Search

Treatment of clinical mastitis (CM) and use of antimicrobials for dry cow therapy are responsible for the majority of animal-defined daily doses of antimicrobial use (AMU) on dairy farms. However, advancements made in the last decade have enabled excluding nonsevere CM cases from antimicrobial treatment that have a high probability of cure without antimicrobials (no bacterial causes or gram-negative, excluding Klebsiella spp.) and cases with a low bacteriological cure rate (chronic cases). These advancements include availability of rapid diagnostic tests and improved udder health management practices, which reduced the incidence and infection pressure of contagious CM pathogens. This review informed an evidence-based protocol for selective CM treatment decisions based on a combination of rapid diagnostic test results, review of somatic cell count and CM records, and elucidated consequences in terms of udder health, AMU, and farm economics. Relatively fast identification of the causative agent is the most important factor in selective CM treatment protocols. Many reported studies did not indicate detrimental udder health consequences (e.g., reduced clinical or bacteriological cures, increased somatic cell count, increased culling rate, or increased recurrence of CM later in lactation) after initiating selective CM treatment protocols using on-farm testing. The magnitude of AMU reduction following a selective CM treatment protocol implementation depended on the causal pathogen distribution and protocol characteristics. Uptake of selective treatment of nonsevere CM cases differs across regions and is dependent on management systems and adoption of udder health programs. No economic losses or animal welfare issues are expected when adopting a selective versus blanket CM treatment protocol. Therefore, selective CM treatment of nonsevere cases can be a practical tool to aid AMU reduction on dairy farms.

Treatment of clinical mastitis (CM) contributes to antimicrobial use on dairy farms. Selective treatment of CM based on bacterial diagnosis can reduce antimicrobial use, as not all cases of CM will benefit from antimicrobial treatment, e.g., mild and moderate gram-negative infections. However, impacts of selective CM treatment on udder health and culling are not fully understood. A systematic search identified 13 studies that compared selective versus blanket CM treatment protocols. Reported outcomes were synthesized with random-effects models and presented as risk ratios or mean differences. Selective CM treatment protocol was not inferior to blanket CM treatment protocol for the outcome bacteriological cure. Noninferiority margins could not be established for the outcomes clinical cure, new intramammary infection, somatic cell count, milk yield, recurrence, or culling. However, no differences were detected between selective and blanket CM treatment protocols using traditional analyses, apart from a not clinically relevant increase in interval from treatment to clinical cure (0.4 d) in the selective group and higher proportion of clinical cure at 14 d in the selective group. The latter occurred in studies co-administering nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories only in the selective group. Bias could not be ruled out in most studies due to suboptimal randomization, although this would likely only affect subjective outcomes such as clinical cure. Hence, findings were supported by a high or moderate certainty of evidence for all outcome measures except clinical cure. In conclusion, this review supported the assertion that a selective CM treatment protocol can be adopted without adversely influencing bacteriological and clinical cure, somatic cell count, milk yield, and incidence of recurrence or culling.

Treatment of clinical mastitis (CM) and use of antimicrobials for dry cow therapy are responsible for the majority of animal-defined daily doses of antimicrobial use (AMU) on dairy farms. However, advancements made in the last decade have enabled excluding nonsevere CM cases from antimicrobial treatment that have a high probability of cure without antimicrobials (no bacterial causes or gram-negative, excluding Klebsiella spp.) and cases with a low bacteriological cure rate (chronic cases). These advancements include availability of rapid diagnostic tests and improved udder health management practices, which reduced the incidence and infection pressure of contagious CM pathogens. This review informed an evidence-based protocol for selective CM treatment decisions based on a combination of rapid diagnostic test results, review of somatic cell count and CM records, and elucidated consequences in terms of udder health, AMU, and farm economics. Relatively fast identification of the causative agent is the most important factor in selective CM treatment protocols. Many reported studies did not indicate detrimental udder health consequences (e.g., reduced clinical or bacteriological cures, increased somatic cell count, increased culling rate, or increased recurrence of CM later in lactation) after initiating selective CM treatment protocols using on-farm testing. The magnitude of AMU reduction following a selective CM treatment protocol implementation depended on the causal pathogen distribution and protocol characteristics. Uptake of selective treatment of nonsevere CM cases differs across regions and is dependent on management systems and adoption of udder health programs. No economic losses or animal welfare issues are expected when adopting a selective versus blanket CM treatment protocol. Therefore, selective CM treatment of nonsevere cases can be a practical tool to aid AMU reduction on dairy farms.

Treatment of clinical mastitis (CM) contributes to antimicrobial use on dairy farms. Selective treatment of CM based on bacterial diagnosis can reduce antimicrobial use, as not all cases of CM will benefit from antimicrobial treatment, e.g., mild and moderate gram-negative infections. However, impacts of selective CM treatment on udder health and culling are not fully understood. A systematic search identified 13 studies that compared selective versus blanket CM treatment protocols. Reported outcomes were synthesized with random-effects models and presented as risk ratios or mean differences. Selective CM treatment protocol was not inferior to blanket CM treatment protocol for the outcome bacteriological cure. Noninferiority margins could not be established for the outcomes clinical cure, new intramammary infection, somatic cell count, milk yield, recurrence, or culling. However, no differences were detected between selective and blanket CM treatment protocols using traditional analyses, apart from a not clinically relevant increase in interval from treatment to clinical cure (0.4 d) in the selective group and higher proportion of clinical cure at 14 d in the selective group. The latter occurred in studies co-administering nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories only in the selective group. Bias could not be ruled out in most studies due to suboptimal randomization, although this would likely only affect subjective outcomes such as clinical cure. Hence, findings were supported by a high or moderate certainty of evidence for all outcome measures except clinical cure. In conclusion, this review supported the assertion that a selective CM treatment protocol can be adopted without adversely influencing bacteriological and clinical cure, somatic cell count, milk yield, and incidence of recurrence or culling.

Treatment of clinical mastitis (CM) contributes to antimicrobial use on dairy farms. Selective treatment of CM based on bacterial diagnosis can reduce antimicrobial use, as not all cases of CM will benefit from antimicrobial treatment, e.g., mild and moderate gram-negative infections. However, impacts of selective CM treatment on udder health and culling are not fully understood. A systematic search identified 13 studies that compared selective versus blanket CM treatment protocols. Reported outcomes were synthesized with random-effects models and presented as risk ratios or mean differences. Selective CM treatment protocol was not inferior to blanket CM treatment protocol for the outcome bacteriological cure. Noninferiority margins could not be established for the outcomes clinical cure, new intramammary infection, somatic cell count, milk yield, recurrence, or culling. However, no differences were detected between selective and blanket CM treatment protocols using traditional analyses, apart from a not clinically relevant increase in interval from treatment to clinical cure (0.4 d) in the selective group and higher proportion of clinical cure at 14 d in the selective group. The latter occurred in studies co-administering nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories only in the selective group. Bias could not be ruled out in most studies due to suboptimal randomization, although this would likely only affect subjective outcomes such as clinical cure. Hence, findings were supported by a high or moderate certainty of evidence for all outcome measures except clinical cure. In conclusion, this review supported the assertion that a selective CM treatment protocol can be adopted without adversely influencing bacteriological and clinical cure, somatic cell count, milk yield, and incidence of recurrence or culling.