Article Text


Comparison of pain response after subcutaneous injection of two maropitant formulations to beagle dogs
  1. Nynke Deckers1,
  2. Catharina A Ruigrok1,
  3. Hans Peter Verhoeve1 and
  4. Nicky Lourens2
  1. 1 Regivet BV, Oirschot, The Netherlands
  2. 2 General Toxicology, Charles River Laboratories Den Bosch BV, ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nynke Deckers; nynke{at}


The antiemetic maropitant, with metacresol as preservative (Cerenia, Zoetis), has been associated with pain after subcutaneous injection in dogs and cats. Recently, a generic formulation containing benzyl alcohol was authorised (Prevomax, Le Vet). Benzyl alcohol is reported to have local anaesthetic properties and reduce injection pain. This study compared local pain after subcutaneous injection of the two maropitant formulations, administered at approximately 4°C and 25°C, to dogs. Thirty-two healthy beagle dogs were enrolled into a blinded, randomised, cross-over study. Dogs received subcutaneous injections of maropitant injection containing metacresol as preservative and maropitant injection containing benzyl alcohol as preservative, both at approximately 4°C and 25°C, with at least three days in between treatments. Injection pain was evaluated by two blinded observers using a visual analogue scale immediately after injection and a simple descriptive scale at two minutes after injection. In healthy beagle dogs, subcutaneous injection of maropitant with benzyl alcohol is significantly less painful than injection of maropitant with metacresol.

  • dog
  • maropitant
  • pain assessment
  • pharmaceutical preservative
  • subcutaneous injection

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Contributors ND was involved in the study design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, and writing of the manuscript. CAR was involved in the study design, data acquisition, and review and approval of the manuscript. HPV was involved in the study design, and review and approval of the manuscript. NL was involved in the study design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, and review and approval of the manuscript.

  • Funding The study was funded by AST Beheer. The funders had no involvement in the study design, conduct of the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, and the writing of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests ND, CAR and HPV are employees of Regivet. Regivet has developed the generic maropitant formulation.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the ethical committee as required by the Dutch Act on Animal Experimentation (February 1997).

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

  • Data sharing statement There are no additional unpublished data.

Request Permissions

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