Animal Health Research Reviews (3)
Non-antibiotic approaches for disease prevention and control in beef and veal production: a scoping review
Antimicrobial stewardship in livestock
Lee V. Wisener, Jan M. Sargeant, Annette M. O'Connor, Terri L. O'Sullivan, Scott A. McEwen, Andrea Nwosu, Tanya M. Rossi
Journal: Animal Health Research Reviews / Volume 20 / Issue 2 / December 2019
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 February 2020, pp. 128-142
Livestock producers are encouraged to reduce the use of antibiotics belonging to classes of medical importance to humans. We conducted a scoping review on non-antibiotic interventions in the form of products or management practices that could potentially reduce the need for antibiotics in beef and veal animals living under intensive production conditions. Our objectives were to systematically describe the research on this broad topic, identify specific topics that could feasibly support systematic reviews, and identify knowledge gaps. Multiple databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and charted the data. From the 13,598 articles screened, 722 relevant articles were charted. The number of relevant articles increased steadily from 1990. The Western European research was dominated by veal production studies whereas the North American research was dominated by beef production studies. The interventions and outcomes measured were diverse. The four most frequent interventions included non-antibiotic feed additives, vaccinations, breed type, and feed type. The four most frequent outcomes were indices of immunity, non-specific morbidity, respiratory disease, and mortality. There were seven topic areas evaluated in clinical trials that may share enough commonality to support systemic reviews. There was a dearth of studies in which interventions were compared to antibiotic comparison groups.
A systematic review of the efficacy of antibiotics for the prevention of swine respiratory disease
Jan M. Sargeant, Michele D. Bergevin, Katheryn Churchill, Kaitlyn Dawkins, Bhumika Deb, Jennifer Dunn, Dapeng Hu, Carly Moody, Annette M. O'Connor, Terri L. O'Sullivan, Mark Reist, Chong Wang, Barbara Wilhelm, Charlotte B. Winder
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.
Efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Jan M. Sargeant, Bhumika Deb, Michele D. Bergevin, Katheryn Churchill, Kaitlyn Dawkins, Jennifer Dunn, Dapeng Hu, Carly Moody, Annette M. O'Connor, Terri L. O'Sullivan, Mark Reist, Chong Wang, Barbara Wilhelm, Charlotte B. Winder
A systematic review and network meta-analysis (MA) was conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine?' Four electronic databases and the grey literature were searched to identify clinical trials in healthy swine where at least one intervention arm was a commercially available vaccine for one or more bacterial pathogens associated with respiratory disease in swine, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia, Actinobacillus suis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida, Stretococcus suis, Haemophils parasuis, and Mycoplasma hyorhinis. To be eligible, trials had to measure at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of clinical morbidity, mortality, lung lesions, or total antibiotic use. There were 179 eligible trials identified in 146 publications. Network MA was undertaken for morbidity, mortality, and the presence or absence of non-specific lung lesions. However, there was not a sufficient body of research evaluating the same interventions and outcomes to allow a meaningful synthesis of the comparative efficacy of the vaccines. To build this body of research, additional rigor in trial design and analysis, and detailed reporting of trial methods and results are warranted.