A systematic review and network meta-analysis of injectable antibiotic options for the control of bovine respiratory disease in the first 45 days post arrival at the feedlot

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of antibiotics used to control bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in beef cattle on feedlots. The information sources for the review were: MEDLINE®, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE® Daily, AGRICOLA, Epub Ahead of Print, Cambridge Agricultural and Biological Index, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science, the Proceedings of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, World Buiatrics Conference, and the United States Food and Drug Administration Freedom of Information New Animal Drug Applications summaries. The eligible population was weaned beef cattle raised in intensive systems. The interventions of interest were injectable antibiotics used at the time the cattle arrived at the feedlot. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of BRD within 45 days of arrival at the feedlot. The network meta-analysis included data from 46 studies and 167 study arms identified in the review. The results suggest that macrolides are the most effective antibiotics for the reduction of BRD incidence. Injectable oxytetracycline effectively controlled BRD compared with no antibiotics; however, it was less effective than macrolide treatment. Because oxytetracycline is already commonly used to prevent, control, and treat BRD in groups of feedlot cattle, the use of injectable oxytetracycline for BRD control might have advantages from an antibiotic stewardship perspective.

Editorial: Systematic reviews reveal a need for more, better data to inform antimicrobial stewardship practices in animal agriculture

“…Articles in this special issue include scoping reviews of systematic reviews in animal health (Vriezen et al, 2019a) and of non-antibiotic approaches to reduce the need for antibiotic treatments in beef and veal production (Wisener et al, 2019). The systematic reviews with meta-analyses or network meta-analyses include an assessment of the efficacy of vaccines and injectable antibiotics administered on arrival to control respiratory disease in feedlot cattle (O'Connor et al, 2019a(O'Connor et al, , 2019b; the efficacy of teat sealants, antibiotics at dry off, selective dry cow treatment to reduce the incidence of mastitis and intra-mammary infection in early lactation, and the efficacy of antibiotics to treat clinical mastitis in dairy cattle (Winder et al, 2019a(Winder et al, , 2019b(Winder et al, , 2019c(Winder et al, , 2019d; the comparative efficacy of litter type for preventing illness in broiler chickens (Sargeant et al, 2019a); the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent colibacillosis in broiler chickens (Sargeant et al, 2019b); and the efficacy of bacterial vaccines and of preventive antibiotics to prevent respiratory disease in swine (Sargeant et al, 2019c(Sargeant et al, , 2019d. Finally, an evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating preventive antibiotics or management to reduce disease in livestock species is included (Vriezen et al, 2019b).…”

“…For example, a meta-analysis of clinical trials on the efficacy of teat sealants in dairy cows clearly shows that the products investigators studied are likely to be effective for reducing the incidence of mastitis and intra-mammary infection in early lactation (Winder et al ., 2019 a ). Similarly, several antibiotics were effective at controlling bovine respiratory disease (O'Connor et al ., 2019 b ). Understanding the comparative efficacy of antibiotic options is another tool to guide decision-making on prudent antibiotic use, enabling practitioners to use only antibiotics that are efficacious or, when multiple antibiotics are of similar efficacy, selecting the one of lesser importance in human medicine.…”

“…The mastitis treatment review (Winder et al ., 2019 d ), beef vaccine review (O'Connor et al ., 2019 a ), and poultry litter review (Sargeant et al ., 2019 a ) provide good examples of these disparate networks. The value of connected networks of evidence can be seen by contrasting the ability to reach conclusions for those reviews compared to the beef feedlot antibiotic review (O'Connor et al ., 2019 b ), where the interventions were very well connected. There was also considerable variation in the outcomes measured used for specific disease conditions, both in the outcome definitions and in the period at risk for evaluating the outcome.…”

A Likelihood Ratio Test For The Homogeneity of Between-Study Variance in Network Meta-Analysis

“…An example of such a group of antibiotics is the macrolide group. Antibiotics in this group have consistent high quality evidence of low BRD risk after 28 days when administered at arrival [11,12]. This means that trials that compare a macrolide to a macrolide would be expected to have a comparative effect size near zero, if the effect size is measured as the log odds ratio (log OR).…”

A systematic review of the efficacy of antibiotics for the prevention of swine respiratory disease

“…A systematic review and NMA of antibiotics for the treatment of swine respiratory disease has been published (O'Connor et al ., 2019); however, the scientific literature on preventive uses of antibiotics has not been formally synthesized. A systematic review and NMA of the efficacy of currently used antimicrobials for the prevention of swine respiratory disease could provide credible evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for prevention of swine respiratory disease, to aid veterinarians and swine producers in decision-making for the prudent use of antibiotics.…”