Efficacy and tolerance of oral versus parenteral cyanocobalamin supplement in hypocobalaminaemic dogs with chronic enteropathy: a controlled randomised open‐label trial

• Published in: Journal of small animal practice 2024-05, Vol.65 (5), p.317-328
• Main Authors: Dor, C., Nixon, S., Salavati Schmitz, S., Bazelle, J., Černá, P., Kilpatrick, S., Harvey, N. D., Dunning, M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: blood serum; body condition; body weight; Dietary supplements; disease severity; Dogs; Inflammatory bowel disease; Inflammatory bowel diseases; Intestine; methylmalonic acid; Palatability; Phenotypes; small animal practice; Vitamin B12
• ISSN: 0022-4510; 1748-5827; 1748-5827
• DOI: 10.1111/jsap.13705

Objectives Determine comparative tolerance of daily oral and weekly parenteral cobalamin supplementation, in hypocobalaminaemic dogs with chronic enteropathy. Determine whether oral is as effective as parenteral supplementation at achieving eucobalaminaemia, in hypocobalaminaemic dogs with protein‐losing enteropathy, severe hypocobalaminaemia or high canine inflammatory bowel disease activity index at inclusion. Materials and Methods Thirty‐seven client‐owned dogs with hypocobalaminaemia and clinical signs of chronic enteropathy were prospectively enrolled in three UK referral centres. Dogs were randomly allocated to daily oral for 12 weeks or weekly parenteral cobalamin supplementation for 6 weeks and one additional dose 4 weeks later. Serum cobalamin, body condition score, canine inflammatory bowel disease activity index and bodyweight were assessed at inclusion, weeks 7 and 13. Serum methylmalonic acid concentration was evaluated at inclusion and at week 13. Owners completed treatment adherence, palatability, tolerance and satisfaction questionnaires at week 13. Results Nineteen dogs completed the study. All dogs orally supplemented achieved normal or increased cobalaminaemia at weeks 7 and 13. There was no statistical difference in cobalamin concentration at week 13 in dogs treated with oral or parenteral supplementation, regardless of presence of protein‐losing enteropathy, severity of hypocobalaminaemia or canine inflammatory bowel disease activity index at inclusion. Serum methylmalonic acid concentration was not significantly different between oral and parenteral groups, neither were treatment adherence, satisfaction, and tolerance scores at week 13. Clinical Significance Oral is as effective and as well‐tolerated as parenteral cobalamin supplementation in hypocobalaminaemic dogs with chronic enteropathy and severe clinical or biochemical phenotypes, and should be considered as a suitable treatment option regardless of disease severity.