Table 1.
Demographic data and CSS, PSS and PIS basal scores for the ITT population.
Fig 1.
Flowchart showing number of patients recruited, allocated to each treatment, and analysed.
(ITT: Intention To Treat; PP: Per Protocol).
Table 2.
Non inferiority analysis for the veterinary assessment: CSS; CSSAUC; responders’ rate (CSS) and for the owner assessment: PSS, PIS, responders rate (CBPI).
Fig 2.
Average CSS (mean±Standard Error) for each time point and treatment.
Asterisks indicate superiority vs placebo (*p<0.05 **p<0.01).
Fig 3.
Percentage of CSS responders (CSS<6) in each treatment group and time point during the study.
Asterisks indicate superiority vs placebo (*p<0.05 **p<0.01).
Fig 4.
Average PSS and PIS scores (mean±Standard Error) for each time point and treatment.
Asterisks indicate superiority vs placebo (*p<0.05 **p<0.01). a) PSS. b) PIS.
Fig 5.
Percentage of CBPI responders (reduction in PSS≥1 and PIS≥2) in each treatment group and time point during the study.
Asterisks indicate superiority vs placebo (*p<0.05 **p<0.01).
Fig 6.
Percentage of dogs with a quality of life classified as “excellent”, “very good” or “good” in each treatment group and time point during the study.
Asterisks indicate superiority vs placebo (*p<0.05 **p<0.01).
Table 3.
Digestive tract disorders reported as AE, classified as A, B or O.