4.3 Article

Efficacy and safety of a new 450 mg/ml florfenicol formulation administered intramuscularly in the treatment of bacterial bovine respiratory disease

Journal

VETERINARY RECORD
Volume 169, Issue 20, Pages 526-+

Publisher

BRITISH VETERINARY ASSOC
DOI: 10.1136/vr.d5498

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of the study was the safety and efficacy evaluation of a new 450 mg/ml florfenicol formulation in the treatment of naturally occurring respiratory disease when administered intramuscularly, compared with a positive control group treated with the well-established 300 mg/ml formulation. A total of 174 calves, selected from five sites in France and Spain, aged from 1 to 17 months, showing severe signs of respiratory disease, were randomly assigned to treatment with either the 300 mg/ml (3 ml/45 kg; Nuflor; MSD Animal Health) or 450 mg/ml (2 ml/45 kg; Nuflor Minidose; MSD Animal Health) florfenicol formulation, both administered intramuscularly twice, two days apart. Animals were clinically observed daily for 14 days following treatment initiation. The predominant pathogens present in pretreatment respiratory tract samples were Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida. Mycoplasma bovis and Histophilus somni were also present. All isolates were subjected to in vitro sensitivity testing and found susceptible to florfenicol. In both treatment groups, rectal temperature dropped and clinical index (depression and respiratory signs) significantly improved (P<0.05) after treatment. As a result, 97.7 per cent of the 450 mg/ml florfenicol formulation-treated animals were considered treatment successes on day 5. On day 14, 67.82 per cent of the animals were classified as treatment successes and among them 63.22 per cent were cured. The intramuscular injection of the new 450 mg/ml florfenicol formulation was found equally efficacious as the original 300 mg/ml formulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available