IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0219104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Association between antimicrobial drug class for treatment and retreatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and frequency of resistant BRD pathogen isolation from veterinary diagnostic laboratory samples

Author

Listed:
  • Johann F Coetzee
  • Drew R Magstadt
  • Pritam K Sidhu
  • Lendie Follett
  • Adlai M Schuler
  • Adam C Krull
  • Vickie L Cooper
  • Terry J Engelken
  • Michael D Kleinhenz
  • Annette M O’Connor

Abstract

Although 90% of BRD relapses are reported to receive retreatment with a different class of antimicrobial, studies examining the impact of antimicrobial selection (i.e. bactericidal or bacteriostatic) on retreatment outcomes and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are deficient in the published literature. This survey was conducted to determine the association between antimicrobial class selection for treatment and retreatment of BRD relapses on antimicrobial susceptibility of Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni. Pathogens were isolated from samples submitted to the Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory from January 2013 to December 2015. A total of 781 isolates with corresponding animal case histories, including treatment protocols, were included in the analysis. Original susceptibility testing of these isolates for ceftiofur, danofloxacin, enrofloxacin, florfenicol, oxytetracycline, spectinomycin, tilmicosin, and tulathromycin was performed using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Data were analyzed using a Bayesian approach to evaluate whether retreatment with antimicrobials of different mechanistic classes (bactericidal or bacteriostatic) increased the probability of resistant BRD pathogen isolation in calves. The posterior distribution we calculated suggests that an increased number of treatments is associated with a greater probability of isolates resistant to at least one antimicrobial. Furthermore, the frequency of resistant BRD bacterial isolates was greater with retreatment using antimicrobials of different mechanistic classes than retreatment with the same class. Specifically, treatment protocols using a bacteriostatic drug first followed by retreatment with a bactericidal drug were associated with a higher frequency of resistant BRD pathogen isolation. In particular, first treatment with tulathromycin (bacteriostatic) followed by ceftiofur (bactericidal) was associated with the highest probability of resistant M. haemolytica among all antimicrobial combinations. These observations suggest that consideration should be given to antimicrobial pharmacodynamics when selecting drugs for retreatment of BRD. However, prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical relevance to antimicrobial stewardship programs in livestock production systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Johann F Coetzee & Drew R Magstadt & Pritam K Sidhu & Lendie Follett & Adlai M Schuler & Adam C Krull & Vickie L Cooper & Terry J Engelken & Michael D Kleinhenz & Annette M O’Connor, 2019. "Association between antimicrobial drug class for treatment and retreatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and frequency of resistant BRD pathogen isolation from veterinary diagnostic laboratory s," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219104
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219104
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219104&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0219104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.