When Sue and Robin McGibbon took their beloved Labrador Abby for her annual check-up last month, they thought the most they had to worry about was slightly increased creakiness in her joints.
"She’d had problems with arthritis for some time, but it was growing worse and we didn’t want to see her in pain," says Sue. "Our vet had always tried to treat her with homeopathic remedies, but this time he gave her an anti-inflammatory drug." The family took Abby home, hoping life would become more comfortable for her. Instead, she suddenly became seriously ill.
For six days she suffered endless bouts of vomiting and diarrhea before suffering
paralysis in her hind legs. Eventually, Robin and Sue, from Bickley, Kent, felt they had no choice but to have her put down.
Now, the heartbroken couple and the vet who treated Abby are convinced the drug used to treat her actually killed her.
The drug was
Carprodyl, which is widely used to treat millions of dogs in Britain and around the world.
Vet Paul Grant had believed the drug, whose active ingredient is the painkiller and anti-inflammatory carprofen, to be safe. He has decided to speak to the Mail in the hope of raising awareness over the drug’s potential dangers.
"I’ve never seen a dog deteriorate like this from using a medicine that was supposedly safe," says the vet, who had treated 13-year-old Abby since she was a puppy.
"Carprodyl is what we call a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or
NSAID, and Abby had been on a similar one before with no problems. But this was different.
"I’m heartbroken for the family, and feel devastated by what happened. I’ll never prescribe that drug again."
Such an impassioned reaction from a vet who deals with animal deaths on a daily basis is unusual, yet he does not believe owners or vets have been made properly aware of the drug’s potential dangers.
The vet who gave Carprodyl to Abby the Labrador has since said he will never prescribe the controversial anti-inflammatory drug again.
This is exacerbated by the fact Britain has a complicated system of reporting reactions to animal drugs, so it’s almost impossible to gauge how many other dogs like Abby there have been.
In the U.S., however, where the drug has been on the market for five years longer than in Britain and where the reporting system is more transparent, concerns have been raised for more than a decade. Shockingly, this supposedly "safe" drug is thought to have killed at least 3,200 dogs.
Civil claims for damages have been settled with bereaved dog owners and campaigns have been waged to warn of carprofen’s potential dangers.
On this side of the Atlantic, however, dog owners are kept worryingly in the dark, something that haunts the McGibbons.
"We would never have allowed Abby to take this medication if we had known about the potential side-effects," says Sue.
"She was a wonderful dog, full of personality. It is difficult to describe the horror of watching her deteriorate. She only went in for a check-up, but we lost her."
Carprofen was first marketed in the U.S. in 1997 by
Pfizer Animal Health as a treatment for arthritic dogs. It works by restricting the production of chemicals that cause inflammation.
Marketed with the brand name
Rimadyl, it was an instant success. In 2002 the drug was launched in Britain, where it has been similarly popular. But the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which licenses medicines, soon began receiving thousands of reports of adverse reactions.
One complaint was from Jean Townsend, 75, from South Carolina. "I had a chocolate Labrador called George," she tells me. "My vet noticed he was limping and said
Rimadyl could help."
"But he began to go off his food and then started vomiting and passing bloody faeces."
Within a month, George was dead. A post-mortem examination revealed he had liver damage, bleeding and gut ulceration. Jean sued and was joined by 300 other people in a class action that was settled by
Pfizer in 2004 for $1,000 per owner, but the company didn’t admit liability.
"We would never have allowed Abby to take this medication if we had known about the potential side-effects."
Dangerous: In the U.S., where Carprodyl has been on the market for longer, it has claimed that the drug could have killed as many as 3,200 dogs (stock picture).
Subsequently, Pfizer was twice ordered by the FDA to beef up its warnings, eventually to include "death" as a possible side-effect.
"I have no doubt this drug does benefit many dogs, but others have a terrible, sometimes fatal reaction," says Jean. "The drug companies have never satisfactorily explained that and they should."
In its defense, Pfizer points out that fewer than 1 per cent of animals react badly to Rimadyl, and that of those the vast majority recover.
Pfizer and other drug companies also point out with justification that many of the dogs that benefit from taking carprofen would otherwise be in so much pain they would have to be put down.
"For any medicine to be licensed by the regulatory authorities, it must meet rigorous quality, safety and efficacy standards," says a Pfizer spokesman. ‘Carprofen has been licensed in the UK for more than ten years and millions of tablets have been prescribed during this time.
"We would encourage anyone who has a concern to speak to their vet, who can then report it."
"I have no doubt that this drug does benefit many dogs, but others have a terrible - sometimes fatal - reaction."
In Britain, animal pharmaceuticals are licensed and monitored by the
Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), a branch of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
It runs a system of reporting bad reactions to drugs called the
Suspected Adverse Reaction Surveillance Scheme (SARSS), but this is discretionary, not compulsory.
Harvey Locke, past president of the British Veterinary Association, says there might be a case for making reporting mandatory, but adds: "There would need to be strict guidelines laying down exactly when a report should be made. At present it is up to the discretion of the vet."
Mr. Locke, in common with most vets, believes carprofen is perfectly safe in most cases, but he and his colleagues have no way of knowing how many animals are reacting badly to it. Here’s why.
Carprodyl, the branded carprofen that was given to Abby, was given a license for
Buckinghamshire-based Ceva Animal Health in 2008.
Potential side-effects listed on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate website include: vomiting, soft feces/diarrhea, fecal occult blood, loss of appetite and lethargy, which in very rare cases may be serious or fatal. It also lists rare incidences of gastro-intestinal bleeding.
However, as side-effects do not have to be reported to the VMD, there is no way of knowing the true scale of the problem.
"I have treated dozens of dogs where these drugs have upset their stomach, but this would not come under SARSS reporting," says Mr. Locke.
Disturbingly, when I repeatedly asked the VMD how many adverse reports it had received about drugs containing carprofen, I was initially told "it would not be simple" to find out. Later I was told I would have to make a Freedom of Information request for the figures, which could take six weeks.
In the U.S., adverse reaction figures are freely available from the FDA to any member of the public. In Britain, pet owners are told the figures could be "commercially sensitive" even though the same drug companies operate in both countries.
For any medicine to be licensed by the regulatory authorities, it must meet rigorous quality, safety and efficacy standards.
Instead, it was left to
Ceva Animal Health to tell me that in the case of Carprodyl, there have been just four SARSS reports, including Abby’s death. During the past year, the company has sold 1.7 million doses of the drug.
"We think this is proven to be a very safe drug," says Martin Mitchell, Ceva’s global director of communications. "I have four dogs, and two of them are on Carprodyl. I would never put any animal at risk, least of all my own."
In the case of Abby, Robin, 68, and his wife Sue feel certain carprofen caused her death. But they’ll never be able to prove it.
In the U.S., however, one couple believe they have evidence directly linking carprofen to the death of their golden retriever, Sophie.
Christopher Cooper and Shelley Smith filed a lawsuit against Pfizer last year after six-year-old Sophie was given the drug, as Rimadyl, to help recover from ligament surgery on a knee.
"We were given the drugs without any information on potential side-effects," Christopher, a 45-year-old businessman, tells me from his home in Colorado.
"If I had known, there’s no way we would have given her Rimadyl. She was in the prime of life."
Instead, she suffered a similar reaction to Abby’s and had to be put down. ‘We have no doubt this drug killed Sophie,’ says Shelley.
The couple’s solicitor, Jennifer Edwards, says: "Since I filed the lawsuit last July, I’ve been contacted by hundreds of dog owners who say they’d like to join a class action. When you consider that kind of response, the company’s safety claims for this drug don’t stack up."
Sue and Robin McGibbon wish they’d known all this before allowing Abby to take Carprodyl.
Martin Mitchell, of Ceva, sent me a copy of the leaflet his company issues with Carprodyl. It includes all the potential side-effects in full accordance with the law.
However, the couple say the pills they got from their veterinary clinic,
Tender Paws Ltd, in West Wickham, Kent, appeared to have been repackaged in a "fuchsia-colored" box with a slip of paper inside. I sent them a copy of the official instructions and Sue was shocked when she saw all the potential side-effects warning that the drug could be fatal.
"We never got this," she says. "The only side-effects that it warned of was diarrhea."
I approached Tender Paws several times, but no one would comment on the repackaging of this drug.
All that remains to be seen is whether the
Veterinary Medicines Directorate will take any action — and find out if the practice of re-packaging drugs without adequate warnings is widespread.
Or will it simply hide behind secrecy and Freedom of Information requests? A watchdog without a bite or even a bark.
For any medicine to be licensed by the regulatory authorities, it must meet rigorous quality, safety and efficacy standards. Instead, it was left to Ceva Animal.
Please Share!
