Randomized noninferiority field trial comparing 2 first-generation cephalosporin products at dry off in quarters receiving an internal teat sealant in dairy cows.

The study objective was to compare 2 commercial dry cow mastitis products at the quarter level, with concurrent internal teat sealant application, evaluating the cure risk difference, odds of a cure, odds of a new intramammary infection (NIMI) during the dry period, and risk for a clinical mastitis (CM) case between calving and 60d in milk (DIM). A total of 590 cows (2,360 quarters) from 8 commercial dairy herds in Italy were enrolled and randomized to 1 of the 2 treatments at dry off: Cefovet A (CF; 250mg of cephazoline; Merial Italia SpA, Milan, Italy), and Cepravin (CP; 250mg of cephalonium dehydrate MSD Animal Health Srl, Segrate, Italy). Quarter milk samples were collected before dry cow therapy treatment at dry off, 2 to 9 DIM, and 10 to 17 DIM. Quarter milk samples from CM cases were collected during the first 60 DIM. Noninferiority analysis was used to evaluate the effect of treatment on the risk difference of a bacteriological cure during the dry period, the primary outcome. The odds of cure, developing a NIMI during the dry period, and the risk of a CM event within 60 DIM were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression and hazard analysis, respectively. The overall crude quarter-level prevalence of NIMI at dry off was 15.3%. The most common pathogen isolated from milk samples at dry-off was coagulase-negative staphylococci. Noninferiority analysis showed no effect of treatment on the risk difference for a cure between dry off and both postpartum samples, difference was 0.013. The least squares means from the multivariable model evaluating the odds of cure was 94% for CF and 95%for CP. We observed no effect of treatment on the odds for the presence of a NIMI at 2 to 9 DIM (least squares means: CF=0.09 and CP=0.07), nor did we note a difference in risk of experiencing a CM event between calving and 60 DIM (hazard ratio=0.8). In conclusion, no difference was observed between the 2 products evaluated when assessing the aforementioned outcomes in quarters also receiving an internal teat sealant.