Hi, I took my dog to the vet today as she injured her toe at the weekend and was limping.  the vet has given me a 5 day supply of rimadyl (1/2 tablet twice a day) but I am unsure whether to give it to her.  I didn't ask in the vet what painkiller she was to get as I've only ever had metacam from them but when I got home and looked I recalled people on here having problems with the drug and am now unsure whether to give her it.  I've been through the search facility on here but a lot of the links in people's posts don't exist anymore.
my query is whether to leave her in pain but have her alive or to take the risk of rimadyl but have her pain free. The vet thought she had injured/torn ligaments in her toe.
I don't want to contact the vet and query the prescribing incase as I will probably be shot down by them for questionning their authority.  I was given the tablets in a brown bottle rather than a blister pack so didn't get the prescribing leaflet which I believe (according to the net) has death as a side effect listed on it. 
My dog is a 3yr old staffy bitch incase it makes any difference as I saw links relating to elderly dogs and labs on some of the sites but I couldn't get them open.  thanks in advance for any advice.
thanks in advance for any advice.

http://www.articlealley.com/article_24455_54.html

Don't know if this will help cheekychow.  After reading it, please don't be afraid to discuss your concerns with your vet.

I have used Rimadyl several times for my dogs in the short term such as this.  The only time I have not is in the case of a very elderly dog with a poor gastric history.  It not only relieves pain but also reduces the inflamation and therefore is actually improving the clinical condition.  If you decide you do not wish to give it you really need to discuss alternatives with the vet rather than just leave it because your dog may be in discomfort longer than necessary.

You are right to be concerned about giving this drug. It has caused a lot of reactions in a lot of dogs, some of which have proved fatal.
An information sheet should have been included to warn of the side effects to watch for - vomiting, diarrhoea, lethargy, loss of appetite, excessive urination to name but a few. 
But I know what you mean about getting on the wrong side of the vet. I queried a Rimadyl prescription a few years back - before I knew it I'd been ejected from the practice !  Sadly some vets just don't like their authority being questioned.

Annie's link should help you with further info.

Sounds like the vet did you a favour chucking you out tyby - a vet like that you don't need. :(

Hi Cheekychow, one of my dogs hurt there toe and was perscribed metacam, which I have used mainly for years. But I have also used Rimadyl on my dogs with no side effects but some dogs have reacted badly to this drug. If you are worried couldnt you speak to the vets receptionist and voice your worries with them and would they not change it for metacam. I wouldnt worry about hurting your vets feeling...lol  "I dont" I tell them what I want, and dont want!!!! after all there my animals and its my money. If they dont comply they feel my wrath!!!
I do hope your dog soon gets better.  
Helen

Hi tyby I think it was your post I read in the search facility about the vet not liking being challenged.  I read the link and am now even more concerned.  I don't want my dog to be in pain but certainly do not want to harm her.  Is metacam a decent alternative to rimadyl?

To be honest cheekychow I would be wary about Metacam too - some dogs react badly to Non-Steroidal Anti Inflammatories.
I think I would look at the more natural remedies - Glucosamine, chondroitin, etc for relieving inflammation.

Having used both, I would say Glucosamine and chondroitin, while having a role in mild, chronic inflammatory conditions, would be nowhere near adequate for an acute situation such as this.  I think if you looked at the possible side effects and contraindications of a wide variety of commonly used drugs you could alarm yourself to a pretty high level :)  If you are not happy with what has been prescribed I would speak to your vet who has examined your dog, understands the side effects issue and has the knowledge of alternatives.

I think if you looked at the possible side effects and contraindications of a wide variety of commonly used drugs you could alarm yourself to a pretty high level

I completely agree, which is why I try not to use any of them! :D

I would hope nobody takes drugs when they don't have to :)  Of course herbal remedies also carry side effects.  My GP friend had a patient in ITU after taking Glucosamine.

Although a fan of natural remedies myself, the problem with things like glucosamine is that they take quite a while to get going.

I would give the vet a ring and ask if there are any alternatives if you feel you dont want to use rimadyl, I personally would never touch Rimadyl but then I have unfortunatly had first hand knowledge of the very severe side affects that it causes and it didn't end happily. Did your vet make you aware of the side affects when he prescribed it? Most dogs dont have a reaction to it some do its only a decision you can make. I have never had any problems with any of my dogs that have been prescribed metacam but do realise that side effects could occur so make sure I am fully aware of what these are before I leave the vets surgery.

After reading everybody's comments and taking everything on board I phoned the vets and the receptionist spoke to the vet who said she "wouldn't have prescribed it if it was dangerous but if I really did not want to give them to my dog I could just rest her until she is better".  Because I did not speak to the vet i did not raise that I was given no information with the medication and that no blood tests were carried out to see if my dog was suitable to be prescribed this painkiller.
thanks to everybody on here who give me information and advice.

So if resting is sufficient, why prescribe the Rimadyl in the first place?

Because it would relieve the pain.

I realise that Isabel but as no alternative pain relief is being offered, perhaps the vet now feels no pain relief is necessary?

What pain relief can be offered without risk of side effects?  Cheekchow took their dog to the vets in the first place because it was in pain but having expressed a wish not to risk any side effects the vet has confirmed that healing of the injury will not be affected by lack of antiinflammatory but that does not mean the dog will not be in pain while it does so.

Pain relief is either required or not, regardless of side effects.  If one pain relief is not suitable (either for medical reasons or due to the owner's preference) surely another should be offered if the condition warrants it?  Anyway, lets leave it for cheekychow and the vet to decide, not much point in us discussing it further. :)

There is nothing the vet can offer?  All analgesia has some risk associated with it.  The vet thought pain relief was required but he can't make an owner administer it.

Not offering any alternative at all sounds to me that either pain relief wasn't necessary or the vet has gone off on a sulk!  Sorry Isabel, we'll have to agree to disagree here. :)

I thought his comments were quite understanding and not at all sulky :) but I see nothing in them to indicate he no longer thought pain relief would be helpful to the dog, I don't think it is ever necessary.

I would say Rimadyl is a bit of a miracle drug! My boy has been on and off it since easter.. He has had a very poorly neck(in vets now trying to see if he has wobblers or not :-( ) but all the time he is on the rimadyl he is a different dog, he is on 3 tablets a day and it hasn't affected him at all apart from obviously taking the pain away.... so I would go ahead and try it, there is nothing worse than having pain, especially with a poor dog that can't tell you how they feel..

We've had the same vet for some years, and our other dogs were always prescribed Metacam for pain after surgery or inflammation of joints etc. Two weeks ago, our SP puppy twisted a rear leg and the vet gave us what we found to be Rimadyl.
I must admit, it rang alarm bells with me - is this something that has been stopped for human use either here or in the US ? I'm sure there was something on a news programme some time ago.

I've seen a few people mention being suprised at being given Rimadyl by their vet instead of Metacam - why are many now giving Rimadyl instead of Metacam ?

It seems to be the antiinflammatory of choice at my vets and has been for many years.

The active ingredient of Rimadyl - carprofen - isn't approved for use on humans, don't know whether it ever has been.

Following the lawsuit taken out by Jean Townsend in America (her lab had a fatal reaction to Rimadyl) the manufacturers of the drug agreed to begin dispensing a Client Information Sheet to be included with veterinary prescriptions of Rimadyl. This was to ensure that pet owners were given easily understandable information about the potential side effects and what to do if they occurred. 

In this instance the vet failed to provide such information.  Fortunately cheekychow had the good sense to ask for opinions on here but, of course, not every owner would think to question a drug prescribed by a vet.  Yes Rimadyl might be perfectly safe for many dogs but surely we have the right to know as much about the bad side of the medicines our beloved pets take so trustingly from us.

I totally agree that information should be provided and I also think it should be provided by the vets when you have your consultation- after all that is what a consultation is for. I was one of those people who didn't question what the vet was prescribing until it was too late and it was this site that gave me the answers that the vet didn't believe I needed to know because 90% of dogs dont have a reaction to it (her words ) unfortunately my girl was one of the 10% who do have a reaction to it and it haunts me to this day. Now I always question any presciption that it given and demand the information at the consultation as experience has taught me the hard way.

So sorry to hear about your experience Izzy :(.  Like you, I now like to know all the possible downsides to treatment before giving it.  I still don't understand why cheekychow's vet didn't offer an alternative treatment - when I told my vet I wasn't keen on giving Rimadyl, he immediately came up with alternatives and wasn't resentful at all.

Couldn't agree with you more tyby that owners should be given this information so they can make a balanced judgement as to whether the potential benefits of the treatment outweigh the potential risks.  The vet has the knowledge but in the end, it isn't his loved pet.  I had heard that Rimadyl was originally meant for human use but wasn't approved but I don't know how true this is.

Yes, annie, you're right.  Rimadyl was originally intended for human use but wasn't approved.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Mmmm...says quite a lot really...

Several drugs, chemicals and even food stuffs suitable for humans are not suitable for dogs and vice versa I don't think we should make too much of that.  Rimadyl is a very commonly used drug I doubt many vets go a day without prescribing it and would therefore be well aware aware of the level of incidence of adverse reactions. I would imagine they are also becoming increasing aware of peoples adverse reactions to hearing about the possible adverse reactions too ;)

Cheekychow's vet couldn't have been 'well aware' of the level of adverse reactions  - else he would have given out one of the client information sheets.

I don't see how you have made that connection.  As he says he knows it is not "dangerous", meaning reactions are rare.  If your dog becomes ill after any medication isn't it common sense to contact your vet anyway? 

*I don't see how you have made that connection.*

Quite simple really.  If a vet is aware of adverse reactions isn't that good enough reason for him to follow the advice of the manufacturer and provide the information ?

And I know of many owners who, having contacted their vet after an adverse Rimadyl reaction, have been told just to 'keep an eye on things'.  Sadly some dogs have died after being given just one dose.

It is the connection between knowing adverse reactions can occur, like any medication, and the need to give that specific information to clients that I can't see.
I suppose it would be politically correct to give the information but personally I'd just be happy to see a highly trained professional using his judgement and understanding of the animals health, age, medical history before prescribing an extremely common medication and avoid these situations where people either do not think him capable of doing that or that they, as lay people, have a better understanding of the risks.  As I say people surely have enough common sense to know if they animal is ill to seek a vets advise but the trouble with cataloguing all the possibles is some people are not terribly good as assessing the risk/benefit equation.

Isabel - let me put it this way.  If a member of your family died through taking a drug prescribed by a highly qualified doctor would you not be a bit annoyed to find out later than the drug was known to have serious side effects but the doctor didn't think it was necessary to mention them beforehand ?

The point I'm trying to make is that owners have the right to know about the side effects of any drug, especially when one of the side effects is death.

A member of my family became seriously ill after being prescribed a particular antibiotic. Luckily she lived - but it wasn't the doctor's fault. Nor hers (or her breeders' ! ;)) - just one of those things. Everybody knows that any drug can have side-effects. Pharmacists don't need to tell people that aspirin can cause ulcers or paracetamol can cause liver damage, because taken as prescribed the possibility is extremely remote. If people worried about all the possible side-effects of drugs they'd never take any at all, or allow their family or pets to have any, and there would be thousands suffering needlessly.

If it's true that everyone knows about the side effects of human medicine how did they acquire this knowledge ?  Oh yes, you get one of those information sheets tucked inside the packet don't you ?

In 1998 Rimadyl accounted for almost 39% of all adverse drug reports. 
It has killed hundreds of dogs due to side effects their owners were unaware of.  I'm sure each and every one of those owners wished they had had more knowledge about the drug they were administering to their pets. 

A person may not know the particular side-effects related to a particular drug, but as I said, everyone knows that they exist in general. Therefore if you noticed something unusual you'd ask advice, wouldn't you? As Isabel says, it's common (or should that be uncommon?) sense.

I don't think that is how we know, we certainly didn't have endless sheets of advise years ago.
38% of what figure though.  Don't know how that statistic defines adverse reaction.  Many dogs and humans have quite significant sicknss and diarrhoea taking antibiotics but perserving cures the infection and causes no great harm.
It may be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of dogs world wide but it must have been given to several millions.  You keep mentioning the owners being unaware as if being aware alters the proportion of risk in any way.  It is vets knowing when it can be appropriately prescribed that is important.

I would be very upset if a relative died of a drug reaction and I would be angry if it was prescribed against the odds due to a known factor but if the doctor had prescribed it in accordance with all the known probables then I would regard that as extreme misfortune as no drug is given a licence when the risks outweight the benefits to the correct prescribing group. The client knowing about the side effects, by the way, has no bearing on the likelyhood of it happening.

*The client knowing about the side effects, by the way, has no bearing on the likelyhood of it happening*

Er I think it might - the client might just choose to give that particular drug a miss.....

Surely you can see the difference between my statement and yours.

I've never been given a 'client information sheet' with any medication my dogs have been prescribed, and it's certainly not standard procedure at the practice where I work.

...perhaps if it was standard practice, many dogs would still be alive today.

Why?  If your dog had a limp, you gave it medication and it showed signs of illness wouldn't you report to your vet anyway?  As I said in my post above giving that information can lead to some people getting a disproportionate idea of the risk and some dogs going without pain relief that they could have benefited from.

*giving that information can lead to some people getting a disproportionate idea of the risk *

I don't see how.  What's wrong in just being made aware that if your dog suddenly develops one of the side effects (diarrhoea, loss of appetite, lethargy etc) you should stop giving the drug and take him back to the vet ?
Quite simple really.  And, as I keep saying, in accordance with the manufacturer's advice.