Comparative efficacy of antimicrobial treatments in dairy cows at dry-off to prevent new intramammary infections during the dry period or clinical mastitis during early lactation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. (December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Winder, C. B.; Sargeant, J. M.; Hu, D.; Wang, C.; Kelton, D. F.; Leblanc, S. J.; Duffield, T. F.; Glanville, J.; Wood, H.; Churchill, K. J.; Dunn, J.; Bergevin, M. D.; Dawkins, K.; Meadows, S.; Deb, B.; Reist, M.; Moody, C.; O'Connor, A. M.
• Is Part Of: Animal health research reviews. Volume 20:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: 199
• Page End: 216
• Publication Date: 2019-12
• Subjects: Dairy cattle, -- dry cow, -- mixed treatment comparison; Animal health -- Periodicals; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; 636.089
• DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000239
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1466-2523

Abstract

Abstract: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy given to dairy cows at dry-off. Eligible studies were controlled trials assessing the use of antimicrobials compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and assessed one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, incidence of IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Databases and conference proceedings were searched for relevant articles. The potential for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 algorithm. From 3480 initially identified records, 45 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. The use of cephalosporins, cloxacillin, or penicillin with aminoglycoside significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (cephalosporins, RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.23–0.65; cloxacillin, RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.79; penicillin with aminoglycoside, RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.26–0.72). Synthesis revealed challenges with a comparability of outcomes, replication of interventions, definitions of outcomes, and quality of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines, replication among interventions, and standardization of outcome definitions would increase the utility of primary research in this area.