Brian Warr, Sarah Parker, Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein, Tim McAllister, Murray Jelinski
{"title":"加拿大饲养场小牛脓毒性关节炎抗菌治疗后的健康结果","authors":"Brian Warr, Sarah Parker, Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein, Tim McAllister, Murray Jelinski","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the clinical efficacy of treating septic arthritis (SA) with 3 different antimicrobials: oxytetracycline, florfenicol, and tulathromycin.</p><p><strong>Animal: </strong>The study population comprised fall-placed steer and heifer calves at 4 commercial western Canadian feedlots. All calves received tulathromycin at induction for bovine respiratory disease (BRD).</p><p><strong>Procedure: </strong>Calves that developed SA were allocated to a randomized clinical field trial over a 2-year period. Arthritic calves (<i>n</i> = 251) were treated with florfenicol, oxytetracycline, or tulathromycin. Morbidity outcomes were SA relapses (1st and 2nd) and BRD. Causes of mortality were categorized as infectious (BRD, <i>Histophilus somni</i>, SA) and SA alone. Additional outcomes were early shipment for salvage slaughter (railer) and the sum of infectious mortality events and railer events (total fallout). Calves were followed for 90 d post-allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The numbers of calves allocated to florfenicol, oxytetracycline, and tulathromycin treatments were 85, 81, and 85, respectively. There were no differences in health outcomes among antimicrobial treatments (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This clinical field trial identified no health outcome differences when comparing florfenicol, oxytetracycline, and tulathromycin for the 1st treatment of SA in feedlot calves.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Practitioners can use these results when creating treatment protocols for SA cases. Since results indicated similar health outcomes among the 3 antimicrobials, the lowest-priced antimicrobial may be the most cost-effective option. Perhaps antimicrobial treatment does not affect SA outcomes, but this could not be determined as negative controls were not included in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":9429,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne","volume":"66 7","pages":"764-773"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12261943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health outcomes following antimicrobial treatment of septic arthritis in Canadian feedlot calves.\",\"authors\":\"Brian Warr, Sarah Parker, Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein, Tim McAllister, Murray Jelinski\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the clinical efficacy of treating septic arthritis (SA) with 3 different antimicrobials: oxytetracycline, florfenicol, and tulathromycin.</p><p><strong>Animal: </strong>The study population comprised fall-placed steer and heifer calves at 4 commercial western Canadian feedlots. All calves received tulathromycin at induction for bovine respiratory disease (BRD).</p><p><strong>Procedure: </strong>Calves that developed SA were allocated to a randomized clinical field trial over a 2-year period. Arthritic calves (<i>n</i> = 251) were treated with florfenicol, oxytetracycline, or tulathromycin. Morbidity outcomes were SA relapses (1st and 2nd) and BRD. Causes of mortality were categorized as infectious (BRD, <i>Histophilus somni</i>, SA) and SA alone. Additional outcomes were early shipment for salvage slaughter (railer) and the sum of infectious mortality events and railer events (total fallout). Calves were followed for 90 d post-allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The numbers of calves allocated to florfenicol, oxytetracycline, and tulathromycin treatments were 85, 81, and 85, respectively. There were no differences in health outcomes among antimicrobial treatments (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This clinical field trial identified no health outcome differences when comparing florfenicol, oxytetracycline, and tulathromycin for the 1st treatment of SA in feedlot calves.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Practitioners can use these results when creating treatment protocols for SA cases. Since results indicated similar health outcomes among the 3 antimicrobials, the lowest-priced antimicrobial may be the most cost-effective option. Perhaps antimicrobial treatment does not affect SA outcomes, but this could not be determined as negative controls were not included in this study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne\",\"volume\":\"66 7\",\"pages\":\"764-773\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12261943/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Health outcomes following antimicrobial treatment of septic arthritis in Canadian feedlot calves.
Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy of treating septic arthritis (SA) with 3 different antimicrobials: oxytetracycline, florfenicol, and tulathromycin.
Animal: The study population comprised fall-placed steer and heifer calves at 4 commercial western Canadian feedlots. All calves received tulathromycin at induction for bovine respiratory disease (BRD).
Procedure: Calves that developed SA were allocated to a randomized clinical field trial over a 2-year period. Arthritic calves (n = 251) were treated with florfenicol, oxytetracycline, or tulathromycin. Morbidity outcomes were SA relapses (1st and 2nd) and BRD. Causes of mortality were categorized as infectious (BRD, Histophilus somni, SA) and SA alone. Additional outcomes were early shipment for salvage slaughter (railer) and the sum of infectious mortality events and railer events (total fallout). Calves were followed for 90 d post-allocation.
Results: The numbers of calves allocated to florfenicol, oxytetracycline, and tulathromycin treatments were 85, 81, and 85, respectively. There were no differences in health outcomes among antimicrobial treatments (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: This clinical field trial identified no health outcome differences when comparing florfenicol, oxytetracycline, and tulathromycin for the 1st treatment of SA in feedlot calves.
Clinical relevance: Practitioners can use these results when creating treatment protocols for SA cases. Since results indicated similar health outcomes among the 3 antimicrobials, the lowest-priced antimicrobial may be the most cost-effective option. Perhaps antimicrobial treatment does not affect SA outcomes, but this could not be determined as negative controls were not included in this study.
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Veterinary Journal (CVJ) provides a forum for the discussion of all matters relevant to the veterinary profession. The mission of the Journal is to educate by informing readers of progress in clinical veterinary medicine, clinical veterinary research, and related fields of endeavor. The key objective of The CVJ is to promote the art and science of veterinary medicine and the betterment of animal health.
A report suggesting that animals have been unnecessarily subjected to adverse, stressful, or harsh conditions or treatments will not be processed for publication. Experimental studies using animals will only be considered for publication if the studies have been approved by an institutional animal care committee, or equivalent, and the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, or equivalent, have been followed by the author(s).