Modification of empirical antimicrobial regimens in large animal medicine.

BACKGROUND: Empirical antimicrobial regimens can be modified following new diagnostic information or when empirical treatment fails. Little is known about the frequency or clinical context in which these modifications occur. We characterised these modifications in a large animal hospital to identify when antimicrobial use could be optimised. METHODS: Chart reviews were performed for all inpatients and outpatients administered antimicrobials at a large animal veterinary referral and teaching hospital in 2017-2018 (n=1163 visits) to determine when and why empirical regimens were modified. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with reasons for modification. RESULTS: Empirical antimicrobial regimens were modified in 17.3 per cent of visits. The main reasons were parenteral-oral conversions in horses and failure of disease prevention or treatment in ruminants. Empirical therapy for disease prevention was more likely to be modified because of complications in ruminants and in animals on the emergency/critical care service. Empirical therapy for disease treatment was more often modified for reasons other than de-escalation in ruminants and in animals with longer lengths of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical antimicrobial regimens were modified infrequently and mostly for purposes of parenteral-oral conversion in horses and lack of response in ruminants. De-escalation of antimicrobials administered for disease treatment, when guided by diagnostics, is a major tenet of judicious antimicrobial use. However, more research is needed to determine when and how antimicrobial regimens administered for disease prevention should be modified.

Comparison of animal daily doses and days of therapy for antimicrobials in species of veterinary importance.

Characterizing antimicrobial use in animal populations is critical for purposes of antimicrobial stewardship. While dose-based metrics such as the animal daily dose (ADD) are typically used for such purposes, duration of therapy is emerging as a critical and more intuitive metric. In theory, the number of ADDs should approximate the number of days of therapy (DOTs), but no studies have examined whether this is the case. The objective of this study was to compare antimicrobial ADDs with antimicrobial DOTs in three populations: canine patients, large animal hospital patients, and dairy herds. In the first two populations, dose-based metrics were calculated using administrative hospital records while duration-based metrics were ascertained from manual chart review of individual animals. In the dairy herds, both metrics were obtained via farmer self-report. We found that the correlation between the number of ADDs and DOTs was poor for hospital patients (Lin correlation coefficients of 0.16 and 0.18 for small and large animals, respectively) and that there were often large differences between the two metrics for all populations, with ADDs most often overestimating the number of DOTs. While the median (IQR) differences between the number of DOTs and ADDs were relatively small (-9.4 (-25.7-(-0.92)), 0.34 (-5.0-4.0), and 0.0 (-18.0-9.0) among canine patients, large animal hospital patients, and dairy herds, respectively), the limits of agreement (-89.4-13.2, -37.7-9.9, and -100.0-53.0, respectively) were likely too large to be acceptable for most investigative purposes. Increased discrepancies between the two metrics were significantly associated with certain animal species (e.g., dogs, small ruminants) and drug classes (e.g., penicillins, cephalosporins, macrolides), decreased animal weight, and increased length of hospital stay. While the number of ADDs can approximate the number of DOTs under certain circumstances, the large limits of agreement between these two measurements suggest that the ADD is generally not a reliable proxy for the duration of therapy.