Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 8, pp 2547–2557 | Cite as

Noninferiority field trial for evaluation of efficacy of ciprofloxacin associated with internal teat sealant as dry-off protocol

  • Cristian Marlon de Magalhães Rodrigues Martins
  • Bruna Gomes Alves
  • Camylla Pedrosa Monteiro
  • Eduardo Souza Campos Pinheiro
  • Marcelo Arne Feckinghaus
  • Luiz Gustavo Paranhos
  • Marcos V. dos SantosEmail author
Regular Articles

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two dry-off protocols: (a) dry cow therapy using ciprofloxacin hydrochloride 400 mg followed by the administration of an internal teat sealant composed of 4 g of bismuth subnitrate, and (b) a positive control using dry cow therapy with 250 mg cephalonium followed by the administration of 2.6 g bismuth subnitrate internal teat sealant. A total of 578 Holstein cows selected from 7 commercial herds were randomly allocated into two groups at drying off: (a) ciprofloxacin hydrochloride 400 mg (CH) associated with ITS, n = 1112 mammary quarters/296 cows, or (b) positive control (PC) = cephalonium (250 mg) associated with ITS, n = 1058 mammary quarters/282 cows). A total of 1787 out of 2170 mammary quarters (82%) had negative culture at drying off. The microorganisms most frequently isolated at drying off were CNS (5.62%), Strep. uberis (1.9%), Corynebacterium spp. (1.8%), and Staphylococcus aureus (1.01%). A total of 465 mammary quarters experienced new intramammary infections (NIMIs), and the main microorganisms causing NIMI were CNS (21.94%), Strep. uberis (17.2%), and Pseudomonas spp. (9.7%). The CH protocol was not inferior to PC, as the cure risk of mammary quarters CH-treated was at the noninferiority limit. However, the mammary quarters treated by CH protocol had 24% and 31% lower risk of overall NIMI and NIMI caused by major pathogens, respectively, than mammary quarters dried with the PC protocol. In addition, the mammary quarters treated with CH protocol had a lower risk of CM through the first 60 DIM than those treated with PC protocol. Both DCT protocols showed similar odds of microbiological cure, but the CH protocol had greater prevention against NIMI during dry-off period.

Keywords

Cephalonium Dry-cow therapy Mastitis New IMI Noninferiority 

Abbreviations

CAMP

Christie, Atkins, Munch-Petersen test

CH

Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride

CM

Clinical mastitis

CNS

Coagulase-negative Staphylococci

DCT

Dry cow therapy

DIM

Days in milk

IMI

Intramammary infections

ITS

Internal teat sealant

NIMI

New intramammary infections

PC

Positive control

PYR

Pyrrolidonyl acrylamidase

SCC

Somatic cell count

SD

Standard deviation

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the dairy farms that participated in this study. We also thank the Quality Milk Research Laboratory (Qualileite) team, at University of São Paulo, for helping data and sample collection. The authors acknowledge Ourofino Animal Health (Cravinhos, SP, Brazil) for providing funding for the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of animal rights

The present study was approved (protocol number CEUA 8542090218) by the Ethic Committee on Animal Use of the School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science (CEUA/FMVZ/USP), in accordance with the rules issued by the National Council for Control of Animal Experimentation (CONCEA) as well as Law 11.794 of October 8, 20008, Decree 6899 of July 15, 2009.

References

  1. Arruda AGS, Godden P, Rapnicki P, Gorden L, Timms SS, Aly TW, Lehenbauer, and Champagne J. Randomized noninferiority clinical trial evaluating 3 commercial dry cow mastitis preparations: I. Quarter-level outcomes. J. Dairy Sci. 2013; 96:4419–4435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley AJ, Green MJ. A study of the incidence and significance of intramammary enterobacterial infections acquired during the dry period. J. Dairy Sci. 2000; 83:1957–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley AJ, Breen JE, Payne B, Williams P, and Green MJ. The use of a cephalonium containing dry cow therapy and internal teat sealant, both alone and in combination. J. Dairy Sci. 2010; 93:1566–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dann, RS, Koch, GG. Methods for one-sided testing of the difference between proportions and sample size considerations related to non-inferiority clinical trials. Pharm. Stat. 2008; 7:130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farrington CP, Manning G. Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk. Stat Med. 1990; 9:1447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gonçalves JL, Tomazi T, Barreiro JR, Beuron DC, Arcari MA, Lee SH, Martins CM, Araújo Junior JP, dos Santos MV. Effects of bovine subclinical mastitis caused by Corynebacterium spp. on somatic cell count, milk yield and composition by comparing contralateral quarters. Vet J. 2016; 92: 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Green MJ, Bradley AJ, Medley GF, Browne WJ. Cow, Farm, and Management Factors During the Dry Period that determine the rate of clinical mastitis after Calving. J.Dairy Sci. 2007; 90: 3764–3776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guarín, J. F., and P. L. Ruegg. 2016. Short communication: Pre- and postmilking anatomical characteristics of teats and their associations with risk of clinical mastitis in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 99:8323–8329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halasa T, Østeras O. Meta-analysis of dry cow management for dairy cattle. Part 2. Cure of existing intramammary infections. J. Dairy Sci. 2009; 92: 3150–3157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huxley JN, Green MJ, Green LE, Bradley AJ. Evaluation of the efficacy of an internal teat sealer during the dry period. J. Dairy Sci. 2002; 85 :551–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacoby GA. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones, Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2005; 41:S120–S126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson APSM, Godden E, Royster S, Zuidhof B, Miller and J Sorg. Randomized noninferiority study evaluating the efficacy of 2 commercial dry cow mastitis formulations. J. Dairy Sci. 2015; 99:593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joshi, S. and Gokhale, S. 2006. Status of Mastitis as an Emerging Disease in Improved and Periurban Dairy Farms in India. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1081: 74–83.  https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1373.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDougal, S. A randomized non-inferiority trial of a new cephalonium dry-cow therapy. N. Z. Vet. J. 2010; 58:45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meaney WJ. Effect of a dry period teat seal on bovine udder infection. Ir. J. agric. Res. 1977; 16: 293–299.Google Scholar
  16. Miettinen O, Nurminen MM. Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat. Med. 1985; 4:213:226.Google Scholar
  17. Molina LR, Costa HN, Leão JM, Malacco VMR, Fcury Filho EJ, Carvalho AU, Lage CFA. Efficacy of an internal teat seal associated with a dry cow intramammary antibiotic for prevention of intramammary infections in dairy cows during the dry and early lactation periods. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 37(5):465–470, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Mastitis Council (NMC). Research committee report: Interpreting bacteriological culture results to diagnose bovine intramammary infections. 2012. Accessed Dec. 8, 2015. https://www.nmconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/InterpretingBacteriological-CultureResults.pdf.
  19. Oliver SP, Hogan JS, Jayarao BM, & Owens WE. Microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of bovine udder infection and determination of milk quality. 4th ed. National Mastitis Council Inc., Verona. 2004.Google Scholar
  20. Ospina PA, Rota N, Locatelli C, Colombo L, Pollera C, Giacinti G, Bronzo V, Casula A, Nydam DV, Moroni P. Randomized noninferiority field trial comparing 2 first-generation cephalosporin products at dry off in quarters receiving an internal teat sealant in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2016; 99:6519–6531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pantoja JCF, Hulland C, Ruegg PL. Somatic Cell Count Status Across the Dry Period as a Risk Factor for the Development of Clinical Mastitis in the Subsequent Lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 2009; 92: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rabiee AR, Lean IJ. The effect of internal teat sealant products (Teatseal and Orbeseal) on intramammary infection, clinical mastitis, and somatic cell counts in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2013; 96:6915–6931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Radostits, O.M., D.C. Blood, C.C. Gay, et al. 2000. Veterinary Medicine, 9th ed.: 603–685. ELBS-Bailliere Tindal. LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Reyher KK, Haine D, Dohoo IR, and Revie CW, Examining the effect of intramammary infections with minor mastitis pathogens on the acquisition of new intramammary infections with major mastitis pathogens-A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2012; 95:6483–6502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schuirmann DJ. Confidence interval methods for bioequivalence testing with binomial endpoints. Pages 227–232 in Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section. American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA. 1999.Google Scholar
  26. Shephard RW, Burman S, and Marcun PA. Comparative field trial of cephalonium and cloxacillin for dry cow therapy for mastitis in Australian dairy cows. Aust. Vet. J. 2004; 82:624–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tomazi T, Gonçalves JL, Barreiro JR, Arcari MA, and Dos Santos MV. Bovine subclinical intramammary infection caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci increases somatic cell count but has no effect on milk yield or composition. J. Dairy Sci. 2015; 98:3071–3078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williamson JH, Woolford MW, Day AM. The prophylactic effect of a dry-cow antibiotic against Streptococcus uberis. N. Z. Vet. J. 1995; 43: 228–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristian Marlon de Magalhães Rodrigues Martins
    • 1
  • Bruna Gomes Alves
    • 1
  • Camylla Pedrosa Monteiro
    • 1
  • Eduardo Souza Campos Pinheiro
    • 1
  • Marcelo Arne Feckinghaus
    • 2
  • Luiz Gustavo Paranhos
    • 2
  • Marcos V. dos Santos
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nutrition and Animal Production, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal SciencesUniversity of São Paulo (USP)PirassunungaBrazil
  2. 2.Ourofino Animal Health®SPBrazil

Personalised recommendations