Effects of intranasal maropitant on clinical signs of naturally acquired upper respiratory disease in shelter cats.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that intranasally administered maropitant citrate would reduce the severity of clinical signs of feline upper respiratory disease (FURD) in shelter cats with naturally acquired disease.

METHODS:Shelter cats with clinical signs of FURD were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal maropitant diluted in saline (maropitant citrate 10 mg/ml q12h, diluted 1:10 with sterile 0.9% saline) or intranasal 0.9% saline q12h for 7 days. Clinical disease severity was measured at entry into the study and again after completion of 7 days of treatment using a visual analogue scale to assess four separate clinical signs: conjunctivitis, blepharospasm, ocular discharge and nasal discharge. Total disease severity was also calculated. Cats received other medications for FURD as per standard shelter protocols, and all investigators were masked to group assignments. A Mann-Whitney U-test was performed to compare the clinical improvement score (CIS) between the treatment and control groups.

RESULTS:There were 34 cats in the maropitant treatment group; 27 cats served as placebo controls. Groups did not differ in age, sex distribution, nature of disease, administration of other medications for FURD or baseline clinical disease severity. There was no significant difference in CIS between the maropitant treatment and control groups for conjunctivitis, blepharospasm, ocular discharge, nasal discharge or total disease severity after 7 days.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:This study found no significant difference in outcomes for cats with FURD when treated with intranasal maropitant compared with treatment with intranasal saline. Further investigations would be required before intranasal maropitant could be recommended as the standard of care for FURD.

Feline upper respiratory disease remains a significant challenge, impacting on shelter and owned cat populations with potential repercussions for adoption rates and housing costs. Given the demanding nature of caring for these cats, any additional intervention should offer a clear and substantial rationale. Our study on the clinical efficacy of intranasal maropitant 0.1% solution in the control of clinical signs in shelter cats with naturally acquired upper respiratory tract disease did not demonstrate any directly observable clinical benefits. Although we acknowledge the study’s limitations, including sample size and non-standardisation of additional medical therapy, we found no evidence to support the routine use of intranasal maropitant in managing feline upper respiratory disease. Further research with both timed and extended observation periods is warranted to elucidate any potential benefits of maropitant in this context.