Evidence-based guidance on diagnosing and managing canine neuropathic pain using multimodal pharmacologic and integrative therapies.
Neuropathic pain in dogs remains one of the most diagnostically and therapeutically challenging conditions in small animal practice. Driven by ectopic nerve firing, central and peripheral sensitization, impaired descending inhibition, and neuroinflammation, it is frequently underrecognized and inadequately managed with conventional pharmacotherapy alone.
This clinical perspective examines the limitations of drug-centered management and evaluates the current evidence base for integrative interventions, including electroacupuncture, physical rehabilitation, photobiomodulation, and nutraceutical support, as components of a structured multimodal protocol. The evidence base for each modality is appraised with explicit acknowledgment of its limitations and, where relevant, its species-specificity. The goal of this article is not to supplant evidence-based pharmacology, but to articulate a clinically practical framework that addresses dimensions of neuropathic disease that medication alone cannot fully reach.
This article also addresses the systematic gap in diagnostic methodology: the absence of validated canine-specific neuropathic pain assessment tools compounds the challenge of identifying and monitoring affected patients.
The problem: neuropathic pain is chronic, underrecognized, and difficult to treat
Neuropathic pain in dogs is a major clinical challenge because it arises from damaged or dysfunctional neural tissue that continues to produce abnormal pain signaling even after the original injury has stabilized. Unlike nociceptive or inflammatory pain, neuropathic pain is driven by several interconnected mechanisms, including ectopic nerve firing, peripheral sensitization, central sensitization involving alterations in AMPA and NMDA receptors, impaired descending inhibitory modulation, and neuroinflammation maintained by spinal microglial activation (Moore, 2016). Over time, these pathological processes amplify pain signaling and make the condition increasingly resistant to treatment.
These mechanisms are most commonly encountered in association with specific clinical conditions, including intervertebral disc disease (IVDD), degenerative lumbosacral stenosis, post-surgical nerve injury, spinal cord trauma, and nerve root tumors. An important clinical point is that successful surgical or medical management of the primary lesion does not guarantee resolution of pain: in many patients, the neurological pathways themselves have already undergone maladaptive reorganization, and pain persists independently of the original structural cause.
Clinical management is further complicated by a substantial diagnostic gap, as neuropathic pain in dogs is often underrecognized. Its clinical manifestations are typically subtle and nonspecific, and dogs rarely display overt signs that clearly distinguish neuropathic pain from orthopedic disease, behavioral disorders, or generalized discomfort. Instead, clinicians commonly observe nonspecific findings such as altered gait, reluctance to move, excessive licking of a particular area, sleep disturbances, irritability, or unexplained behavioral changes. These signs are easily misattributed to aging, anxiety, or primary behavioral problems rather than chronic pain.
This recognition gap is compounded by the absence of a validated, canine-specific neuropathic pain assessment tool. A recent comparative review by Parker (2024) noted that while quantitative sensory testing (QST) methods, including von Frey aesthesiometry and cold latency testing, have been used to evaluate allodynia and hyperalgesia in dogs with musculoskeletal and neuropathic conditions, these techniques require user-level validation, are challenging to administer reliably in clinical settings, and cannot distinguish neuropathic from musculoskeletal pain in isolation. Owner-reported instruments such as the Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI) are susceptible to caregiver placebo effects. This diagnostic vacuum means that many clinical decisions about neuropathic pain in dogs currently rest on clinical impression and probabilistic reasoning rather than objective measurement.
The extent of this challenge was highlighted by Kwik et al (2025), who reported that seven out of ten dogs referred for behavioral assessment were ultimately found to be experiencing maladaptive pain. In several cases, standard clinical examinations and radiographs failed to identify abnormalities prior to referral, with behavioral signs serving as the primary or only indicator that something was wrong. Although the authors used the broader term “maladaptive pain” rather than “neuropathic pain” specifically, the study illustrates how chronic pain states in dogs may remain clinically unrecognized when they primarily manifest as behavioral changes. Importantly, the authors also demonstrated that meaningful clinical improvement often required a multimodal management strategy, with recovery achieved in six of the seven affected dogs, underscoring the complexity of treating chronic maladaptive pain conditions in veterinary patients.
These findings emphasize that neuropathic and maladaptive pain states are rarely simple, single-mechanism disorders. Their heterogeneous presentation, evolving neurobiology, involvement of multiple peripheral and central pathways, and the absence of validated diagnostic instruments create substantial and compounding challenges for sustained clinical management.
Conventional drugs: useful tools, but not without limitations
Pharmacologic therapy remains the cornerstone of management for canine neuropathic pain. However, because no single drug effectively addresses all underlying mechanisms, treatment outcomes are often incomplete and may be accompanied by clinically significant adverse effects that can impact patient quality of life. In many cases, managing this condition means balancing modest pain reduction against sedation, gastrointestinal complications, or systemic toxicity. These limitations highlight the challenges of relying solely on drug-centered strategies.
- Gabapentin is among the most commonly prescribed medications for canine neuropathic pain. It works by binding to the alpha-2 delta subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels, reducing the release of excitatory neurotransmitters involved in pain transmission.
Clinical studies have reported pain burden reductions in dogs with naturally occurring neuropathic conditions. In a prospective, randomized, partially masked, placebo-controlled crossover trial, Ruel et al (2020) found that gabapentin may help reduce owner-reported pain scores in dogs with naturally occurring neuropathic pain, though scores were not statistically superior to placebo, and a significant caregiver placebo effect was identified as a potential confounding factor. In dogs with Chiari-like malformation and syringomyelia, Plessas et al (2015) reported an improvement in quality of life when gabapentin was added to carprofen compared to baseline, though gabapentin and topiramate did not differ significantly from each other.
Despite its widespread use, sedation remains a major clinical limitation. In a recent owner-reported study, Kirby-Madden et al (2024) found that approximately 70% of dogs experienced at least one adverse effect, with sedation reported most frequently and occurring more commonly at doses exceeding 30 mg/kg. Clinically, affected dogs may appear lethargic, ataxic, or mentally dull, which can complicate assessment of true analgesic benefit.
The caregiver placebo effect documented by Ruel et al (2020) raises ongoing questions about the degree of objective clinical improvement achieved in some patients, since owner-reported pain tools are inherently subjective measures. This concern is amplified by the diagnostic limitations noted in Section I: in the absence of objective QST data, improvements that are indistinguishable from placebo response may go unchallenged in routine clinical settings.
- Pregabalin shares a similar mechanism of action with gabapentin, binding to the alpha-2 delta subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels, but offers greater potency and more predictable oral bioavailability. It is increasingly used in dogs with refractory neuropathic pain.
Its adverse effect profile is comparable to other gabapentinoids. Toth (2014) specifically identifies sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and dry mouth as the most commonly noted adverse effects in humans; these are generally considered applicable to dogs, though canine-specific controlled trials on adverse effects remain limited. Weight gain may occur during long-term therapy, and abrupt discontinuation may result in withdrawal-related complications.
Pregabalin has also been associated with elevated liver enzyme activity in case reports, raising awareness of potential hepatotoxicity in susceptible individuals (Alelwani et al, 2021). This appears to be rare and idiosyncratic rather than a common occurrence, but it warrants monitoring in patients with known hepatic vulnerability.
- Amantadine functions as an NMDA receptor antagonist, primarily indicated for cases involving central sensitization. It is most useful as a component of a multimodal protocol rather than a standalone approach.
A randomized trial by Caterino et al (2025), published in BMC Veterinary Research, found that amantadine, either alone or combined with meloxicam, improved ground reaction forces in dogs with degenerative lumbosacral stenosis, suggesting it may be a useful addition for patients responding poorly to NSAIDs alone. Compared to gabapentinoids, amantadine is generally less sedating, though gastrointestinal upset, agitation, and diarrhea may occur. The rationale for incorporating NMDA antagonists within a multimodal pharmacological approach is further supported by a review of combination therapy evidence by Serrano Afonso et al (2021), which identified NMDA receptor antagonism as a mechanistically distinct and complementary contribution to neuropathic pain protocols.
- Tramadol has historically been used in veterinary pain management due to its combined weak opioid activity and serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. However, its analgesic efficacy in dogs has been substantially reassessed. Dogs are poor metabolizers of tramadol via the CYP2D15 enzyme, producing clinically low and inconsistent plasma concentrations of the active M1 metabolite (O-desmethyltramadol). Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials in dogs have rated the overall certainty of evidence for tramadol’s analgesic efficacy as low to very low, and its role as a standalone analgesic is no longer supported by current evidence. Its remaining mechanism of action in dogs, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition, may offer some contribution to pain modulation, but also generates the primary safety concern associated with its use.
Tramadol carries a clinically documented risk of serotonin syndrome and seizures, particularly when combined with other serotonergic medications or administered at excessive doses (Beakley et al, 2015; Hassamal et al, 2018). Because tramadol also inhibits serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake in dogs (Domínguez-Oliva et al, 2021), these interaction risks are considered clinically relevant in veterinary medicine. Clinicians should be aware that tramadol is commonly co-prescribed with trazodone in perioperative settings, and this combination, along with SSRIs, MAO inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants, may increase the risk of serotonin toxicity. Careful review of potential drug interactions is warranted whenever tramadol is included in a patient’s protocol.
- NSAIDs (Meloxicam, Carprofen, and related drugs) remain important components of veterinary pain management, effectively reducing inflammation and nociceptive pain through cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibition. However, their role in neuropathic pain is inherently limited because they do not directly target the abnormal neuronal signaling and central sensitization mechanisms underlying neuropathic pain. As a result, their benefit in dogs with neuropathic pain is generally confined to managing concurrent inflammatory or musculoskeletal components.
Long-term NSAID therapy carries well-recognized safety concerns. Gastrointestinal ulceration or hemorrhage, renal injury, and hepatotoxicity are among the most clinically significant adverse effects associated with chronic use in dogs (KuKanich et al, 2012). Broader reviews of NSAID pharmacology have additionally documented potential adverse effects involving gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, cardiovascular, and other organ systems, emphasizing the importance of patient selection, dose optimization, and ongoing monitoring during prolonged therapy (Bindu et al, 2020). Concerns regarding adverse events associated with long-term NSAID administration are also widely recognized among veterinary professionals managing dogs with osteoarthritis, particularly with prolonged treatment courses (Belshaw et al, 2016).
- Bedinvetmab (Librela) is a canine monoclonal antibody targeting nerve growth factor (NGF), representing a newer approach to chronic pain management. Monthly subcutaneous administration demonstrated efficacy in reducing osteoarthritis-associated pain in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multisite trial enrolling 287 client-owned dogs (Corral et al, 2021). It should be noted that this trial was conducted and authored by Zoetis employees, and independent critical analysis has identified methodological limitations including use of baseline pain scores collected after initial treatment had commenced, which may affect interpretation of results.
Growing concern has emerged regarding neurological adverse events. In December 2024, the FDA issued a “Dear Veterinarian Letter” describing reports of ataxia, seizures, paresis, recumbency, and urinary incontinence associated with its use. This concern is biologically plausible: NGF plays an important role in neuronal maintenance and repair, and sustained NGF blockade in dogs with pre-existing neurological disease, including IVDD, degenerative myelopathy, or polyneuropathy, may carry unintended consequences. Clinicians are encouraged to exercise particular caution in these patient populations while further data emerges.
Integrative approaches: what the evidence currently supports
As the limitations of drug-centered management become increasingly apparent, interest in integrative therapies for canine neuropathic pain has grown substantially. These approaches should not be viewed as alternatives to evidence-based pharmacology, but as components of a broader multimodal strategy aimed at improving neurological recovery, reducing pain burden, and minimizing long-term drug exposure. The quality and quantity of evidence varies considerably among modalities, and this is noted explicitly below.
- Electroacupuncture: Among integrative therapies, electroacupuncture currently has one of the strongest bodies of supportive published evidence in veterinary neurology and rehabilitation, particularly for dogs with intervertebral disc disease (IVDD). Clinical studies have reported improved neurologic recovery, faster return to ambulation, and better functional outcomes when electroacupuncture is incorporated into treatment protocols alongside conventional care (Hayashi et al, 2007; Joaquim et al, 2010). A 2021 narrative review by Dragomir et al further concluded that electroacupuncture represents a well-supported complementary therapy for spinal cord injury-associated pain and neurologic dysfunction in veterinary patients.
The proposed mechanisms are multifactorial and directly relevant to neuropathic pain biology. Electroacupuncture has been shown to stimulate endogenous opioid release, including endorphins and enkephalins, while also modulating serotonergic and noradrenergic descending pain pathways. Additional proposed effects include attenuation of NMDA receptor activity and reduction of neuroinflammatory signaling, mechanisms that may help decrease central sensitization and abnormal pain transmission.
Importantly, electroacupuncture maintains a comparatively favorable adverse-effect profile relative to many pharmacologic therapies commonly used for neuropathic pain. Although limitations within the current literature include relatively small sample sizes, heterogeneous patient populations, variable treatment protocols, and limited sham-controlled veterinary studies, the overall mechanistic rationale and cumulative clinical findings remain encouraging.
- Physical rehabilitation and hydrotherapy: Physical rehabilitation has become a cornerstone of modern neurological recovery protocols in dogs. Contemporary programs incorporate gait retraining, assisted standing, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, targeted strengthening exercises, balance work, and hydrotherapy.
Beyond improving mobility, rehabilitation appears capable of promoting functional neuroplasticity. A prospective study by Dalmolin et al, (2023) demonstrated that 58% of paraplegic dogs lacking deep pain perception in the hindlimbs ultimately developed spinal walking following intensive physiotherapy and the use of assistive standing devices, a finding with significant implications for patient prognosis and the decision not to pursue euthanasia in severely affected cases.
Hydrotherapy offers particular advantages in neurological patients: buoyancy reduces axial loading while permitting repetitive limb movement and controlled muscle activation. Early initiation of comprehensive rehabilitation has increasingly been recognized as a major determinant of functional recovery. Rehabilitation therapies carry minimal systemic risk while concurrently improving strength, coordination, endurance, and patient confidence, functional benefits that may be as clinically meaningful as analgesia in chronic neuropathic disease.
- Photobiomodulation (laser therapy): Photobiomodulation has gained traction in both veterinary rehabilitation and pain management. Proposed mechanisms include enhanced mitochondrial ATP production, modulation of inflammatory mediators, improved microcirculation, and support of tissue repair and peripheral nerve regeneration.
Evidence specific to canine neuropathic pain remains limited. A randomized controlled trial by Gatta et al (2025), evaluating laser acupuncture in 19 dogs with osteoarthritis, demonstrated significant improvements in pain scores and meaningful changes in inflammatory markers (IL-6, IL-10) and muscle enzymes relative to controls after 30 days. This study involved a small sample and an osteoarthritis-specific context; its findings cannot be directly extrapolated to neuropathic conditions and should be interpreted as preliminary evidence.
Mechanistic evidence from experimental models suggests potential benefits in reducing neuroinflammation and supporting neural healing. Photobiomodulation’s favorable safety profile makes it a reasonable adjunctive therapy within a multimodal protocol, while acknowledging that neuropathic-specific canine evidence remains an area requiring further study.
Nutraceuticals as adjunctive therapy
Nutraceuticals are increasingly incorporated into chronic pain protocols due to their potential anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and analgesic properties. Evidence varies considerably by compound. For most agents, controlled canine-specific evidence remains limited, and extrapolation from human or rodent data should be made with explicit acknowledgment of that limitation.
- Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), an endogenous lipid mediator, has gained interest primarily from human clinical research. Recent meta-analyses reported significant pain reduction and improved quality of life across nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain conditions, with a generally favorable safety profile (Lang-Illievich et al, 2023; Viña and López-Moreno, 2025). However, controlled clinical trials specifically evaluating PEA for neuropathic pain in dogs are still lacking.
Although PEA is frequently discussed for conditions such as syringomyelia in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, robust peer-reviewed canine studies supporting its use for this indication have not yet been published. PEA should therefore be viewed as a biologically plausible adjunct with supportive human evidence, while canine-specific clinical evidence remains preliminary.
- Omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) demonstrate neuroprotective potential in experimental nerve injury models. Miranda et al (2017) demonstrated that combined EPA/DHA supplementation following peripheral nerve injury in mice significantly reduced neuropathic pain behavior, lowered spinal cord TNF levels, and increased markers of axonal regeneration.
In client-owned dogs, Carlisle et al (2024) found that Omega-3 supplementation was associated with a 19% reduction in overall pain scores, primarily in small and medium-sized dogs, attributed to anti-inflammatory mechanisms. These studies have evaluated osteoarthritis-related pain rather than neuropathic pain specifically. The mechanistic case for omega-3 inclusion in neuropathic pain protocols is nonetheless reasonable, with a favorable safety profile.
- Cannabidiol (CBD) has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials for canine osteoarthritis and mobility disorders. Gamble et al (2018) reported significant reductions in pain scores and improvements in activity at 2 mg/kg twice daily in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial.
A more recent prospective double-blind crossover study by Talsma et al (2024) in dogs with mobility disorders further supported CBD’s potential, but also documented greater alkaline phosphatase (ALP) elevations when CBD was co-administered with NSAIDs, a combination that is common in neuropathic pain management. ALP elevation has been a consistent finding across multiple canine CBD studies and, while current evidence does not indicate clinical hepatotoxicity, routine liver enzyme monitoring is recommended with chronic CBD use.
Evidence specific to canine neuropathic pain remains absent; the mechanistic rationale is plausible, but clinicians should apply an appropriate degree of caution and monitor hepatic parameters accordingly.
- Curcumin and Boswellia serrata have demonstrated anti-inflammatory properties. A blinded, randomized study by Caterino et al (2021) found that combined curcumin and Boswellic acid supplementation produced superior gait improvements in dogs with osteoarthritis, as measured by force plate analysis, when compared with a standard nutraceutical protocol alone. Canine neuropathic-specific evidence is currently lacking. These compounds are positioned as potentially useful adjuncts given their anti-inflammatory mechanisms and generally favorable safety profile relative to chronic NSAID use.
- Macleaya cordata extract represents an early-stage area of interest. A small clinical trial by Petchnamthong et al (2024) in ten dogs (five per group) with cervical IVDD-associated neuropathic pain reported analgesic effects broadly comparable to pregabalin over a 14-day period, with no significant differences in sensory threshold outcomes between groups at Day 14. Given the very small sample size and short follow-up duration, this finding should be regarded as hypothesis-generating only.
The integrative framework: a practical clinical pathway
Effective neuropathic pain management requires a structured, multimodal approach rather than progressive escalation of medication alone. The following framework reflects this author’s clinical approach, informed by the evidence reviewed above. It is offered as a practical guide rather than a validated protocol, and individual patient factors, including concurrent disease, temperament, owner resources, and treatment response, must guide clinical decision-making at each step.
Step 1: Identify neuropathic pain early and objectively
Screen for neuropathic pain in dogs with chronic spinal disease, persistent post-surgical discomfort, unexplained behavioral change, hyperesthesia, allodynia, or pain that appears out of proportion to imaging findings. A structured clinical approach is essential, combining neurological examination, gait analysis, posture and movement assessment, owner questionnaires, home video review, and quality-of-life scoring to establish a reliable baseline.
Where possible, incorporate objective sensory testing methods such as mechanical or thermal threshold testing to better quantify pain sensitivity and track change over time. These methods can help reduce reliance on subjective interpretation, particularly in cases where clinical signs are subtle or fluctuating.
The toolbox approach described by Kwik et al (2025) provides a particularly useful model for cases in which behavioral signs are prominent. It integrates caregiver questionnaires, home video observation, and chronological mapping of clinical and behavioral signs onto a structured timeline, enabling clinicians to distinguish adaptive behavioral responses from red flags that may indicate underlying maladaptive pain.
Step 2: Stabilize pain with targeted pharmacology
Initiate evidence-based analgesics appropriate to the patient’s neurological and systemic status. Gabapentinoids, amantadine, and NSAIDs may be used strategically, but the lowest effective dose should be prioritized and unnecessary long-term escalation avoided where possible. The limitations of each agent reviewed in Section II should inform drug selection, particularly in patients with concurrent hepatic, renal, or neurological compromise. Where combination therapy is considered, the mechanistic rationale may help guide drug selection toward complementary rather than redundant mechanisms.
Step 3: Introduce non-pharmacologic therapies early
Rather than reserving integrative therapies for refractory cases, incorporating rehabilitation, hydrotherapy, electroacupuncture, and photobiomodulation early in the treatment plan may improve mobility, reduce central sensitization, and decrease dependence on sedating medications. Rehabilitation should be structured and progressive, focusing on controlled movement, assisted walking, and strengthening exercises tailored to neurological status and pain tolerance.
Environmental modifications such as improving traction, limiting stairs, providing supportive bedding, and maintaining consistent routines can reduce pain triggers and improve daily function. Electroacupuncture and photobiomodulation may be used as adjunctive modalities to support pain modulation and functional recovery when integrated into a broader multimodal plan. Clear owner guidance is essential to ensure safe activity levels, prevent flare-ups, and support consistent implementation of the rehabilitation plan.
Step 4: Add nutritional and neuroprotective support
Alongside core pain control strategies, targeted nutritional support can help modulate inflammation and support nervous system resilience. Omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) are commonly used as a baseline adjunct, with evidence in dogs suggesting benefits for pain modulation and overall quality of life in chronic musculoskeletal conditions, likely through downstream effects on inflammatory mediators.
Cannabidiol (CBD) has also been explored as an adjunct option for chronic pain management in dogs. Early veterinary studies suggest potential improvements in comfort and activity levels in some patients, although responses are variable and product quality, dosing, and long-term safety remain areas of active investigation. It is best used as an adjunct rather than a primary analgesic, and only with veterinary oversight due to variability in regulatory status and formulation standards.
Nutritional optimization through a minimally processed, whole-food diet that is nutritionally complete and appropriately balanced may reduce systemic inflammatory load and support gut-brain axis health. This recommendation is grounded in the general peer-reviewed evidence for whole-food diets in dogs rather than in any specific proprietary product.
Step 5: Address systemic contributors
Evaluate and manage factors that may perpetuate chronic pain, including obesity, inactivity, poor muscle condition, and chronic systemic inflammation. A dog carrying excess weight places greater mechanical load on an already compromised nervous system; body condition management is an integral component of any genuine multimodal plan. Where appropriate and consistent with the evidence-based limitations outlined in the sidebar on page xx, dietary support for gut microbiome health may offer complementary systemic anti-inflammatory benefit, though this is not yet a recommendation with direct evidence support for neuropathic pain specifically.
Step 6: Monitor function, not just pain scores
Long-term response should be evaluated using real-world functional outcomes such as mobility, activity level, sleep quality, behavioral engagement, and overall quality of life, rather than relying on pain scores alone. Regular follow-up assessments help track meaningful clinical change over time and identify whether improvements are sustained or transient.
Reassessment should also account for the variability inherent in subjective reporting, ensuring that observed changes are supported by consistent patterns across multiple measures, including clinical examination and day-to-day behavior.
Ultimately, the goal of integrative neuropathic pain management is not simply to suppress symptoms, but to achieve meaningful functional improvement with the lowest possible treatment burden.
The bottom line on conventional drugs
Conventional medications can be valuable tools for managing pain and supporting quality of life, and many dogs may benefit from them when they’re used appropriately. However, every medication carries potential limitations, including sedation, adverse gastrointestinal effects, impacts on organ function, drug interactions, and variable efficacy. These factors may constrain long-term use or necessitate ongoing monitoring in some cases.
This is not an argument against pharmacologic intervention. Rather, it highlights the importance of incorporating medications into a comprehensive, multimodal treatment strategy that addresses not only pain perception but also mobility, neurological function, and overall patient quality of life. Such an approach may improve clinical outcomes while reducing reliance on any single therapeutic modality.
The gut-brain axis: an emerging area of interest
A growing body of evidence in human and animal medicine suggests that gut microbiota may influence neurological and behavioral outcomes through metabolic, neural, endocrine, and immune-mediated pathways. Disruption of commensal microbial communities, or dysbiosis, has been implicated in conditions involving systemic inflammation and altered immune regulation.
Of translational relevance, the canine gut microbiome has been described as more closely resembling that of humans than rodent models in composition and functional overlap, positioning dogs as a meaningful model for gut-brain research (Ambrosini et al, 2019). A systematic review (Mazotta et al, 2026) confirmed bidirectional gut-brain communication in dogs in the context of neurodegenerative disease and anxiety disorders. Work by Sacoor et al (2024) documented the gut-brain axis’s relevance to canine anxiety and behavioral disorders, which share neuroinflammatory mechanisms with chronic pain states.
It is important to be explicit about the limits of this evidence: no published canine studies have examined microbiome-targeted interventions specifically for neuropathic pain, and the existing literature is focused on anxiety, behavioral disorders, and neurodegenerative disease rather than pain. This section is included as an area of emerging scientific interest and a rationale for prioritizing gut health within an integrative wellness framework, not as a clinical recommendation with direct evidence support for neuropathic pain management.
Conclusion
The growing evidence surrounding canine neuropathic pain increasingly challenges the assumption that chronic pain can be adequately managed through pharmacological suppression alone. While conventional analgesics remain important clinical tools, their limitations reveal a larger reality: neuropathic pain is not simply a disorder of pain signaling, but a complex condition involving neuroinflammation, maladaptive plasticity, impaired function, behavioral change, and declining quality of life. The diagnostic gap, the absence of validated canine-specific neuropathic pain assessment instruments, further compounds this challenge, making it difficult to reliably identify affected patients, monitor treatment response, or distinguish genuine improvement from placebo-driven owner perception.
This distinction has direct clinical implications. Escalating medication in the absence of broader therapeutic support may reduce visible signs of discomfort while simultaneously increasing sedation, inactivity, and treatment burden. In some patients, the result is not true recovery, but prolonged functional decline under heavier pharmacological management.
The evidence reviewed in this article supports the inclusion of integrative strategies earlier in the treatment course rather than as last-resort alternatives. Rehabilitation and electroacupuncture carry the strongest veterinary evidence base; photobiomodulation and nutraceutical support offer mechanistically plausible adjunctive options where canine-specific controlled data are still developing. For each modality and compound discussed, the current state of evidence, its species-specificity, and its methodological limitations have been stated explicitly. Clinicians can apply a judicious, evidence-informed approach while acknowledging uncertainty where it exists.
As veterinary medicine continues to evolve, the management of neuropathic pain may benefit from a shift away from a predominantly drug-centered model toward a function-centered one, focused not only on suppressing pain intensity, but on preserving mobility, neurological adaptability, behavioral normalcy, and long-term quality of life. The goal should not be to create quieter patients through escalating sedation, but to restore the greatest degree of comfort, function, and engagement possible for dogs living with chronic neurological disease.
References
Alelwani W, et al. (2021). “Pregabalin abuse and toxicity and related factors.” International Research Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences, 9(1).
Ambrosini YM, Borcherding D, Kanthasamy A, Kim HJ, Willette AA, Jergens A, Allenspach K, Mochel JP. (2019). “The gut-brain axis in neurodegenerative diseases and relevance of the canine model: a review”. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 130.
Beakley BD, Kaye AM, Kaye AD. “Tramadol, pharmacology, side effects, and serotonin syndrome: a review.” Pain Physician. 2015;18(4):395-400.
Belshaw Z, Asher L, Dean RS. “The attitudes of owners and veterinary professionals in the United Kingdom to the risk of adverse events associated with using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat dogs with osteoarthritis.” Prev Vet Med. 2016 Sep 1;131:121-126. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.07.017. Epub 2016 Aug 1. PMID: 27544261; PMCID: PMC5001196.
Bindu S, Mazumder S, Bandyopadhyay U. (2020). “Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and organ damage: a current perspective.” Biochemical Pharmacology, 180, 114147.
Carlisle C, Metzger BT, Tintle NL, Polley K, Jackson KH, Le Brun-Blashka S, Griffiths J, Burri L. (2024). “The effects of omega-3 supplementation on the omega-3 index and quality of life and pain scores in dogs.” Animals, 14(21), 3108.
Caterino C, Aragosa F, Della Valle G, Cavalli S, Lamagna F, Fatone G. (2025). “Amantadine as a therapeutic option for neuropathic pain in dogs with degenerative lumbosacral stenosis.” BMC Veterinary Research, 21, 469.
Caterino C, et al. (2021). “Clinical efficacy of Curcuvet and Boswellic acid combined with conventional nutraceutical product: an aid to canine osteoarthritis.” PLOS One, 16(6), e0252279.
Corral MJ, et al. (2021). “A prospective, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled multisite clinical study of bedinvetmab, a canine monoclonal antibody targeting nerve growth factor, in dogs with osteoarthritis.” Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, 48(6), 943-955.
Dalmolin F, et al. (2023). “Recovery of spinal walking in paraplegic dogs using physiotherapy and supportive devices to maintain the standing position.” Animals, 13(8), 1398.
Del Giorno R, et al. (2025). “Meta-analysis of palmitoylethanolamide in pain management: addressing literature gaps and enhancing understanding.” Nutrition Reviews, 83(7), e1604.
Domínguez-Oliva A, Casas-Alvarado A, Miranda-Cortés AE, Hernández-Avalos I. “Clinical pharmacology of tramadol and tapentadol, and their therapeutic efficacy in different models of acute and chronic pain in dogs and cats.” J Adv Vet Anim Res. 2021 Sep 19;8(3):404-422. doi: 10.5455/javar.2021.h529. PMID: 34722739; PMCID: PMC8520146.
Dragomir A, et al. (2021). “Current aspects regarding the clinical relevance of electroacupuncture in dogs with spinal cord injury: a literature review.” Animals, 11(1), 138.
FDA. (December 2024). “Dear Veterinarian Letter: Librela (bedinvetmab) — reports of neurological adverse events.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration. fda.gov.
Gamble LJ, Boesch JM, Frye CW, Schwark WS, Mann S, Wolfe L, Brown H, Berthelsen ES, Wakshlag JJ. (2018). “Pharmacokinetics, safety, and clinical efficacy of cannabidiol treatment in osteoarthritic dogs.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5, 165.
Gatta C, Calzaretta G, Musco N, Aragosa F, Cavalli S, Damiano S, Lombardi P, Ferrentino A, Lotito D, Della Valle G, Pero ME. (2025). “Laser acupuncture effects on chronic pain, inflammatory response, and biochemical and oxidative stress markers in osteoarthritic dogs: a randomized controlled trial.” Animals, 15(17), 2568.
Hassamal S, Miotto K, Dale W, Danovitch I. (2018). “Tramadol: understanding the risk of serotonin syndrome and seizures.” American Journal of Medicine, 131(11), 1382.e1-1382.e6.
Hayashi AM, Matera JM, de Campos Fonseca Pinto, ACB. (2007). “Evaluation of electroacupuncture treatment for thoracolumbar intervertebral disk disease in dogs.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 231(6), 913-918.
Joaquim JGF, Luna SPL, Brondani JT, Torelli SR, Rahal SC, de Paula Freitas F. (2010). “Comparison of decompressive surgery, electroacupuncture, and decompressive surgery followed by electroacupuncture for the treatment of dogs with intervertebral disk disease with long-standing severe neurological deficits.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 236(11), 1225-1229.
Kirby-Madden T, Waring CT, Herron M. (2024). “Effects of gabapentin on the treatment of behavioral disorders in dogs: a retrospective evaluation.” Animals, 14(10), 1462.
Kukanich B, Bidgood T, Knesl O. (2012). “Clinical pharmacology of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in dogs.” Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, 39(1), 69-90.
Kwik J, De Keuster T, Bosmans T, Mottet J. (2025). “Detection of maladaptive pain in dogs referred for behavioral complaints: challenges and opportunities.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 19, 1569351.
Lang-Illievich K, Klivinyi C, Lasser C, Brenna CTA, Szilagyi IS, Bornemann-Cimenti H. (2023). “Palmitoylethanolamide in the treatment of chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials.” Nutrients, 15(6), 1350.
Mazotta E, et al. (2026). “Intestinal dysbiosis relating to gut-brain axis and behavior in dogs: a systematic review with text mining approach.” Animals, 16(6), 986.
Miranda HF, et al. (2017). “Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids supplementation accelerates nerve regeneration and prevents neuropathic pain behavior in mice.” Frontiers in Pharmacology, 8, 723.
Moore SA. (2016). “Managing neuropathic pain in dogs.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 3, 12.
Parker RL. (2024). “Comparative analysis of chronic neuropathic pain and pain assessment in companion animals and humans.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11, 1520043.
Petchnamthong S, Krambunlue T, Suwanna N. (2024). “Macleaya extract versus pregabalin therapeutic effectiveness for neuropathic pain in dogs.” Veterinary Medicine International, 2024, 9939754.
Plessas IN, Volk HA, Rusbridge C, Vanhaesebrouck AE, Jeffery ND. (2015). “Comparison of gabapentin versus topiramate on clinically affected dogs with Chiari-like malformation and syringomyelia.” Veterinary Record, 177(11), 288.
Ruel HLM, Watanabe R, Evangelista MC, Beauchamp G, Auger JP, Segura M, Arendt-Nielsen L, Mogil JS, Troncy E. (2020). “Pain burden, sensory profile and inflammatory cytokines of dogs with naturally-occurring neuropathic pain treated with gabapentin alone or with meloxicam.” PLOS One, 15(11), e0237121.
Sacoor C, Marugg JD, Lima NR, Empadinhas N, Montezinho L. (2024). “Gut-brain axis impact on canine anxiety disorders: new challenges for behavioral veterinary medicine.” Veterinary Medicine International, 2024, 1827376.
Serrano Afonso A, Carnaval T, Videla Ces S. (2021). “Combination therapy for neuropathic pain: a review of recent evidence.” Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(16), 3533.
Talsma BN, Elam L, McGrath S, Zhou T, Webb T, Duerr FM. (2024). “Evaluation of the effect of cannabidiol administration with and without nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in dogs with mobility disorders: a prospective, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11, 1449343.
Toth C. (2014). “Pregabalin: latest safety evidence and clinical implications for the management of neuropathic pain.” Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, 5(1), 38-56.
AUTHOR PROFILE
Veterinarian Dr. Ruth Roberts blends traditional veterinary practices with holistic approaches. She holds certifications in Veterinary Chinese Herbology, Veterinary Food Therapy, Veterinary Acupuncture, and Natural Animal Nutrition. Dr. Roberts is the creator of the Original CrockPet Diet and founded the Certified Holistic Pet Health Coach Program. She shares her expertise through consultations, webinars, and her popular blog.
