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

Abstract

Prevention and control of respiratory disease is a major contributor to antibiotic use in swine. A systematic review was conducted to address the question, 'What is the comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for the prevention of swine respiratory disease?' Eligible studies were controlled trials published in English evaluating prophylactic antibiotics in swine, where clinical morbidity, mortality, or total antibiotic use was assessed. Four databases and the gray literature were searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers working independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility followed by full-text articles, and then extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for eligible trials. There were 44 eligible trials from 36 publications. Clinical morbidity was evaluated in eight trials where antibiotics were used in nursery pigs and 10 trials where antibiotics were used in grower pigs. Mortality was measured in 22 trials in nursery pigs and 12 trials in grower pigs. There was heterogeneity in the antibiotic interventions and comparisons published in the literature; thus, there was insufficient evidence to allow quantification of the efficacy, or relative efficacy, of antibiotic interventions. Concerns related to statistical non-independence and quality of reporting were noted in the included trials.

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).…”

Defining the Effect of Oxytocin Use in Farrowing Sows on Stillbirth Rate: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis

“…All the studies were assessed using the modified version of the Cochrane tool for the risk of bias for randomized studies of interventions (RoB 2.0) [ 17 , 18 ]. An assessment was performed on individual trials for each trial.…”

“…The Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB 2.0), a modified version of the Cochrane tool for risk of bias for randomized studies of interventions, was used for assessing the risk of bias for each eligible randomized trial [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]. The assessment was performed at the study level; therefore, a RoB analysis was performed on each trial presented in the articles.…”

Indications and patterns of antimicrobial use in pig farms in the southern Kyushu, Japan: large amounts of tetracyclines used to treat respiratory disease in post-weaning and fattening pigs

“…2 concept was supported by the findings of our study. Porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC) is often multifactorial, involving different combinations of viruses and bacteria (A. pleuropneumoniae, Bordetella bronchiseptica, and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae), causing severe losses [8,18].…”