Ross S E, Duz M, Rendle D I
Liphook Equine Hospital, UK.
School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, UK.
Equine Vet J. 2016 Nov;48(6):676-680. doi: 10.1111/evj.12535. Epub 2015 Dec 25.
Antimicrobial stewardship within the veterinary profession is recognised by governing and professional bodies as being important; the attitudes and behaviour of veterinary surgeons merit investigation.
To investigate levels of protected antimicrobial use and accuracy of antimicrobial dosing in a common clinical scenario in equine practice.
Retrospective cohort study.
Antimicrobial use was evaluated retrospectively in 113 cases subsequently referred to a single referral hospital for the treatment of limb wounds over a 20-month period. Antimicrobial classification (first-line, alternative or protected) was made according to guidelines produced by the British Equine Veterinary Association. These guidelines also served as the reference for recommended dose rates.
Systemic antimicrobials were administered prior to referral in 94/113 (83.2%) horses, of which 8 (8.5%) received the protected third or fourth generation cephalosporins or fluoroquinolones. Forty-eight of 87 (55.2%) horses for which complete dosing data were available received antimicrobials at ≤90% of the recommended dose. Practitioners who held a postgraduate clinical qualification or worked in purely equine practice were no more or less likely to use protected antimicrobials (P = 0.06 and P = 0.64, respectively) or administer inadequate doses (P = 0.75 and P = 0.85, respectively). Veterinary surgeons with more experience were less likely to use protected antimicrobials (P<0.001); however, with the small case numbers, this finding should be interpreted with caution. Heavier horses were more likely to be under-dosed (P<0.002).
This study highlights the administration of certain classes of antimicrobials in situations where their use is unlikely to be justified. If these findings reflect more general attitudes and behaviour then greater awareness of, and compliance with, recommendations for responsible antimicrobial use are required among equine practitioners. Bodyweight ought to be measured or estimated using validated objective techniques prior to systemic medications being administered.
兽医行业内的抗菌药物管理被管理机构和专业团体视为重要事项;兽医的态度和行为值得研究。
调查马科动物临床常见情况下受保护抗菌药物的使用水平及抗菌药物剂量的准确性。
回顾性队列研究。
对113例在20个月期间随后转诊至一家转诊医院治疗肢体伤口的病例进行回顾性抗菌药物使用评估。根据英国马科动物兽医协会制定的指南对抗菌药物进行分类(一线、替代或受保护)。这些指南也作为推荐剂量率的参考。
94/113(83.2%)匹马在转诊前接受了全身用抗菌药物治疗,其中8匹(8.5%)接受了受保护的第三代或第四代头孢菌素或氟喹诺酮类药物。在87例有完整给药数据的马匹中,48例(55.2%)接受的抗菌药物剂量≤推荐剂量的90%。拥有研究生临床资格或仅从事马科动物临床工作的从业者使用受保护抗菌药物的可能性并无差异(分别为P = 0.06和P = 0.64),给药剂量不足的可能性也无差异(分别为P = 0.75和P = 0.85)。经验更丰富的兽医使用受保护抗菌药物的可能性较小(P<0.001);然而,由于病例数量较少,这一发现应谨慎解读。体重较重的马匹给药剂量不足的可能性更大(P<0.002)。
本研究凸显了在某些不太可能合理使用抗菌药物的情况下使用了某些类别的抗菌药物。如果这些发现反映了更普遍的态度和行为,那么马科动物从业者需要提高对负责任使用抗菌药物建议的认识并遵守这些建议。在给予全身用药之前,应使用经过验证的客观技术测量或估算体重。