Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Department of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Vet Rec. 2022 Dec;191(11):e2235. doi: 10.1002/vetr.2235. Epub 2022 Sep 30.
To what extent veterinarians active in the dairy or beef sector follow the antimicrobial therapy guidelines made available in different European countries for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) outbreaks, and whether differences in therapeutic or preventive preferences for BRD management exist, is currently unknown. Therefore, the objectives of this cross-sectional study were to compare vaccination coverage and primary antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory treatment on dairy, beef and mixed-breed farms in northern Belgium, and determine their compliance with the recommendations made by the Belgian formulary.
Information on antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory drug use and vaccination coverage from 190 BRD outbreaks in 180 herds, submitted by 101 veterinarians, was analysed. Multivariable linear probability models, adjusted for clustering at the veterinarian level, were used to determine differences between dairy and beef farms.
Antimicrobials and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were used in 93.5% and 81.7% of the BRD outbreaks, respectively. First-line antimicrobials were used as primary treatment in only 42.3%, 50.9% and 38.6% of dairy, beef and mixed-breed farms, respectively. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between dairy and beef farms in terms of use of long-acting macrolides (-17.2 percentage points [pp]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -31.9, -2.5), steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (15.2 pp; CI: 0.5, 29.8) and vaccination coverage (bovine respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus type 3 [33.1 pp; Cl: 15.7-50.6] and Mannheimia haemolytica [23.1 pp; Cl: 3.4-39.8]).
The herds that participated in this study were likely among the more motivated regarding BRD control. As such, the information on vaccination coverage is likely not entirely representative of herds in the study area. Interpretation is further complicated by the fact that vaccinated herds were potentially less likely to face a BRD outbreak and therefore participate in the current study.
This study reveals differences in the primary use of (N)SAIDs, type of antimicrobials used and vaccination coverage on beef and dairy farms in the study region, and also differences in the appropriateness of antimicrobial selection based on the Belgian formulary.
目前尚不清楚活跃于奶牛或肉牛行业的兽医在多大程度上遵循了不同欧洲国家为牛呼吸道疾病（BRD）爆发制定的抗菌治疗指南，以及在 BRD 管理的治疗或预防偏好方面是否存在差异。因此，本横断面研究的目的是比较比荷卢经济联盟北部的奶牛、肉牛和混种牛场的疫苗接种覆盖率以及主要抗菌和抗炎治疗，并确定其是否符合比利时处方的建议。
对 101 名兽医提交的 190 起 BRD 暴发中 180 个畜群的抗菌和抗炎药物使用及疫苗接种覆盖率信息进行了分析。使用多变量线性概率模型，根据兽医水平的聚类进行调整，以确定奶牛场和肉牛场之间的差异。
93.5%和 81.7%的 BRD 暴发分别使用了抗菌药物和非甾体抗炎药（NSAIDs）。仅分别有 42.3%、50.9%和 38.6%的奶牛、肉牛和混种牛场将一线抗菌药物作为主要治疗药物。在使用长效大环内酯类药物（-17.2 个百分点[pp]；95%置信区间[CI]：-31.9，-2.5）、甾体抗炎药（15.2 pp；CI：0.5，29.8）和疫苗接种覆盖率（牛呼吸道合胞病毒、副流感病毒 3 型[33.1 pp；Cl：15.7-50.6]和曼海姆氏菌[23.1 pp；Cl：3.4-39.8]）方面，奶牛场和肉牛场之间存在显著差异（p<0.05）。
参与本研究的畜群可能是更关注 BRD 控制的畜群。因此，关于疫苗接种覆盖率的信息可能不完全代表研究区域内的畜群。由于接种疫苗的畜群不太可能面临 BRD 爆发，因此更有可能参与当前的研究，因此解释变得更加复杂。
本研究揭示了研究区域内肉牛和奶牛场在主要使用（N）SAIDs、使用的抗菌药物类型和疫苗接种覆盖率方面的差异，以及基于比利时处方选择抗菌药物的适当性方面的差异。
