Ludovica Chiavaccini
Rachel Anne Reed
Claudia Spadavecchia
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- 1Department of Comparative, Diagnostic, and Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
- 2Department of Large Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States
- 3Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Editorial on the Research Topic
Advancement in equine pain management
“Pain is a more terrible lord of mankind than even death itself.”—Albert Schweitzer. Pain is a global issue affecting humans and animals, and over the past decade, research into its biology, treatment, and prevention has flourished. However, progress in equine pain research has lagged behind its small animal counterpart. Painful conditions in horses are often overlooked by owners and practitioners, leading to inadequate recognition and management of pain (1–3). Accurate pain assessment is essential for ensuring appropriate analgesia in equine patients. Yet, studies reveal significant gaps in knowledge and action, even among confident horse owners in the UK and US (2). For example, while owners may recognize signs of colic (abdominal pain), their responses to emergencies are often inconsistent. Furthermore, equine pain recognition and treatment remain underexplored in low- and middle-income countries (Laleye et al.), where limited resources, inadequate training, cultural diversity, and language barriers contribute to animals not receiving basic pain treatment. The retrospective study by Laleye et al. demonstrated that delays in recognizing abdominal pain and referring horses for treatment increase mortality and hospital expenses, in Senegal.
Some of this discrepancy in pain recognition stems from the subtle and multifaceted expressions of pain in horses (3). Although several equine pain scales have been developed (4–9), their implementation in practice remains inconsistent. Factors such as lack of exposure, misinterpretation, or overinterpretation of these tools contribute to the gap in pain recognition and treatment (10). For example, Reed et al. showed that the residual effects of general anesthesia may affect the accuracy of facial expression-based pain scoring systems in the hours immediately following anesthetic recovery.
The inherent subjectivity of evaluating pain behavior is a challenge to achieving objective and quantitative pain assessment. A standardized scale for clinical and research applications could address these limitations. In the study of Nowak et al., specific behavioral indicators—such as weight shifting and unstable resting—appeared reliable tools for distinguishing between horses experiencing musculoskeletal pain and those that were pain-free. Severely painful horses displayed reduced feeding and resting behavior while standing, along with increased unstable resting. These findings align with previous research highlighting postural behaviors as dependable pain indicators, particularly in orthopedic conditions (11, 12). In this issue, Auer et al. refined an equine musculoskeletal pain scale (MPS) by integrating elements of the equine pain face (13, 14), posture, head–neck position, weight-bearing, and weight shifting. This updated MPS provides a comprehensive framework for assessing chronic orthopedic pain in horses and explores incorporating visual information into automated pain recognition systems, offering new avenues for introducing objectivity in pain assessment in veterinary medicine (15).
While subjective pain scales and objective gait analysis systems quantify lameness severity in horses (16, 17), quantitative sensory testing (QST) methods—widely used in human medicine to define pain phenotypes—remain underexplored in equine practice. Mechanisms such as impaired autonomic joint innervation, nociceptive fiber plasticity, and dysfunction of descending pain inhibitory pathways likely contribute to chronic pain persistence. Gisler et al. demonstrated the feasibility and reliability of periarticular pressure pain assessment in healthy horses' distal thoracic limb joints. Their findings showed good repeatability among researchers, suggesting that periarticular pressure mapping could be a valuable complementary diagnostic tool for evaluating and mapping orthopedic pain phenotypes in horses. Furthermore, QST devices hold potential for assessing disruptions in modulatory pathways associated with chronic pain, offering insights into peripheral and central sensitization. For instance, the lip twitch, causing pressure on the upper lip, has been hypothesized to activate opioidergic and non-opioidergic descending modulatory pathways in horses (18). Blum et al. supported this theory by showing that lip-twitch application increased nociceptive withdrawal reflex and thermal pain thresholds in healthy horses. Integrating QST methods and assessments of conditioned pain modulation into equine practice could advance understanding of chronic pain mechanisms, improving diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.
Opioids are integral to analgesic protocols due to their high potency and efficacy in treating different pain in human and veterinary medicine. Injectable µ-receptor opioid agonists such as morphine, hydromorphone and methadone are commonly used perioperatively in horses. However, concerns about excitation (19), decreased gastrointestinal motility (20–22), and the conflicting data on the analgesic efficacy of full mu opioids in horses with naturally occurring diseases (23) often deter their use. In this special issue, Paranjape et al. and Reed et al. explored the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl in horses. These studies demonstrated good tolerance and prolonged therapeutic plasma concentrations but variable efficacy in increasing thermal or mechanical thresholds. Haralambus et al. investigated the incidence of postoperative colic (PAC), reporting an overall rate of 15.1%. The study also examined opioid use, noting that intraoperative or short-term postoperative administration did not increase PAC rates. However, long-term administration (greater than 24 h) of morphine significantly raised the PAC incidence to 34% (p = 0.0038), whereas long-term butorphanol or methadone had no significant effect. These findings underscore the importance of cautious opioid selection in postoperative pain management and use of the lowest effective dose and frequency.
Given the limitations of prolonged opioid treatment, non-pharmacological interventional techniques may offer valuable alternatives for managing chronic pain in horses. In this issue, Amari et al. propose ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of the palmar digital nerve as a potential treatment for horses with chronic distal forelimb lameness. Histopathological findings revealed consistent axonal degeneration, which, in clinical settings, would translate into effective management of chronic pain, as seen in human and veterinary literature.
In conclusion, the Special Issue of “Advancements in equine pain management” features 11 articles showcasing the latest progress in understanding and managing equine pain. The collection explores diverse topics, including diagnostic innovations, pharmacological advances, and cutting-edge interventional techniques. While addressing every facet of equine pain in a single issue is impossible, this selection emphasizes novel methodologies and interdisciplinary research to improve equine welfare. Authored by leading experts in the field, these articles provide a comprehensive and accessible overview of equine pain recognition and management, making them invaluable resources for researchers and clinicians. The contributions highlight advancements from foundational science to clinical applications, employing a “bench to bedside” approach that bridges research and practice. We hope this collection will provide an insightful reading and inspire further innovation and collaboration in the ongoing effort to improve the lives of equine patients across the globe.
Author contributions
LC: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. RR: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. CS: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Lillie AK, Read S, Mallen C, Croft P, McBeth J. Musculoskeletal pain in older adults at the end-of-life: a systematic search and critical review of the literature with priorities for future research. BMC Palliat Care. (2013) 12(1):27. doi: 10.1186/1472-684X-12-27
2. Curtis L, Burford JH, Thomas JS, Curran ML, Bayes TC, England GC, et al. Prospective study of the primary evaluation of 1016 horses with clinical signs of abdominal pain by veterinary practitioners, and the differentiation of critical and non-critical cases. Acta Vet Scand. (2015) 57:69. doi: 10.1186/s13028-015-0160-9
3. Bowden A, Burford JH, Brennan ML, England GCW, Freeman SL. Horse owners’ knowledge, and opinions on recognising colic in the horse. Equine Vet J. (2020) 52(2):262–7. doi: 10.1111/evj.13173
4. Ask K, Andersen PH, Tamminen LM, Rhodin M, Hernlund E. Performance of four equine pain scales and their association to movement asymmetry in horses with induced orthopedic pain. Front Vet Sci. (2022) 9:938022. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.938022
5. Barreto da Rocha P, Driessen B, McDonnell SM, Hopster K, Zarucco L, Gozalo-Marcilla M, et al. A critical evaluation for validation of composite and unidimensional postoperative pain scales in horses. PLoS One. (2021) 16(8):e0255618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255618
6. Sutton GA, Paltiel O, Soffer M, Turner D. Validation of two behaviour-based pain scales for horses with acute colic. Vet J. (2013) 197(3):646–50. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.04.007
7. de Grauw JC, van Loon JP. Systematic pain assessment in horses. Vet J. (2016) 209:14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.030
8. Rosenzweig S, Lawson AL, Archer DC, Ireland JL. Comparison of the horse grimace scale (HGS), the composite pain scale (CPS) and the equine Utrecht university scale for composite pain assessment (EQUUS-compass scale) for assessment of colic patients. Equine Vet Educ. (2021) 33(S12):8. doi: 10.1111/eve.4_13534
9. Sutton GA, Atamna R, Steinman A, Mair TS. Comparison of three acute colic pain scales: reliability, validity and usability. Vet J. (2019) 246:71–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2019.01.004
10. Ireland JL, Clegg PD, McGowan CM, McKane SA, Chandler KJ, Pinchbeck GL. Comparison of owner-reported health problems with veterinary assessment of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom. Equine Vet J. (2012) 44(1):94–100. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00394.x
11. Gellman K, Ruina A. Standing horse posture: a longer stance is more stable. Biol Open. (2022) 11(4):bio059139. doi: 10.1242/bio.059139
12. Werner P, Al-Hamadi A, Limbrecht-Ecklundt K, Walter S, Traue HC. Head movements and postures as pain behavior. PLoS One. (2018) 13(2):e0192767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192767
13. Costa ED, Minero M, Lebelt D, Stucke D, Canali E, Leach MC. Development of the horse grimace scale (HGS) as a pain assessment tool in horses undergoing routine castration. PLoS One. (2014) 9(3):e92281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092281
14. Gleerup KB, Andersen PH, Munksgaard L, Forkman B. Pain evaluation in dairy cattle. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2015) 171:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.023
15. Chiavaccini L, Gupta A, Anclade N, Chiavaccini G, De Gennaro C, Johnson AN, et al. Automated acute pain prediction in domestic goats using deep learning-based models on video-recordings. Sci Rep. (2024) 14(1):27104. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-78494-0
16. McCracken MJ, Kramer J, Keegan KG, Lopes M, Wilson DA, Reed SK, et al. Comparison of an inertial sensor system of lameness quantification with subjective lameness evaluation. Equine Vet J. (2012) 44(6):652–6. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00571.x
17. Al Naem M, Litzke LF, Failing K, Burk J, Rocken M. Hoof kinetic patterns differ between sound and laminitic horses. Equine Vet J. (2021) 53(3):503–9. doi: 10.1111/evj.13311
18. Lagerweij E, Nelis PC, Wiegant VM, van Ree JM. The twitch in horses: a variant of acupuncture. Science. (1984) 225(4667):1172–4. doi: 10.1126/science.6089344
19. Flynn H, Cenani A, Brosnan RJ, DiMaio Knych HK, de Araujo Aguiar AJ. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a high concentration of buprenorphine (simbadol) in conscious horses after subcutaneous administration. Vet Anaesth Analg. (2021) 48(4):585–95. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2021.02.005
20. Skrzypczak H, Reed R, Barletta M, Quandt J, Sakai D. A retrospective evaluation of the effect of perianesthetic hydromorphone administration on the incidence of postanesthetic signs of colic in horses. Vet Anaesth Analg. (2020) 47(6):757–62. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2020.06.003
21. Menozzi A, Pozzoli C, Zullian C, Poli E, Serventi P, Bertini S. Inhibition of motility in isolated horse small intestine is mediated by kappa but not micro opioid receptors. Equine Vet J. (2012) 44(3):368–70. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00426.x
22. Boscan P, Van Hoogmoed LM, Farver TB, Snyder JR. Evaluation of the effects of the opioid agonist morphine on gastrointestinal tract function in horses. Am J Vet Res. (2006) 67(6):992–7. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.67.6.992
Keywords: equine, pain, drug therapy, quantitative sensory testing (QST), clinical metrology index
Citation: Chiavaccini L, Reed RA and Spadavecchia C (2025) Editorial: Advancements in equine pain management. Front. Pain Res. 6:1547764. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2025.1547764
Received: 18 December 2024; Accepted: 20 January 2025;
Published: 5 February 2025.
Edited and Reviewed by: B. Duncan X. Lascelles, North Carolina State University, United States
Copyright: © 2025 Chiavaccini, Reed and Spadavecchia. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ludovica Chiavaccini, bGNoaWF2YWNjaW5pQHVmbC5lZHU=