Multi-year study with the University of Zurich
We carried out a number of studies with the University of Zurich that spanned several years from 2010 to around 2018.
The aim was to show that our product actually does what we promised.
The bodies we contacted were so enthusiastic about the idea of Vetdrop that they helped us to obtain public funding from the KTI, Switzerland's national innovation agency, under the supervision of the Swiss Ethics Commission.
At this point we only had results from treatments in Northern Germany, Switzerland and Dubai, but none of them had been conducted as medical studies and most users did not want the results to be published.
Before the university carried out this study, it had treated many different species of animals, including dolphins in Dubai, and treated horses that became world champions at an unusual age for such success. Other extremely expensive horses were suddenly 100 percent fit after the treatment and were being sold for large sums of money. It was clear that we weren't allowed to publish anything. It was sometimes so bad that the owners did not want other owners to know how they had treated their animals in order to avoid competition.
That was a big problem for us. We had started developing a machine that did something out of the ordinary and we had developed some very good herbal products to help make the machine successful, but the more successful the machine and products became, the less anyone wanted us to talk about it . The system could be used for both normal medicine and herbal products, but did it really work? It seemed like we had a random system. Similar to the electric car. It's been around for 75 years, it happens to be better and cheaper than anything else, but nobody wants to use it.
There was only one way forward. We had to try to officially prove what we were saying. Unfortunately, treatments take a long time to work. Often problems can only be alleviated and not completely cured. Very often different systems have to be used in order to achieve a long-term result. So we had to outline what the university was supposed to find out in its studies, and that was the template:
Could our system and product actually:
- penetrate the skin non-invasively?
- reach the joint?
- create a depot?
- supply the application area with oxygen?
- would it be stable and would produce the same results with several animals?
- Was it really painless to use?
- was it really easy to apply?
- Did the animals recover faster?
With the exception of the last 2 points, we were also able to prove all of these points, even if this could only be partially assumed on the basis of a hypothesis. The system was not digital and not easy to use and we have now been able to solve this point by developing our new application system.
The speed of recovery has not been proven very well either. The animals were slaughtered relatively quickly after the operation. What we could see, however, was that the pain management was much more efficient with our system, which in turn hypothesizes that the wound is healing much faster than normal. (We have also had this experience with all open wounds)
The first study started in 2010.
It was important that the animals used were of the same origin and age and that they grew up under identical conditions. So far we have only been able to show results from individual cases. So it always seemed like a 'coincidence'. The "coincidence" almost always had a positive result.
In 34 sheep, a massive defect was created in the cartilage of the knee joint, and then so-called "microfractures" were punched into the bone. This approach has already been used in several earlier studies by the department and leads to osteoarthritis in the joint within a few weeks.
The animals were divided into six control groups and treated with Vetdrop TDA for six weeks.
Product: Carprofen for All Groups - an anti-inflammatory agent believed to be effective in treating osteoarthritis.
Standard group - here only carprofen was administered intravenously - this was the reference group as the intravenous methods are well known.
One group received no drug at all but was treated with vetdrop.
Four TDA groups were formed, which were treated with different formulations in the TDA system (3 times a week). The different preparations were different phytoproducts that were either mixed with Carprofen or not mixed.
The blood values of the animals were checked every two days, the joint values more frequently at the beginning and weekly later.
The pain behavior of the animals was also documented and examined.
Six weeks after the last treatment (12 weeks after the operation) the animals were sacrificed and examined for changes in the cartilage and bone of the manipulated joint.
The results were very clear:
The indicator substance carprofen reached the joint center (synovial fluid)
after the first TDA application.
Reproducible and effective values were achieved.
The pain response observed in the animals treated with Vetdrop TDA was better than that of the control groups.
The relationship between systemic and local drug levels was 7-8 times better with TDA than with systemic therapy.
The defect appeared to respond much more positively to any product administered with TDA than to intravenous administration. An oxygen saturation test was carried out, but it was unsuccessful for technical reasons. The fact that even the group treated with no drug but treated with TDA performed better than the animals treated with intravenous carprofen suggests that the oxygen is able to penetrate the skin and close the blood cells activate as we suspected.
The results were so convincing that Nathalie Fouche conducted a second study and wrote her doctoral thesis, in which she came to similar conclusions as above, again finding a better result with the TDA than with the intravenous administration. Looking at the results, one could hypothesize that it is probably cheaper if fewer products arrive at the desired location, are deposited there and are used continuously than if a large amount arrives in a short time. In fact, this seems to actually exacerbate the problem.
It was also very important that the animals used could all be used as feed because of the low systemic exposure.
From here on, we carried out other smaller studies in other hospitals and other institutes such as the Frauenhofer Institute. During this time we also did a very interesting study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology (the highest ranking journal) for the treatment of certain types of skin cancers with methotrexate. Here, too, the studies have shown that we can use our system for the application of such products with great success.
So what can we infer from the studies?
The system works. It enables the product to be transported into the body and can reach a penetration depth of at least 5 cm (we have had even greater success with treating horses, e.g. with osteoarthritis in the neck).
It is painless and easy to use. It is definitely an alternative. When you consider how it can be used, for which problems, for which animals, there is no other product that is so versatile.
The results are clear:
The indicator substance was identical in both groups - Carprofen. Carprofen is an anti-inflammatory agent that is currently only available in systemic form. All the more so what is achieved is more astonishing Difference the defect between the TDACarprofen-Group and the Carprofen iv. Group. Interestingly, even the animals treated neutrally (without active ingredient) with the TDA system performed better than theirs iv with Carprofen treated conspecifics - although Carprofen a positive effect on the structure of the cartilage is said to be.
Studies and dissertations
- Cartilage in Sheep - The Open Orthopedics Journal 2013 (EN)
It shows that the system and application, which is basically the same as Vetdrop's system, is effective in administering methotrexate to cure some types of skin cancers.