Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 May 28;20(5):e0325191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325191

Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horses

Marilena Bazzano 1, Fulvio Laus 1, Matteo Cerquetella 1, Andrea Spaterna 1, Andrea Marchegiani 1,*
Editor: Claudia Interlandi2
PMCID: PMC12118931  PMID: 40435047

Abstract

Background

Phytocannabinoids have the potential to lower intraocular pressure in both normal and glaucomatous eyes and they have been tested in different animal species, but not in the horse. The present paper describes the tonometric curve of healthy adult Italian Saddle horses after oral administration of cannabidiol oil (CBD).

Methods

CBD 20% was administered orally (oily solution) at the dose of 1 mg/kg to 8 adult horses and intraocular pressure (IOP) was evaluated by tonometric curve. Data were then compared to those of the same horses obtained the day before (blank) CBD administration.

Results

15 minutes after CBD administration, IOP (time zero 27.3 ± 2.1 mmHg right eye; 24.6 ± 2.3 mmHg left eye) started to decrease (19.5 ± 5.2 mmHg right eye; 20.8 ± 2.4 mmHg left eye) and 1 hour later CBD it reached the minimum level in all horses (11.4 ± 7.5 mmHg right eye; 9.5 ± 5.8 mmHg left eye), remaining statistically significantly lower than normal values for the entire observation period (8 hours; 12.0 ± 7.9 mmHg right eye; 11.9 ± 7.8 mmHg left eye).

Conclusions

CBD 20% was effective to significantly reduce IOP in healthy adult Italian Saddle horses and may be an effective hypotensive agent to be implemented in case of primary or secondary glaucoma.

Introduction

Intraocular pressure (IOP) is the result of the balance between production and drainage of the aqueous humor [1]. Several physiological and pathological conditions have been associated in horses with IOP fluctuation and, as happened in other mammalian species, a daily variation of IOP has been ascertained also in equids [2]. Physiologically, IOP shows a circadian rhythm, being low during the dark phase and high during the light phase of the day, with a peak at the end of the light phase [3]. In addition, exercise has been shown to positively impact IOP of horses, which tends to be lower after exercise in Italian Saddle horses [4]. While the reduction in IOP is usually infrequent and not harmful for the condition of the eye, the increase of intraocular pressure above levels considered normal (glaucoma) is common and represents a major cause retinal damage in both animals and humans [5]. Although equine primary glaucoma is seldom encountered in clinical practice, secondary glaucoma can be virtually linked to almost all cases of ocular disease in horses, and equine recurrent uveitis is recognized as the main cause [68]. Glaucoma has attracted the interest of many research groups in both human and veterinary patients and attempts have been made to apply phytotherapy/nutraceuticals as multimodal therapeutical approach to manage vision-threatening diseases [9]. As happens with the discovery of new drugs for the management of chronic and degenerative disease, the unveiling of the endocannabinoid system has represented a breakthrough for the understanding and management of different diseases, especially those inflammatory in nature [1012]. This system, composed by endocannabinoids, cannabinoid receptors, and metabolizing enzymes, is a very complex cell signaling pathway found in all chordates, including horses, and able to modulate several physiological and pathological processes, found to be present also in ocular structures [13,14]. In humans, the activation of cannabinoid receptors 1(CB1) and 2 (CB2) have been proposed to play a role in the IOP reduction, although further insight are needed to better ascertain such effects [15]. In horses, CB1 and CB2 have been found in many neural tissues as hippocampus, basal ganglia, cortex, cerebellum, ileum and others, speculating a possible presence of such receptors also in the retina and neural tissue of uvea [16]. The ocular effects of Cannabis sativa and cannabinoids have been studied extensively in animals and humans over the last few decades and, despite a debated hypothetical ocular hypotensive effects, have generated significant interest [1719]. Phytocannabinoids represent the main source of exogenous cannabinoid administered to both humans and animals to study their interaction with the hosts in specific form of disease. In last few years pharmacokinetics, efficacy and tolerability of many phytocannabinoid formulations, mainly containing cannabidiol have been also investigated in pets medication, not only for dermatological application [20] but also for the control of acute pain caused by ovariohysterectomy and chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis [21,22]. In horses, cannabinoids have been tested for the management of mechanical allodynia, second intention wound healing, chronic degenerative pain, and treatment for stereotypic behavior such as crib-biting [2329] and subsequent studies have analyzed pharmacokinetic properties of cannabinoids in horses [3035].

In human medicine, cannabinoids have been known to lower IOP since many years and have been shown to have beneficial effects in glaucoma patients beyond their IOP-lowering properties [36]. To date, no similar investigations have been carried out in horses and the aim of the present study was to evaluate the possible lowering effect on intraocular pressure of orally administered cannabidiol oil on healthy horses by the evaluation of daily tonometric curve before and after cannabidiol oil administration.

Materials and methods

All the procedures conducted on animals were approved by Institutional Animal Welfare Committee (protocol number E81AC.19) of the University of Camerino and by the Ministry of Health (authorization number: 1021/2023-PR), in accordance with the Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament on the protection of animals used for scientific purpose. The study was conducted in July 2024 in Central Italy. Supposing a possible difference in IOP of about 5 mmHg, (alpha = 0.05, beta 0.05, power = 0.95), the number of participants on which conduct observations is eight. Eight Italian Saddle horses (equally distributed between males and females), aged between 10 and 12 years and weigh between 380 and 420 kg, were enrolled in the study. All were considered healthy based on routine physical examination findings and the results of blood testing (hematology and mineral profile, energy profile, hepatic profile; exams executed within a week prior enrolment), which were within reference ranges reported for the species. The presence of eye disease as well as alterations in physical examination represented exclusion criteria. Horses underwent complete ophthalmological examination including fluorescein staining, Schirmer tear testing, slit lamp examination, direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy, and tonometry evaluation (Tonopen Vet, Reichert Inc., Depew, NY USA). The horses were stabled in individual boxes at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital of the University of Camerino (Italy) and fed polyphite hay at a rate of 2.5% of their body weight divided into three daily meals (at 07:00, 13:00 and 19:00), water was available ad libitum. Since a significant transient increase in IOP was observed when horses usually stabled in paddock are moved to medical barn, mainly due to the stress of the new environment, an acclimatization period of five days was considered to rule out any possible interference of the housing system and stress on intraocular pressure [37]. IOP evaluation was performed on the right and left eyes of each animal. Each horse was subjected to nine measurements of IOP (8 am, before cannabidiol oil administration and then after 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, and 8 hours) with Tonopen Vet (Reichert Inc., Depew, NY USA) and evaluated three times (with a wash-out period of eight days between each CBD administration, to avoid any possible residual effect of preparation on the second and third tonometric curve, as per [12]), using the same scheme. The order of horses and eyes examined were chosen in a randomized manner. All tonometric measurements were made by the same examiner and were taken within the stall of each horse. During tonometry, the head of each horse was kept in a neutral position without pressure on the jugular veins and the containment was carried out by the same collaborating investigator. Cannabidiol oil (galenical formulation containing 20% of CBD in medium-chain triglyceride) was administered orally at a dose of 1 mg/kg by collaborating investigators using a syringe, at 8am after first IOP measurement. To assess a possible effect of cannabidiol oil in lowering IOP, a daily tonometric curve was built for all horses enrolled in the study the day prior cannabidiol oil administration.

The data obtained were analyzed using a mixed-effect model in Graph Pad Prism 10 for Mac (GraphPad Software, Boston, Massachusetts USA, www.graphpad.com). Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant. This model allowed to analyze the effect of CBD administration, considering time and eye (right and left; fixed factors) and treating subjects as a random factor (to refer the data obtained to the general population and not only the population on which the study was carried out). In addition, a post-hoc analysis by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was carried out to highlight differences in IOP peak over time.

Results

CBD oil was well tolerated by all patients that did not need twitch or similar restraint methods to perform tonometry.

Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between IOP measurements at the three different times (p > 0.05); therefore, the mean values of the right and left eyes were considered in the following statistical analyses.

Mixed-effect model applied to the data showed a significant effect of CBD oil administration, time, and combined effect of CBD and time on IOP values (p < 0.0001 for all parameters). The mean IOP values for right and left eyes of horses at rest (prior CBD oil administration) and after CBD oil administration, expressed as mean ± standard deviations are reported in Table 1 and Fig 1. Table 1 also includes the statistically significant differences with respect to CBD, eye, and time points resulted from post-hoc analysis.

Table 1. Mean values (± standard deviations) for IOP of right and left eyes of horses, before and after cannabidiol oil administration.

Before CBD oil administration After CBD oil administration
Right eye Left eye Right eye Left eye
Time zero 27.3 ± 2.1 24.6 ± 2.3 27.3 ± 2.1 26.6 ± 2.3
15 min 26.0 ± 1.7 26.0 ± 2.0 19.5 ± 5.2 20.8 ± 2.4ABE
30 min 26.0 ± 2.0 25.5 ± 2.2FH 17.1 ± 4.0 CD 16.6 ± 3.8ABCDGEI
1h 25.0 ± 1.5J 25.0 ± 1.9CDM 11.4 ± 7.5 CD 9.5 ± 5.8ABCDEFGIKLN
2h 24.9 ± 1.5BJM 24.4 ± 1.6CDGM 11.1 ± 8.6AB 12.8 ± 6.2ABCDEGIL
3h 24.6 ± 1.7AJM 24.1 ± 1.6CDM 11.4 ± 7.5ACD 13.6 ± 5.9ACDEGI
4h 24.4 ± 1.6ABEIJM 24.3 ± 1.7CDM 11.5 ± 6.8ABCDGKN 12.9 ± 6.3ABCDEGIKN
6h 23.6 ± 1.4ABIM 23.6 ± 1.5CDEGM 11.6 ± 6.7ABCDEGIKN 12.3 ± 7.3ABCD
8h 23.5 ± 1.6IM 23.6 ± 1.6ACDGM 12.0 ± 7.9B 11.9 ± 7.8

Values are expressed in mmHg. Superscripts capital letters indicate statistically differences between CBD and time points (A vs right eye after CBD time zero; B right eye before CBD time zero; C vs left eye after CBD time zero; D left eye before CBD time zero; E right eye before time zero 15 minutes; F left eye after CBD 15 minutes; G left eye before CBD 15 minutes; H right eye after CBD 30 minutes; I right eye before CBD 30 minutes; J left eye after CBD 3o minutes; K left eye before CBD 30 minutes; L right eye before CBD 1 hours; M left eye after CBD 1 hours; N left eye before CBD 1 hour).

Fig 1. Variation of IOP in right and left eyes at the different time points considering resting condition and after cannabidiol oil administration.

Fig 1

Since statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between IOP measurements at the three different times (p > 0.05), data (in mmHg) are expressed as mean values ± standard deviations of the three different evaluation times. Od: right eye; Os: left eye.

After CBD administration, IOP significantly started to decrease after 15 minutes (Fig 1) and then reached the minimum level one hour post CBD administration (especially in left eyes), maintaining this reduction consistently for the entire length of observations.

Discussion

Intraocular pressure may vary (increase or decrease) depending on several physiological (i.e., exercise, fasting, circadian rhythm, etc.) and pathological (i.e., uveitis, inflammation, etc.) conditions [4,3739].

The comparison between the left and right eyes of the horses included in the present study showed no differences in IOP at resting condition, which was within the physiological range indicated the species [8] while CBD administration was remarkably responsible for a considerable reduction of IOP soon after its administration.

Cannabidiol is one of over more than one hundred phytocannabinoids isolated from the Cannabis sativa plant which nowadays represents the main appealing novel therapeutic approach to manage different diseases in both animals and humans, including glaucoma [40]. Starting from 1970s, when Cannabis sativa was started to be studied for its medical purposes (and not considering its psychotropic effects) many different compounds have been uncovered and in early 1990s the insight into mechanism of action of phytocannabinoids has led to the identification of the main receptors [14,41]. In fact, the main therapeutic potential of endocannabinoid system passes through the binding between cannabinoids and their metabolites with cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, but also with non-cannabinoid receptors [36]. From a pharmacological point of view, CB1 and CB2 are receptors belonging to the G protein-coupled family; they can be positively stimulated by mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and negatively stimulated via adenylyl cyclase [42]. Few pharmacokinetic studies conducted in dogs, cats, and horses have evaluated that CBD and endocannabinoid system are able to exert anti-inflammatory, relaxing, anticonvulsant and anxiolytic effects [29]. Such results have been confirmed by clinical studies that investigated CBD administration for the treatment of osteoarthritis, canine epilepsy and canine atopic dermatitis with positive outcomes [43,44]. Despite deep insights into veterinary species are still lacking regarding the presence and distribution of CB receptors, in the human eye, CB1 receptors have been detected in several ocular structure such as the cornea, iris, ciliary body (including the epithelium, ciliary muscle and blood vessels of the ciliary body), trabecular meshwork, Schlemm’s canal, and retina [45]. The location and precise functions of CB2 receptors in the human eye appear to be less detailed; they have been found in the cornea, trabecular meshwork, and retina, particularly in animal models [36]. This anatomical dissemination of CB1 receptors indicates that cannabinoids may influence IOP by both increasing aqueous humor outflow and decreasing aqueous humor production [45]. The mechanism of action of cannabinoids has not been fully elucidated yet and many theories have been proposed. The presence of CB1 receptors in trabecular meshwork and in Schlemm canal may explain the possible influence of cannabinoids on conventional aqueous humor outflow [46]. Aqueous humor is physiologically produced by uveal structure (ciliary body, epithelium, ciliary muscle) and normally drained by trabecular meshwork and, in minor portion, by uveoscleral outflow; the presence of CB1 receptors in this district may increase uveoscleral outflow and thus decrease IOP, and represents a clear starting point for the study and rational use of CDB for IOP management [47]. Interestingly, cannabinoid receptors have been also located in retinal structures [48]. In fact, CB1 receptors have been isolated in the ganglion layer, the inner and outer plexiform layers, the inner nuclear layer, and the outer segments of photoreceptors [48]. CB2 receptors have also been described in retinal cell types and layers, like amacrine, bipolar, Müller, microglial, and RGCs, or in the retinal pigment epithelium [48]. The presence of CBD receptors in different retinal cells and district may represent the start point for the study and application of CBD to manage different inflammatory and degenerative retinal conditions.

A body of work has been conducted in veterinary patients to assess the potential of the use of CBD for ophthalmic diseases, mainly for its anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects (i.e., IOP regulation during glaucoma, corneal and uveal diseases and retinal/optic nerve head diseases) [44]. IOP lowering effects of phytocannabinoids in different animal species, including rabbits, mice, cats, dogs, and monkeys have been studied with controversial results [42]. Some authors indicate that CBD has no effect on IOP other authors found a decrease in IOP after CBD administration, irrespective of the route of administration; other authors found a CBD-induced increase in IOP [42].

The results of the present study are the first, at the best of authors’ knowledge, that aimed to appraise an effect of CBD on IOP in healthy equine subjects. The major effect of CBD on left eyes may be due to a normal difference in IOP measurement between right and left eyes, ad ascertained in humans but not yet in horses [49].

One of the main limitations of the present study is the lack of a clearly depicted presence of CB receptors in equine eye structure that limits only to speculation and assumption the mechanism of action of CBD oil in production and drainage of aqueous humor. This aspect needs to be deepened in detail to clearly explain the physiological basis of such an effect, possibly open new frontiers in therapeutic potential of CBD in equine eye. All the evaluations have been done in a specific horse breed, and it would be interesting to extend such investigation in other breeds that may respond differently to CBD.

Conclusion

Intraocular pressure is the most important modifiable risk factor for glaucoma, that is a labile equilibrium between production and drainage, that can be easily disrupted by any ephemeral stimulus causing a fluctuation that may be risky for the health of the eye. Glaucoma is worldwide recognized to be a neuropathy caused by an increase in IOP that affects the retina, and the presence, hypothesized at this time but needed to be confirmed, of retinal cannabinoid receptors may explain the functional modulation of neuroretinal cells in animal tissues. The results of the present study are only a little step forward the fascinating world of endocannabinoid system modulation for IOP management, therefore posing a potential target for neuroprotection and glaucoma control that deserve to be deepened in detail.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supporting informations.

(XLSX)

pone.0325191.s001.xlsx (11KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

Data are available as Supporting information.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Orzalesi N, Rossetti L, Invernizzi T, Bottoli A, Autelitano A. Effect of timolol, latanoprost, and dorzolamide on circadian IOP in glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(9):2566–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bacchin ÂB de O, Silva GMR da, Seibel MP, Silva AF da, Pigatto JAT. Effects of daily curve and age on intraocular pressure in Criollo horses. Semina. 2021:2049–56. doi: 10.5433/1679-0359.2021v42n3supl1p2049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bertolucci C, Giudice E, Fazio F, Piccione G. Circadian intraocular pressure rhythms in athletic horses under different lighting regime. Chronobiol Int. 2009;26(2):348–58. doi: 10.1080/07420520902751035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Aragona F, Di Pietro S, Arfuso F, Fazio F, Piccione G, Giudice E, et al. Correlation between ocular and rectal temperature with intra ocular pressure in horse during exercise. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(14):1850. doi: 10.3390/ani12141850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tsai T, Reinehr S, Deppe L, Strubbe A, Kluge N, Dick HB, et al. Glaucoma animal models beyond chronic IOP increase. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(2):906. doi: 10.3390/ijms25020906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chandler KJ, Matthews AG. Eye disease in geriatric horses. Equine geriatric medicine and surgery. Elsevier; 2006: p. 173–8. doi: 10.1016/b0-72-160163-4/50017-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Teferi K, Adem A. Common ophthalmic problems in equines. Glob Vet. 2019;21: 246–54. doi: 10.5829/idosi.gv.2019.246.254 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wilkie DA. Equine ophthalmology. Equine internal medicine. Elsevier; 2004: p. 995–1024. doi: 10.1016/b0-72-169777-1/50017-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chaachouay N, Zidane L. Plant-derived natural products: a source for drug discovery and development. Drugs and Drug Candidates. 2024;3(1):184–207. doi: 10.3390/ddc3010011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Silver RJ. The endocannabinoid system of animals. Animals (Basel). 2019;9(9):686. doi: 10.3390/ani9090686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Di Marzo V. A brief history of cannabinoid and endocannabinoid pharmacology as inspired by the work of British scientists. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2006;27(3):134–40. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2006.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Di Salvo A, Chiaradia E, Sforna M, Della Rocca G. Endocannabinoid system and phytocannabinoids in the main species of veterinary interest: a comparative review. Vet Res Commun. 2024;48(5):2915–41. doi: 10.1007/s11259-024-10509-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yazulla S. Endocannabinoids in the retina: from marijuana to neuroprotection. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2008;27(5):501–26. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2008.07.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.An D, Peigneur S, Hendrickx LA, Tytgat J. Targeting cannabinoid receptors: current status and prospects of natural products. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(14):5064. doi: 10.3390/ijms21145064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Miller S, Daily L, Leishman E, Bradshaw H, Straiker A. Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol differentially regulate intraocular pressure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59(15):5904–11. doi: 10.1167/iovs.18-24838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zamith Cunha R, Semprini A, Salamanca G, Gobbo F, Morini M, Pickles KJ, et al. Expression of cannabinoid receptors in the trigeminal ganglion of the horse. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(21):15949. doi: 10.3390/ijms242115949 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nucci C, Bari M, Spanò A, Corasaniti M, Bagetta G, Maccarrone M, et al. Potential roles of (endo)cannabinoids in the treatment of glaucoma: from intraocular pressure control to neuroprotection. Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:451–64. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(08)01131-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Panahi Y, Manayi A, Nikan M, Vazirian M. The arguments for and against cannabinoids application in glaucomatous retinopathy. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017;86:620–7. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2016.11.106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kokona D, Georgiou P-C, Kounenidakis M, Kiagiadaki F, Thermos K. Endogenous and synthetic cannabinoids as therapeutics in retinal disease. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:8373020. doi: 10.1155/2016/8373020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hartsel JA, Boyar K, Pham A, Silver RJ, Makriyannis A. Cannabis in veterinary medicine: cannabinoid therapies for animals. Nutraceuticals Veterinary Medicine. 2019:121–155. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-04624-8_10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Miranda-Cortés A, Mota-Rojas D, Crosignani-Outeda N, Casas-Alvarado A, Martínez-Burnes J, Olmos-Hernández A, et al. The role of cannabinoids in pain modulation in companion animals. Front Vet Sci. 2023;9:1050884. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1050884 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Casas-Alvarado A, Martínez-Burnes J, Hernández-Ávalos I, Mora-Medina P, Miranda-Cortés A, Domínguez-Oliva A, et al. Assessment of the nociceptive response to the use of cannabidiol alone and in combination with meloxicam through infrared pupillometry in female dogs undergoing elective ovariohysterectomy. Front Vet Sci. 2024;11:1380022. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1380022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Williams MR, Holbrook TC, Maxwell L, Croft CH, Ientile MM, Cliburn K. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of a cannabidiol supplement in horses. J Equine Vet Sci. 2022;110:103842. doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103842 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cunha RZ, Felisardo LL, Salamanca G, Marchioni GG, Neto OI, Chiocchetti R. The use of cannabidiol as a novel treatment for oral stereotypic behaviour (crib-biting) in a horse. Vet Anim Sci. 2023;19:100289. doi: 10.1016/j.vas.2023.100289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.McIver VC, Tsang AS, Symonds NE, Perkins NR, Uquillas E, Dart CM, et al. Effects of topical treatment of cannabidiol extract in a unique manuka factor 5 manuka honey carrier on second intention wound healing on equine distal limb wounds: a preliminary study. Aust Vet J. 2020;98(6):250–5. doi: 10.1111/avj.12932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ellis KL, Contino EK. Treatment using cannabidiol in a horse with mechanical allodynia. Equine Veterinary Education. 2019;33(4). doi: 10.1111/eve.13168 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Aragona F, Tabbì M, Gugliandolo E, Giannetto C, D’Angelo F, Fazio F, et al. Role of cannabidiolic acid or the combination of cannabigerol/cannabidiol in pain modulation and welfare improvement in horses with chronic osteoarthritis. Front Vet Sci. 2024;11:1496473. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1496473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Interlandi C, Tabbì M, Di Pietro S, D’Angelo F, Costa GL, Arfuso F, et al. Improved quality of life and pain relief in mature horses with osteoarthritis after oral transmucosal cannabidiol oil administration as part of an analgesic regimen. Front Vet Sci. 2024;11:1341396. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1341396 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sánchez-Aparicio P, Florán B, Rodríguez Velázquez D, Ibancovichi JA, Varela Guerrero JA, Recillas S. Cannabinoids CB2 receptors, one new promising drug target for chronic and degenerative pain conditions in equine veterinary patients. J Equine Vet Sci. 2020;85:102880. doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.102880 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Turner S, Knych HK, Adams AA. The effects of cannabidiol on immune function and health parameters in senior horses. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2023;257:110549. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2023.110549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sánchez de Medina A, Serrano-Rodríguez JM, Díez de Castro E, García-Valverde MT, Saitua A, Becero M, et al. Pharmacokinetics and oral bioavailability of cannabidiol in horses after intravenous and oral administration with oil and micellar formulations. Equine Vet J. 2023;55(6):1094–103. doi: 10.1111/evj.13923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mercer MA, Davis JL. Cannabinoids in veterinary medicine: is there evidence to support the trend? Equine Veterinary Education. 2019;33(4):177–9. doi: 10.1111/eve.13199 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Turner SE, Knych HK, Adams AA. Pharmacokinetics of cannabidiol in a randomized crossover trial in senior horses. Am J Vet Res. 2022;83(9):ajvr.22.02.0028. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.22.02.0028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ryan D, McKemie DS, Kass PH, Puschner B, Knych HK. Pharmacokinetics and effects on arachidonic acid metabolism of low doses of cannabidiol following oral administration to horses. Drug Test Anal. 2021;13(7):1305–17. doi: 10.1002/dta.3028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Landa L, Trojan V, Demlova R, Jurica J, Hrib R. Cannabidiol and the possibilities of its use in veterinary medicine of dogs and horses: a brief review. Vet Med (Praha). 2022;67: 455–62. doi: 10.17221/127/2021-VETMED [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lindner T, Schmidl D, Peschorn L, Pai V, Popa-Cherecheanu A, Chua J, et al. Therapeutic potential of cannabinoids in glaucoma. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023;16(8):1149. doi: 10.3390/ph16081149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cinar H, Yanmaz LE, Buyukkaraca N, Kaya Z, Kosuncu M. Comparing the effects of intraocular pressure and tear production measurements in horses in two different environments: Horse stable and medical barn. Equine Vet J. 2025;57(1):271–6. doi: 10.1111/evj.14067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Allbaugh RA, Keil SM, Ou Z, Bello NM. Intraocular pressure changes in equine athletes during endurance competitions. Vet Ophthalmol. 2014;17(Suppl 1):154–9. doi: 10.1111/vop.12182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wada S, Hobo S, Niwa H. Ulcerative keratitis in thoroughbred racehorses in Japan from 1997 to 2008. Vet Ophthalmol. 2010;13(2):99–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-5224.2010.00767.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cairns EA, Baldridge WH, Kelly MEM. The endocannabinoid system as a therapeutic target in glaucoma. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:9364091. doi: 10.1155/2016/9364091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dasram MH, Walker RB, Khamanga SM. Recent advances in endocannabinoid system targeting for improved specificity: strategic approaches to targeted drug delivery. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(21):13223. doi: 10.3390/ijms232113223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Aebersold A, Duff M, Sloan L, Song Z-H. Cannabidiol signaling in the eye and its potential as an ocular therapeutic agent. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2021;55(S5):1–14. doi: 10.33594/000000371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Eichler F, Poźniak B, Machnik M, Schenk I, Wingender A, Baudisch N, et al. Pharmacokinetic modelling of orally administered cannabidiol and implications for medication control in horses. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1234551. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1234551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Henriksen M de L, McGrath S. Growing interest but limited evidence on the usefulness of cannabidiol in treating ophthalmic disease in dogs: a review. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2024;262(S2):S25–31. doi: 10.2460/javma.24.06.0360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Somvanshi RK, Zou S, Kadhim S, Padania S, Hsu E, Kumar U. Cannabinol modulates neuroprotection and intraocular pressure: a potential multi-target therapeutic intervention for glaucoma. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2022;1868(3):166325. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2021.166325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Murataeva N, Miller S, Dhopeshwarkar A, Leishman E, Daily L, Taylor X, et al. Cannabinoid CB2R receptors are upregulated with corneal injury and regulate the course of corneal wound healing. Exp Eye Res. 2019;182:74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2019.03.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Järvinen T, Pate DW, Laine K. Cannabinoids in the treatment of glaucoma. Pharmacol Ther. 2002;95(2):203–20. doi: 10.1016/s0163-7258(02)00259-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gallo Afflitto G, Aiello F, Scuteri D, Bagetta G, Nucci C. CB1R, CB2R and TRPV1 expression and modulation in in vivo, animal glaucoma models: a systematic review. Biomed Pharmacother. 2022;150:112981. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112981 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pekmezci M, Chang ST, Wilson BS, Gordon MO, Bhorade AM. Effect of measurement order between right and left eyes on intraocular pressure measurement. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(3):276–81. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Claudia Interlandi

21 Feb 2025

PONE-D-25-04742Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horsesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marchegiani,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Interlandi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office:

We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.  Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf   and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (2) efforts to alleviate suffering.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The reviewers agree that many parts of the manuscript are in need of deepening and major revision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please see the attached file.

The manuscript entitled “Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horses.” investigate the use of a natural substance such as cannabis oil to evaluate the effects of such administration on eye pressure trends in the horse. This work is very interesting, in terms of evaluating the health status of the horse's eye but also as it relates to the diagnostic aspect of eye diseases. It is well structured but some parts turn out to be written in too superficial and shallow a manner to be a scientific work.

In my opinion this work should be deepened and revised in many parts, and rewritten in the discussion, also following the advice and comments below following a major revision.

Reviewer #2: I have read and reviewed the manuscript entitled: Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horses. Overall, from this reviewer’s perspective, this is an interesting study; however, in its current state, it shows many deficiencies. For example, the methodology section requires an orderly and detailed description to ensure that the study can be replicated. Regarding the statistical analysis, I suggest the authors modify it to a mixed linear model that allows the establishment of statistically significant differences between treatments and the various measurement moments, in addition to correctly analyzing the tonometric curve on the three occasions in which the measurements were repeated. On the other hand, the lack of a control group generates an important bias in the research. Finally, I would like to highlight that the discussion section should be rewritten. This is to explain the neurophysiological events that occur under the effect of CBD to reduce intraocular pressure.

Likewise, other observations must be addressed to achieve publication quality. I have left some comments, hoping that they can help the authors.

General comments

L31-33: Please indicate the IOP values before and after CBD administration, with their respective P values.

L66: CBD has also been used in pets for the control of acute pain caused by an ovariohysterectomy and chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis. Please add the following references to your manuscript, which you can also use in the discussion of your manuscript:

10.3389/fvets.2024.1380022

10.3389/fvets.2022.1050884

L69: I suggest that the authors add the following references in this line:

10.3389/fvets.2024.1496473

10.3389/fvets.2024.1341396

10.1016/j.jevs.2019.102880

L73: Please add a hypothesis.

L82: What was the statistical method used to determine the sample size? Please clarify.

L84: Please indicate which exclusion criteria were considered in your study.

L85: What were the analytes or parameters measured in blood before the start of the study? And how long before the administration of CBD were these blood studies performed?

L108: Due to the type of experimental design used, I suggest the authors perform a statistical analysis based on a linear mixed model instead of a 2-way ANOVA. This model will allow the analysis of the differences observed between treatments and evaluation times, and even for the analysis of the tonometric curve (comparison of three measurements) with their respective washout periods.

L123: Table 1, please indicate the statistical differences observed between treatments and evaluation times with letters and numbers. In this sense, also the results obtained after the administration of CBD at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, and 8 hours should be integrated into this table; although Figure 1 already shows this information.

L141: In general, the discussion is a section that is shown to be deficient. Therefore, I suggest that the authors complement this section. For example, the neurophysiological effects that generate the decrease in intraocular pressure under the effect of CBD should be explained. I suggest consulting and citing the following references:

10.2460/javma.24.06.0360

10.3934/Neuroscience.2024009

10.3390/ph17060748

10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.121627

10.3390/ijms22073798

10.1016/j.survophthal.2020.07.002

10.1097/01.ijg.0000212260.04488.60

10.3389/fvets.2022.1050884

10.3390/ph16081149

10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112981

10.1055/a-1665-3100

10.1016/j.exer.2020.108266

10.2174/1570159X15666170724104305

10.1016/j.biopha.2016.11.106

10.1155/2016/9364091

10.1016/S0079-6123(08)01131-X

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34283478/

L167: I suggest that the authors discuss the limitations and perspectives of their study.

L171: Conclusions must be rewritten based on changes arising from modifications made to the statistical analysis.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments for authors.docx

pone.0325191.s002.docx (15.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 May 28;20(5):e0325191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325191.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Mar 2025

Below, in bold blue type, the point-to-point reply to reviewers

Reviewer #1: Please see the attached file.

The manuscript entitled “Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horses.” investigate the use of a natural substance such as cannabis oil to evaluate the effects of such administration on eye pressure trends in the horse. This work is very interesting, in terms of evaluating the health status of the horse's eye but also as it relates to the diagnostic aspect of eye diseases. It is well structured but some parts turn out to be written in too superficial and shallow a manner to be a scientific work.

In my opinion this work should be deepened and revised in many parts, and rewritten in the discussion, also following the advice and comments below following a major revision.

The manuscript entitled “Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horses.” investigate the use of a natural substance such as cannabis oil to evaluate the effects of such administration on eye pressure trends in the horse. This work is very interesting, in terms of evaluating the health status of the horse's eye but also as it relates to the diagnostic aspect of eye diseases. It is well structured but some parts turn out to be written in too superficial and shallow a manner to be a scientific work.

In my opinion this work should be deepened and revised in many parts, and rewritten in the discussion, also following the advice and comments below following a major revision.

Introduction

Line 49 Please unify the number of bibliographical sources and dots through the main text Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 45-54 As the title of the present article suggest that you were talking about healthy subjects, first of all I suggest to describe the physiological oscillation of the IOP for example after exercise in horses, for example include this source to deep the section:

doi: 10.3390/ani12141850. Text has been modified to reflect this comment and reference has been added

Line 49-55 this section is described too broadly and in too little depth, so the arguments regarding therapeutic approaches are disconnected with the introductory section Section rephrased to ensure more clarity

Line 56-57 some new bibliographic source to accompany the section should be included as:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1496473

https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1341396

Text has been modified to reflect this comment and references have been added

Materials and methods

Line 91-92 if the horses were already stabled in the mentioned way, according to precise routines, what was the purpose of the 5-day acclimatization period? Please be more specific and specify what the horses needed to acclimatize to Lines implemented in the manuscript and a proper reference has been added

Line 92-93 With what instrumentation the IOP was measured and by what methodology IOP was evaluated with Tonopen Vet, Reichert Inc., Depew, NY USA. Detailed in the text

Line 101-102 The product manufacturer should be reported

Results and Discussion

Line 116-117 data were normalized results or not? this result should be reported

Line 135-136 The mention both eyes and respectively right and left is redundant

Line 137 the same mention “No effect of sex was found” is redundant compared to lines 133-134

Line 116-121 In addition, a two-way ANOVA was performed in the statistical analysis. Better clarify which variables were evaluated. Also, in the results section these significant values should be detailed. To establish a significant peak over time, a post hoc analysis should also have been performed, so describe it accurately both in the statistical analysis section and in the results.

Results in too little content. According to when IOP measurements over time were assessed before CBD administration and then 3 times every 8 days. Why does it appear in Figure 1 only before and after administration. Please clarify these concepts so that they are easy for a reader to interpret.

Table 1 If results were calculated and expressed as mean and standard deviation, this information should be specified in the results rection

Line 143-144 Avoid repetitions

Line 151 Please mention the examples reported in horses as showed in the previously suggested bibliographical sources

Line 155 nothing was previously mentioned about THC use or information in the text. Please explain its importance and usage even in other sections or delete it.

The importance of eye pressure changes in both physiological and pathological settings should be emphasized.

The discussions are too short and poor in content. there is described only what has been found in the literature on the topic. The discussion section should be a discussion regarding the results obtained, so one should first describe what was obtained, comment on its possible meanings, and discuss comparison with other studies that found similar or opposite results based on the variables analyzed, so the section is all in need of rewriting

Conclusions should also more emphasize the results obtained and indicate in what ways these results can be useful in the scientific community

Statistical analysis has been run again, applying both a mixed effect model analysis and post hoc analysis to reflect your recommendations, so the paragraph has been rewritten accordingly. Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections have been completely rewritten to be more specific and consistent, incorporating all your suggestion

Reviewer #2: I have read and reviewed the manuscript entitled: Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horses. Overall, from this reviewer’s perspective, this is an interesting study; however, in its current state, it shows many deficiencies. For example, the methodology section requires an orderly and detailed description to ensure that the study can be replicated. Regarding the statistical analysis, I suggest the authors modify it to a mixed linear model that allows the establishment of statistically significant differences between treatments and the various measurement moments, in addition to correctly analyzing the tonometric curve on the three occasions in which the measurements were repeated. On the other hand, the lack of a control group generates an important bias in the research. Finally, I would like to highlight that the discussion section should be rewritten. This is to explain the neurophysiological events that occur under the effect of CBD to reduce intraocular pressure.Likewise, other observations must be addressed to achieve publication quality. I have left some comments, hoping that they can help the authors.

Thanks for your insights and comments. We have amended the text in the proper parts to reflect your suggestions.

General comments

L31-33: Please indicate the IOP values before and after CBD administration, with their respective P values. Text modified to reflect this comment

L66: CBD has also been used in pets for the control of acute pain caused by an ovariohysterectomy and chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis. Please add the following references to your manuscript, which you can also use in the discussion of your manuscript:

10.3389/fvets.2024.1380022

10.3389/fvets.2022.1050884

Text modified to reflect this comment

L69: I suggest that the authors add the following references in this line:

10.3389/fvets.2024.1496473

10.3389/fvets.2024.1341396

10.1016/j.jevs.2019.102880

Text modified to reflect this comment

L73: Please add a hypothesis. Text modified to reflect this comment

L82: What was the statistical method used to determine the sample size? Please clarify.

The sample size needed was calculated with Sealed Envelope™ calculator, setting significance level at 5% and power at 95%, detailed in the text

L84: Please indicate which exclusion criteria were considered in your study. Text modified to reflect this comment

L85: What were the analytes or parameters measured in blood before the start of the study? And how long before the administration of CBD were these blood studies performed? Text modified to reflect this comment

L108: Due to the type of experimental design used, I suggest the authors perform a statistical analysis based on a linear mixed model instead of a 2-way ANOVA. This model will allow the analysis of the differences observed between treatments and evaluation times, and even for the analysis of the tonometric curve (comparison of three measurements) with their respective washout periods. Statistical analysis has been run according to your suggestion and text modified to reflect this comment

L123: Table 1, please indicate the statistical differences observed between treatments and evaluation times with letters and numbers. In this sense, also the results obtained after the administration of CBD at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, and 8 hours should be integrated into this table; although Figure 1 already shows this information. Table 1 has been updated to reflect your comment

L141: In general, the discussion is a section that is shown to be deficient. Therefore, I suggest that the authors complement this section. For example, the neurophysiological effects that generate the decrease in intraocular pressure under the effect of CBD should be explained. I suggest consulting and citing the following references:

10.2460/javma.24.06.0360

10.3934/Neuroscience.2024009

10.3390/ph17060748

10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.121627

10.3390/ijms22073798

10.1016/j.survophthal.2020.07.002

10.1097/01.ijg.0000212260.04488.60

10.3389/fvets.2022.1050884

10.3390/ph16081149

10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112981

10.1055/a-1665-3100

10.1016/j.exer.2020.108266

10.2174/1570159X15666170724104305

10.1016/j.biopha.2016.11.106

10.1155/2016/9364091

10.1016/S0079-6123(08)01131-X

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34283478/

L167: I suggest that the authors discuss the limitations and perspectives of their study.

L171: Conclusions must be rewritten based on changes arising from modifications made to the statistical analysis.

Discussion and Conclusion sections have been completely rewritten to be more specific and consistent, incorporating all your suggestion

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0325191.s005.docx (22.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Claudia Interlandi

22 Apr 2025

PONE-D-25-04742R1Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horsesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marchegiani,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Interlandi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript needs further revision before it can be considered for publication.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: I reviewed the edited version of the manuscript and provide the following comments to the authors. The majority of my comments are intended to correct the manuscript for grammatical errors and clarity.

Line 52/53 – suggest changing to “…common and represents a major cause of retinal….

Line 65 – suggest rewording the section “determine a lowering in IOP” to be more clear and understandable.

Line 74 – 76 – suggested edit “In the last few years…investigated in pet medication, …”

Line 116 – how was the length of the washout period determined? This information should be added to the manuscript.

Line 165 – suggested edit “….after one hour post CBD administration…left eyes) and maintaining….”

Line 178 – 180 – this sentence should be reworded to expand and provide clarity on the intended information this sentence is adding to the manuscript.

Line 188 – suggested edit “…was started to be studied for its…”

Line 190 – edit to “…the insight into the mechanism….”

Line 201 – 207 – this section needs to be reworded to ensure clarity for the reader.

Line 231 – 233 – please expand this section so that the point you are making is clear to the reader.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 3.docx

pone.0325191.s004.docx (13KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 May 28;20(5):e0325191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325191.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 May 2025

Dear Editor and Reviewer, on behalf of all other Authors, I would thank for the time and efforts spent in reviewing the manuscript and for the points raised, which allow to improve the overall quality of the paper. We have carefully considered your suggestions and addressed them throughout thew text, using the revision function of Microsoft Word to highlight changes in the text.

In addition, English language has been reviewed by a native speaker.

Below, in bold blue type, the point-to-point reply to reviewers

I reviewed the edited version of the manuscript and provide the following comments to the authors. The majority of my comments are intended to correct the manuscript for grammatical errors and clarity.

Line 52/53 – suggest changing to “…common and represents a major cause of retinal…. Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 65 – suggest rewording the section “determine a lowering in IOP” to be more clear and understandable. Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 74 – 76 – suggested edit “In the last few years…investigated in pet medication, …” Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 116 – how was the length of the washout period determined? This information should be added to the manuscript. Detailed in the text

Line 165 – suggested edit “….after one hour post CBD administration…left eyes) and maintaining….” Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 178 – 180 – this sentence should be reworded to expand and provide clarity on the intended information this sentence is adding to the manuscript. Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 188 – suggested edit “…was started to be studied for its…” Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 190 – edit to “…the insight into the mechanism….” Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 201 – 207 – this section needs to be reworded to ensure clarity for the reader. Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Line 231 – 233 – please expand this section so that the point you are making is clear to the reader. Text has been modified to reflect this comment

Decision Letter 2

Claudia Interlandi

9 May 2025

Effect of orally administered cannabidiol oil on daily tonometric curve in healthy Italian Saddle horses

PONE-D-25-04742R2

Dear Dr. Andrea Marchegiani,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Claudia Interlandi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Claudia Interlandi

PONE-D-25-04742R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marchegiani,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Claudia Interlandi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Supporting informations.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0325191.s001.xlsx (11KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comments for authors.docx

    pone.0325191.s002.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0325191.s005.docx (22.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 3.docx

    pone.0325191.s004.docx (13KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available as Supporting information.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES