4.4 Article

Relationship of in vitro minimum inhibitory concentrations of tilmicosin against Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida and in vivo tilmicosin treatment outcome among calves with signs of bovine respiratory disease

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.239.1.129

关键词

-

资金

  1. Elanco Animal Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To determine associations between in vitro minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of tilmicosin against Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida and in vivo tilmicosin treatment outcome among calves with clinical signs of bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Design-Observational, retrospective, cohort study. Animals-976 feeder calves with clinical signs of BRD enrolled in 16 randomized clinical trials. Procedures-Records of clinical trials from October 26, 1996, to November 15, 2004, were searched to identify calves with BAD from which a single isolate of M haemolytica or P multocida was identified via culture of deep nasal swab samples prior to treatment with tilmicosin (10 mg/kg [4.5 mg/lb], SC) and for which MICs of tilmicosin against the isolate were determined. The MICs of tilmicosin against recovered isolates and response to tilmicosin treatment were evaluated. Results-Tilmicosin resistance among M haemolytica and P multocida isolates was uncommon (6/745 [0.8%] and 16/231 [6.9%], respectively). Treatment outcome, defined as success or failure after tilmicosin treatment, did not vary with the MIC of tilmicosin against recovered isolates. The proportion of treatment failures attributed to M haemolytica isolates categorized as resistant (MIC of tilmicosin, >= 32 mu g/mL) or not susceptible (MIC of tilmicosin, >= 16 mu g/mL), was 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Recovery of tilmicosin-resistant M haemolytica or P multocida isolates was rare, and no association was detected between MIC of tilmicosin and treatment response. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011;239:129-135)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据