Bovine Acute Mastitis: Part II. Effect of Mastitis Pathogen, Initial Inflammatory Reaction and Therapy on the Outcome of the Disease

Abstract

Summary The outcome of 423 quarters with acute bovine mastitis treated with eight different therapeutic regimes was evaluated by means of milk antitrypsin and NAGase 3 weeks after treatment. Analysis of variance was used to predict the 3‐week status from information relating to the acute stage of the disease. Neither the parity of the cow nor the location of the quarter had any effect on post‐treatment values. Pre‐treatment and post‐treatment values of the indicators of inflammation usually correlated positively; cases with high levels at the acute stage recovered poorly. In contrast, the correlation in coliform mastitis was found to be negative, and it was suggested that in these cases an intensive inflammatory response is beneficial to the course of the disease. Of the clinical signs, only local signs predicted recovery from mastitis. The details of antibiotic treatment only affected recovery from S. aureus mastitis; longer duration of treatment and sensitivity of the strain to the drug used showed a positive effect. Zusammenfassung Der Heilerfolg von 8 verschíedenen Therapiearten wurde bei, an akuter Mastitis erkrankten, Kühen 3 Wochen nach der Behandlung anhand der Milchparameter Antitrypsin und NAGase überprüft. Eine Varianzanalyse wurde herangezogen, um den 3‐Wochenstatus anhand von Informationen, die von der akuten Phase der Erkrankung gewonnen wurden, vorherzusagen. Weder die Anzahl der Geburten des Tieres noch die Lage des Euterviertels hatten irgendeinen Einfluß auf diese Werte nach der Behandlung. Die Entzündungsparameter vor und nach der Therapie korrelierten gewöhnlich positiv. Fälle mit hohen Werten während der akuten Phase erholten sich schlecht. Dagegen zeigte sich bei der Mastitis durch Escherichia coli eine negative Korrelation, was darauf hindeutet, daß eine starke Entzündungsreaktion sich günstig auf den Krankheitsverlauf auswirkt. In bezug auf die klinischen Anzeichen geben nur lokale Symptome einen Aufschluß über einen Heilungserfolg. Die Details der antibiotischen Therapien bewirkten lediglich bei S. aureus‐Mastitiden eine Heilung, wobei die Dauer der Behandlung und die Empfindlichkeit des Stammes gegenüber den Medikamenten eine positive Auswirkung hatten.

Efficacy of intramammary treatment with procaine penicillin G vs. procaine penicillin G plus neomycin in bovine clinical mastitis caused by penicillin‐susceptible, gram‐positive bacteria – a double blind field study

“…No statistical differences in the cure rates between the treatment groups were observed. Several field studies were conducted in which a penicillin treatment in clinical and subclinical mastitis was compared with a penicillin-aminoglycoside combination in an open study design or even in a nonrandomized set-up (Postle & Natzke, 1974;Pyörälä & Syväjärvi, 1987;Jarp et al, 1989;McDougall, 1998). None of these studies showed any advantage in using the combination over using penicillin G alone.…”

Comparison of Homeopathy, Placebo and Antibiotic Treatment of Clinical Mastitis in Dairy Cows – Methodological Issues and Results from a Randomized‐clinical Trial

“…Differences in definitions of success and outcome measures between academic medicine and alternative therapies, is a matter of discussion (Coulter, 1980; Walker and Anderson, 1999; Mason et al., 2002; Walach and Jonas, 2002). In treatment of mastitis, disappearance of symptoms, elimination of infection, good milk quality and minimal reduction in milk production are important results (Craven, 1987; Pyörälä and Syväjärvi, 1987). These factors are important for animal welfare, and have practical and economic implications.…”

Treatment for bovineEscherichia colimastitis – an evidence‐based approach

“…The in vitro susceptibility cannot, however, be used as a predictor of cure (Doern & Brecher, ). Contradictory results were reported for two field studies on E. coli mastitis; in one study, the in vitro susceptibility of the isolate was associated with the treatment response (Shpigel et al ., ), and in the other, no association was found (Pyörälä & Syväjärvi, ).…”