People who use Egusin OR who understand science papers please! :)

P

philamena

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 November 2009
Messages
1,347
Visit site
So have been reading about Egusin after hearing quite a few people have had success with it, but am always keen to look for evidence. I found this paper which is quoted by various sources as support for its effectiveness.

http://freepdfhosting.com/e48b994a0b.pdf

But I don't really understand its findings... They tested by using Egusin & giving lots of hay for 3 weeks, then inducing ulcers in the 4th week by continuing Egusin but not feeding often enough, then they went back on lots of hay plus Egusin, as they had been before. Their graphs show that in the first three weeks AND when they restarted treatment, the product reduced the ulcers, and the ulcers flared up in the 4th week when they withheld feed.

But in the conclusion sections, they seem to suggest two things which are confusing my non-scientific brain:

1) Does this suggest that to be effective it's best used on very newly formed ulcers???
2) I don't understand why they're saying the reduction in ulcers by week 3 is 'not significant' when it's almost as big a reduction as they achieve on the newly formed ulcers, which they claim IS significant.

Am I being thick?
 
I do clinical research for a living.
I looked at the paper quickly (9 horses only!!) but got confused about what they were doing and what they were trying to achive/show

Will need to sit down and digest fully, it badly written IMO which hinders understanding
 
Thanks for looking at it. I'm glad it's not just me, didn't seem very clear at all. If you do have the time / inclination later would be really interested in knowing what you think as you're a bit of a hexpert!.
 
Hi, I work in clinical research and have had a quick read through. Agree paper is confusing without a definitive overall conclusion at the end!

Main points I have taken from the paper are;

1) Egusin does not reduce ulcer number/severity in well-fed, unstressed horses (no difference in wk 3 from control)

2) Egusin does not prevent stress-induced ulcers from forming (no difference in wk 4 from control)

3) Egusin does appear to decrease severity of ulcers (i.e. increase healing) following a return to normal feeding (significant difference from control at wk 5)

I have read no other ulcer-related papers so cannot comment on the quality and strength of the research or applicability to the average horse owner. I agree that long-term benefits of Egusin have not been studied here (ie. horses with severe ulcers that have not responded to management changes over time such as ad-lib feeding).
I would advise to read comparitive studies into gastroguard. Look to see if they use similar models of ulcer-induction (food deprivation over short time scale) and compare results accordingly.

IF gastroguard is shown to prevent ulcers forming in times of stress/food-deprivation then it is a better product than Egusin and probably worth the money.
IF gastroguard is shown to also just be a treatment/aid to ulcer healing then Egusin may be worth trying first since it is a cheaper alternative. Providing you combine with correct feeding of course ;) But again, very hard for me to say without reading any other research!

Hope that helps a bit :)
 
Thanks BitsnPieces that's really useful. I have to say I was confused because it seems to be being highlighted as evidence that it'll work in the way we mostly use it: treating ulcers that have already developed over probably more than a week, and in horses that have been kept in a relatively ulcer-preventative way already. So when I read it through and it seemed to suggest it DOESN'T work well in those circumstances (but is perhaps useful for a horse that's had a stressful week / been ill and not eating and has developed very recent ulceration as a result) I couldn't really understand why it was being hailed as convincing evidence to buy it!

My girl's gastric ulcers cleared up on gastrogard, but I'm now a bit obsessive about researching options knowing that if they recur I'm on my own paying for it! (And she also has some remaining hind gut discomfort which we're tackling in another way.)

Perhaps they think by linking to a scientific paper people won't read and question it but will just feel reassured because it's science? Or perhaps there is validity in the most useful part of the test being the final week after inducing ulcers the week before. I just struggle to see what validity that would be.
 
Not a scientists but this has worked by a long long way the best on my boy, even better than omeprazole....he feels really well and happy and bright on it, where as when his tummy is bothering him he becomes very subdued and introverted.
 
Prince33Sp4rkle said:
Not a scientists but this has worked by a long long way the best on my boy, even better than omeprazole....he feels really well and happy and bright on it, where as when his tummy is bothering him he becomes very subdued and introverted.
Click to expand...


Yes that's why I'm particularly intrigued, because I know lots of people report good results with it. I wonder whether the methodology of the research isn't doing the product justice because it's purely about scoping for gastric ulceration, and perhaps people are finding good results because it works further along the gut, which this study hasn't set out to assess (partly because you can't really).
 
Interesting but rather clunkily written paper. Basicly what they are administering is a source of Bicarbonate ions with a view to keeping the stomach PH from falling. One has to be a little carefull with American research ,because we are "two nations divided by a common language".Where they refer to hay and grain ,this may mean somthing entirely different in the UK.In natural conditions ,the horse produces massive amounts of bicarbonate ions in its saliva ,as coarse forrage is chewed. Both concentrates and haylage rather overwhelm the system and lower the stomach PH and it has been shown that this is conducive to ulcer formation. This additive is intended and seems to show some effectiveness in countering the drop in stromach PH. Personaly I prefer to avoid the whole situation entirely by feeding good quality hay (thus reducing the concentrate requirement)ad lib.Haylage is somthing I avoid at all costs. I would rather buy imported hay than feed haylage.All in all ,the paper seems soundly written but is certainly not groundbreaking,and as with so much American research,they are tring to sell you somthing.
 
Interesting, thanks Mike. The findings certainly seemed to me to suggest that what was making the difference was the management (ie lots of hay, not so much cereal) and not so much the product. People are reporting decent results with the product, which I'm not questioning... I guess I'm questioning whether the companies which link to this research as evidence to encourage you to buy it have actually read it properly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top