FDA’s Bayesian analyses, which collected data from May 2023 to March 2024, we employed a descriptive evaluation to 20 years of MSAER data. This approach was deemed complementary because the ABON algorithm primarily focuses on identifying ADRs occurring shortly after medication initiation, while MSAEs often exhibit a long latency period between drug administration and AE detection. This hypothesis is supported by the observation that most reactions in the FDA’s analysis occurred within the first week post-injection, whereas most human RPOA (9, 10) and 13/19 cases in our study manifested at least 6 months after treatment initiation.
A limitation of our descriptive analysis is the inherent subjectivity associated with expert judgment. To mitigate potential bias, the adjudication panel primarily comprised veterinarians with a shared interest in advancing pain management for companion animals. Importantly, none had financial ties to veterinary pharmaceutical companies. Having mitigated bias, and recognizing the inherent subjectivity in data analysis and interpretation, we prioritized data presentation to facilitate independent judgment by readers, regardless of their level of expertise. Another acknowledged limitation of our study pertains to the FDA’s guidance that AE signal detection should primarily serve as a hypothesis-generating tool. Accordingly, our exploratory study was designed to identify potential safety signals rather than provide a comprehensive safety profile. As such, it cannot address specific questions like the impact of NSAID co-administration on MSAER risk. However, we believe these findings offer valuable insights and will stimulate further investigation.
Our study highlights an important weakness in the current pharmacovigilance system: the lack of comprehensive terminology for accurately capturing serious AEs. The absence of RPOA as a diagnostic term in VeDDRA is of particular concern, potentially leading to a substantial underestimation of MSAERs. Without a specific term, these events may be misclassified as manifestations of the underlying condition being treated (e.g., “arthritis” or “lameness”), obscuring the true incidence and severity of ADRs. To address this deficiency and enhance data quality, we formally requested the addition of the term “RPOA” to VeDDRA (16). Our proposed definition, “joint pathology falling well outside the natural history of OA,” leverages the expertise and clinical judgment of reporting veterinarians with direct access to patient data.
An FDA panelist involved in the adjudication of humanized aNGFmAbs eloquently summarised our current belief: “All parties agree that the use of aNGFmabs is effective, but they are associated with a unique, rapidly progressing form of OA…and we can only speculate as to its causes (8).” In animals, just as in humans, the goal of effective pain management is paramount. However, we must also ensure that our therapeutic interventions do not inadvertently exacerbate the underlying condition. To uphold the highest standard of care for companion animals, we hope to apply the same rigorous scrutiny to veterinary mAbs as was employed in human healthcare.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material.
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
SUPPLEMENTARY VIDEO 1 | Demonstration of the EudraVigilance database MSAER search strategy. The database can be accessed at: https://www.adrreports.eu/vet/en/search.html# (Accessed September 18–23, 2024 and January 1–10, 2025).
SUPPLEMENTARY VIDEO 2 | Narrated slideshow used by the independent adjudication panel.
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S1 | Case 1—AER translation error. The attending specialist filed an AER specifying their suspicion of RPOA. The MAH filed a report with an incorrect diagnosis of septic arthritis.
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S2 | Case 2—AER translation error. The MAH filed a report specifying “overdose” but the administered dose (0.6 mg/kg) was in the recommended range (38).
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S3 | Case 4—AER translation error. A 9.3-year-old Labrador Retriever sustained a pathological elbow fracture. The attending specialist filed an AER to the VMD specifying their suspicion of RPOA. This report was shared with the MAH, who filed a report for non-serious “arthritis”, with a listed outcome of recovered/resolving.
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S4 | Case 10—AER translation error. A 10-year-old GSD required hindlimb amputation to manage erosive tarsometatarsal OA. The attending specialist filed an AER to the VMD including the result of the histopathological analysis (which was consistent with RPOA). The MAH filed a report stating that the AE was recovered/resolving following “digit amputation”.
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S5 | Case 11—AER translation error. The attending specialist filed an AER to the VMD specifying a diagnosis of ongoing RPOA. The MAH filed a report for non-serious arthritis which was recovered/resolving.
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S6 | Case 12—AER translation error. The attending specialist filed an AER to the VMD specifying a diagnosis of severe RPOA. The MAH filed a report for a non-severe bone and joint disorder which was recovered/resolving. The MAH filed a report specifying “overdose” but the administered dose (0.7 mg/kg) was in the recommended range (38).
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S7 | Case 13—AER translation error. The attending specialist filed an AER specifying their suspicion of RPOA. The MAH filed a report with an erroneous diagnosis of osteosarcoma.
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S8 | Case 15—AER translation error. A 9.5-year-old English Bull Terrier developed erosive arthritis in previously normal hock joints. The MAH filed a report with a diagnosis of non-serious swollen joint which was recovered/resolving.
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S9 | Case 18—AER translation error. A 6-year-old Australian Shepherd developed bilateral stifle joint luxations and fibular fractures following 8 doses of Librela. The MAH filed an AER designating this reaction as not serious.
References
1. O’Neill, DG, Brodbelt, DC, Hodge, R, Church, DB, and Meeson, RL. Epidemiology and clinical management of elbow joint disease in dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK. Canine Genet Epidemiol. (2020) 7:1. doi: 10.1186/s40575-020-0080-5
2. Barbeau-Gregoire, M, Otis, C, Cournoyer, A, Moreau, M, Lussier, B, and Troncy, E. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of enriched therapeutic diets and nutraceuticals in canine and feline osteoarthritis. Int J Mol Sci. (2022) 23:10384. doi: 10.3390/ijms231810384
3. Belshaw, Z, Asher, L, and Dean, RS. The attitudes of owners and veterinary professionals in the United Kingdom to the risk of adverse events associated with using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat dogs with osteoarthritis. Prev Vet Med. (2016) 131:121–6. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.07.017
4. Anderson, KL, O’Neill, DG, Brodbelt, DC, Church, DB, Meeson, RL, Sargan, D, et al. Prevalence, duration and risk factors for appendicular osteoarthritis in a UK dog population under primary veterinary care. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:5641. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23940-z
5. Fiore, M, Chaldakov, GN, and Aloe, L. Nerve growth factor as a signaling molecule for nerve cells and also for the neuroendocrine-immune systems. Annu Rev Neurosci. (2009) 20:133–45. doi: 10.1515/REVNEURO.2009.20.2.133
7. Hochberg, MC, Carrino, JA, Schnitzer, TJ, Guermazi, A, Walsh, DA, White, A, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for hip or knee osteoarthritis: a randomized trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. (2021) 73:1167–77. doi: 10.1002/art.41674
9. Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee (AAC) and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. Meeting transcript. March 25, 2021. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/media/150663/download (Accessed July 1, 2024).
10. Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee (AAC) and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. Meeting transcript. March 24, 2021. Available onilne at: https://www.fda.gov/media/150662/download (Accessed July 1, 2024).
12. Gliklich, RE, Dreyer, NA, and Leavy, MB. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a User’s guide [internet]. 3rd ed. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) (2014).
16. EMA. Veterinary Dictionary for Drug Related Affairs (VeDDRA) list of clinical terms for reporting suspected musculoskeletal AE to veterinary medicinal products. Available online at: http://justusrandolph.net/kappa/ (Accessed October 11, 2024).
18. Dimitroulas, T, Lambe, T, Raphael, JH, Kitas, GD, and Duarte, RV. Biologic drugs as analgesics for the management of low back pain and sciatica. Pain Med. (2019) 20:1678–86. doi: 10.1093/pm/pny214
24. European Commission. European Commission opens investigation into possible anticompetitive conduct by Zoetis over novel pain medicine for dogs. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1687 (Accessed March 30, 2024)
25. Hillier, TN, Watt, MM, Grimes, JA, Berg, AN, Heinz, JA, and Dickerson, VM. Dogs receiving cyclooxygenase-2–sparing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or nonphysiologic steroids are at risk of severe gastrointestinal ulceration. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2024) 263:1–8. doi: 10.2460/javma.24.06.0430
26. Innes, JF, Clayton, J, and Lascelles, BD. Review of the safety and efficacy of long-term NSAID use in the treatment of canine osteoarthritis. Vet Rec. (2010) 166:226–30. doi: 10.1136/vr.c97
27. Hunt, JR, Dean, RS, Davis, GN, and Murrell, JC. An analysis of the relative frequencies of reported adverse events associated with NSAID administration in dogs and cats in the United Kingdom. Vet J. (2015) 206:183–90. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.025
28. Jones, GM, Pitsillides, AA, and Meeson, RL. Moving beyond the limits of detection: the past, the present, and the future of diagnostic imaging in canine osteoarthritis. Front Vet Sci. (2022) 9:789898. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.789898
29. Monteiro, BP, Simon, T, Knesl, O, Mandello, K, Nederveld, S, Olby, NJ, et al. Global pharmacovigilance reporting of the first monoclonal antibody for canine osteoarthritis: a case study with bedinvetmab (Librela™). Front Vet Sci. 12:1558222. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1558222
30. Menges, S, Michaelis, M, and Kleinschmidt-Dörr, K. Anti-NGF treatment worsens subchondral bone and cartilage measures while improving symptoms in floor-housed rabbits with osteoarthritis. Front Physiol. (2023) 14:1201328. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1201328
32. Iff, I, Hohermuth, B, Bass, D, and Bass, M. A case of potential rapidly progressing osteoarthritis (RPOA) in a dog during bedinvetmab treatment. Vet Anaesth Analg. 52:263–5. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2024.11.041
33. Berenbaum, F, Blanco, FJ, Guermazi, A, Miki, K, Yamabe, T, Viktrup, L, et al. Subcutaneous tanezumab for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: efficacy and safety results from a 24-week randomised phase III study with a 24-week follow-up period. Ann Rheum Dis. (2020) 79:800–10. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216296
34. deShazo, R, Johnson, M, Eriator, I, and Rodenmeyer, K. Backstories on the U.S. opioid epidemic: good intentions gone bad, an industry gone rogue and watch dogs gone to sleep. Am J Med. (2018) 131:595–601. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.12.045
35. Kronenberger, K. In dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis, how safe and effective is long-term treatment with bedinvetmab in providing analgesia? Vet Evid. (2023) 8. doi: 10.18849/ve.v8i1.598
36. Farrell, M, Adams, R, and von Pfeil, D. Re: laboratory safety evaluation of bedinvetmab, a canine anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in dogs. Vet J. (2024) 305:106104. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2024.106104
37. Krautmann, M, Walters, R, Cole, P, Tena, J, Bergeron, LM, Messamore, J, et al. Laboratory safety evaluation of bedinvetmab, a canine anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in dogs. Vet J. (2021) 276:105733. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2021.105733
39. Werts, A, Reece, D, Simon, T, and Cole, P. Re: re: laboratory safety evaluation of bedinvetmab, a canine anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in dogs. The Vet J. (2024) 306:106175. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2024.106175
40. Corral, MJ, Moyaert, H, Fernandes, T, Escalada, M, Tena, JK, Walters, RR, et al. A prospective, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled multisite clinical study of bedinvetmab, a canine monoclonal antibody targeting nerve growth factor, in dogs with osteoarthritis. Vet Anaesth Analg. (2021) 48:943–55. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2021.08.001
41. Michels, GM, Honsberger, NA, Walters, RR, Tena, JK, and Cleaver, DM. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multisite, parallel-group field study in dogs with osteoarthritis conducted in the United States of America evaluating bedinvetmab, a canine anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody. Vet Anaesth Analg. (2023) 50:446–58. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2023.06.003
42. Heinemeier, KM, Schjerling, P, Heinemeier, J, Møller, MB, Krogsgaard, MR, Grum-Schwensen, T, et al. Radiocarbon dating reveals minimal collagen turnover in both healthy and osteoarthritic human cartilage. Sci Transl Med. (2016) 8:346ra90-346ra90. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad8335
Citation: Farrell M, Waibel FWA, Carrera I, Spattini G, Clark L, Adams RJ, Von Pfeil DJF, De Sousa RJR, Villagrà DB, Amengual-Vila M, Paviotti A, Quinn R, Harper J, Clarke SP, Jordan CJ, Hamilton M, Moores AP and Greene MI (2025) Musculoskeletal adverse events in dogs receiving bedinvetmab (Librela). Front. Vet. Sci. 12:1581490. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1581490
Received: 22 February 2025; Accepted: 04 April 2025; Published: 09 May 2025.
Disclaimer:All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
It’s a win for Darwin’s Dogs and open access data! A new study published in the journal Science Advances has identified genomic links to the behaviours of herding breeds. The study used data entirely sourced from open-access databases.
Researchers at Korea’s Gyeongsang National University and the U.S. National Institutes of Health analyzed data exclusively from publicly available repositories, including genomic and behavioral data from the community science initiative, Darwin’s Dogs. Their findings are powerful examples of how open science—making research data freely and publicly available—can accelerate discovery by helping scientists leverage existing data in innovative ways.
Herding breeds carry genes linked to cognitive function
Herding breeds like the Australian cattle dog, Belgian Malinois, and border collie have a long history of helping humans move and manage livestock. These dogs are renowned for their precise motor control, sharp intellect, and unwavering drive. In fact, motor patterns required for effective herding—like eyeing, stalking, and chasing animals without killing them—have been so deeply ingrained in herding dogs through generations of selective breeding that even non-working lines often display these traits. But while herding behaviors have been recognized and refined for centuries, their genetic roots have remained largely unknown.
To explore the genetic foundations of herding behaviors, researchers conducted a large-scale genomic comparison across dogs from 12 herding breeds and 91 nonherding breeds. They identified hundreds of genes that have been naturally selected in herding breeds, several of which, through additional analysis, they found linked to cognitive function.
Narrowing their focus to the border collie, a breed celebrated for its intelligence, the research team identified more than eight genes strongly associated with cognition. One of the standouts was EPHB1, a gene involved in spatial memory. Several variants of EPHB1 appeared across herding breed genomes, suggesting that this gene may support the array of complex motor patterns and decision-making skills essential for herding.
Darwin’s Dogs’ database connects genomic discoveries with behavioral insights
Identifying genes associated with breeds is one thing, but understanding their function is another. This is where Darwin’s Dogs’ open-access behavioral and genomic datasets became critical to expanding the impacts of the study’s findings.
Darwin’s Dogs invites dog owners to participate in scientific research by taking behavioral surveys about their dogs and contributing DNA samples for whole genome sequencing. As part of Darwin’s Ark’s open science commitment, this data is de-identified and made available to researchers around the world, creating a unique open-access resource that allows scientists to explore connections between canine DNA and behavioral traits.
The researchers analyzed data from 2,155 dogs in the Darwin’s Dogs database to see whether dogs with the EPHB1 gene behaved differently than dogs without the gene. They found a strong link between EPHB1 and behavior: dogs with this gene were significantly more likely to show toy-oriented behaviors such as stalking, chasing, and grab-biting toys. These actions closely resemble motor patterns seen in herding behaviors.
This link held true even among dogs with mixed breed ancestry, and within border collies from working versus non-working lines, reinforcing the strong connection between EPHB1 and herding-related behaviors.
Open science opens doors to discovery
This study’s discoveries were made possible through open science. Data from open science initiatives like Darwin’s Dogs—and the thousands of community scientists who shared behavioral insights about their dogs—helped researchers connect genomic markers to observable behaviors. The scale and scope of the Darwin’s Dogs database helped the research team analyze behavioral associations to the EPHB1 gene across dogs with varied breed ancestry.
This research serves as a model for how professional researchers and community scientists can come together to accelerate scientific progress. When community scientists contribute to open repositories like Darwin’s Dogs, the possibilities for discovery are endless.
Resources
Read the paper published in Science Advances: Hankyeol Jeong et al. , Genomic evidence for behavioral adaptation of herding dogs. Sci. Adv.11,eadp4591(2025).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adp4591
Chances are you either have a dog, know someone with a dog, or spend too much time on the internet watching dog videos. Dogs. Are. Great. Maybe it’s from uniquely coevolving with humans, or maybe it’s because they’re so darn smart, agile, comforting, and cute—but there’s definitely a connection. Whenever we’re on the move, they’re on the move too—and excited about it. Even if it’s just to the kitchen, it is still a fun adventure together.
Any one of us living with a dog (a whopping 60 million—or 45.5%—nationally) has anecdotal evidence to back it up. But how can we measure the ways dogs impact our movement habits and thereby our health and wellness? Katie Potter, Behavioral Medicine Lab director and associate professor of kinesiology, decided to find out.
It all started with a little floppy-eared canine named Chloe. Potter, a slight, brown-haired woman with an athletic frame and a life-long affinity for dogs, adopted the short-haired pup in grad school, and they became inseparable. As someone studying kinesiology and behavioral health, Potter was more aware than most just how much her connection with Chloe improved her wellbeing. Time spent walking and playing with the sweet-tempered Chloe was also time that Potter spent being active and meeting new people in her neighborhood. On bad weather days, people without dogs can be tempted to stay inside in a cozy cocoon of home. But one look at Chloe’s innocent, black-and-white-splotched face had Potter pulling on her boots and reaching for a leash. Chloe also actively helped Potter once she started working in the Behavioral Medicine Lab at UMass, modeling new activity trackers, quality testing the lab treats, and reminding the team to stay in the moment and that, sometimes, you really just need to go for a walk. Potter was a doting pet parent but a scientist through and through.
When Chloe passed away in 2021, Potter had already been inspired by her to research the ways pet ownership might help people become healthier and more active. Motivated by the understanding of how activity levels contribute to or mitigate health conditions like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis, Potter was convinced that the addition of multiple, small physical activities to a person’s life could lead to big beneficial outcomes. But now, she was even more driven to find out how specifically and find a way to engage a community around a shared love of pet care. Currently, less than 25% of adults in the United States meet the federal guidelines for physical activity. And children aren’t doing any better.
Professor Katie Potter clasps a new activity tracking collar around Percy’s neck while wearing her own for monitoring how close they are to each other.
Dog ownership was a potential avenue to inspire people to move on a grand scale and it excited her. “People are already convinced that animals are good for their health, so we’re trying to determine the evidence base for that,” Potter explains. As she better understands what the impact is from our dog-human bond, she can glean which small actions can be recreated as programs and introduced to the population at large.
Studies show that, to get people to make healthy, lasting changes to their daily routines, those changes need to be ones they actually enjoy. Luckily, a lot of people enjoy canine companionship. So, over the past five years, Potter and doctoral candidate Colleen Sands ’25 have designed observational studies to show how dog ownership affects/impacts physical activity levels, and the effects on specific health issues.
The big question
Does getting a dog make you more active? This is one of the biggest questions Potter is trying to answer. It is equally likely that physically active people get dogs because dogs fit within their already active lifestyle. But how do you test for that?
One of the most difficult parts of this type of experimentation is obtaining data on how active people are before they get a dog. “There’s currently a lack of studies that look at how getting a dog changes the owners’ activity and health—because they’re so logistically challenging,” says Potter. “You have to get data on folks before they bring the dog home and then follow them over time.”
Fortunately, a Massachusetts-based organization called Last Hope K9 Rescue agreed to work with Potter on a 12-week “BuddyStudy.” The study monitored 11 participants for six weeks as they experienced fostering a new dog. Starting out with baseline measurements—their average daily steps and their perceived stress levels or signs of depression (via questionnaires)—Potter was then able to see any noticeable changes at their mid-point check in.
It should be noted that many of the program participants actually ended up adopting their foster dogs through Last Hope K9 Rescue, making the measurements taken at the end of the study all the more interesting. Though it was a small study, the results were promising. Nearly half of the participants saw large increases in physical activity and nearly three-quarters had improvements in mood after fostering their pups. More than half of the participants met someone new in their neighborhood on a dog walk. Most participants adopted their foster dog after the six-week foster period, and some maintained improvements in physical activity and well-being at the end of the study.
With the promising data from that study, Potter was able to see which metrics and methods were the best for helping find answers to her original question—and many others that popped up throughout this experiment. She hopes to do more studies with foster dogs and cats in the future.
An interest in healthy aging
Armed with questions and hypotheses that occurred to her during one of her earliest studies, Project Rover,Potter decided to double down on her interest in how dogs impact physical activity and health in the older population. In Project Rover, Potter had worked with people over the age of 60, but now she wanted to push the age up a bit higher to see how an older generation would be impacted. She recruited 70- to 84-year-olds to be part of a new observational study called the Lifestyle, Brain, and Cognitive Health Study. The participant pool was divided into dog owners and those who were dog-free. Then, for one week, they were asked to go about their normal lives while activity monitors tracked their activity levels. At the end of the week, participants returned to UMass to have a brain scan and take the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery to test their cognitive function and fluid cognition abilities like problem solving, response time, and ability to adapt to new situations. Ideally, at the end of this type of study, Potter would see improvements across the board with faster response times, more creative problem-solving ideas, and faster transitions to situations.
Though the group size for this study was too small to make generalizations about the results, Potter is excited about the social connection aspect of the study, since most participants said they had met people through their dog and that those people had become friends. The benefit of having the small sample size is that Potter was able to test her methodology, as she plans to conduct wider studies.
What about the kids?
Did you know that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends kids exercise for at least 60 minutes a day? Unfortunately, roughly 40% of children in the United States fall well below that, contributing to a wave of preventable health issues, including mental health impacts. Sands, working on her dissertation under Potter’s tutelage, thought, if we want to create interventions for people, why not start them young? She set out to design the Kids Interacting with Dogs (KID) study, a child-friendly pilot to establish a baseline—starting with children who already had a family dog.
To start, Sands met with participating families over Zoom for orientation. “While the dogs were certainly not required to join the remote study orientation calls,” Sands explains, “most of the kids were really excited to introduce me to their dogs.” Even though it was a remote study, she did get to witness the strong family-dog bond firsthand.
Over a one-week period, the study tracked how frequently kids played with the family dog through data received from Actigraphs—Bluetooth accelerometers that also monitor proximity. Every member of the family wore them (Fido included). And, to Sands’s delight, many of the children immediately decorated the monitors for both them and their dogs. By processing the data coming in, Sands was able to see how many cumulative minutes the kids spent with the dogs, how much they walked, and how actively they played.
Surprisingly, only one-third of the time kids were active with their dog was spent walking and (maybe less surprising to anyone who spends time near children or once was one), the other two-thirds were spent playing. That is notable because adult-focused studies show that owners spend the majority of their active time walking their dog and very little time engaged in play. This kid-specific study opens up new ways to explore the development of future physical activity interventions based on play.
Down the leash
Both Potter and Sands are passionate about finding enjoyable interventions that can improve wellness on a large scale. Potter’s dream is to set up an assistance program that pairs students with older or disabled members of the community who need a little help caring for their dogs. Both the community members and the students would reap the benefits of having a dog in their orbit, as well as experiencing a new, intergenerational human connection.
“One of the cool things about this line of research is that even though physical activity is our primary focus, there are social, emotional, and even academic benefits in human-animal interaction,” Potter shares. “So, there’s the potential for this much more holistic impact.” She says, “This can open up opportunities to areas where we can potentially collaborate with the researchers that are more focused on the animal side of it.” On a grander scale, Potter and Sands hope their research can create a viable, reproducible, scalable public health intervention program based on Potter’s idea. They also hope their research can inform changes around rental properties so people who want to be pet parents can find more housing options.
For now, we can all use these findings to inspire our own interventions. “When the bond is there, people will go to the end of the earth for their pet,” says Potter. It’s heartening to learn that bettering our pets’ lives can improve our own health and wellness too. And they don’t need you to go to the end of the earth for them—just to the end of the block.
DoggyMom.com 