Microbial community sequencing analysis of the calf eye microbiota and relationship to infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis.

Infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis (IBK) is an important production limiting disease in cattle. Moraxella bovis has historically been considered the primary causal agent; however, vaccines have not been consistently shown as effective in controlling disease incidence. The purpose of this study was to examine the bacterial community of calf eyes prior to disease onset using high-throughput sequencing of 16S ribosomal RNA and determine if it was associated with IBK occurrence. The study was designed as a case-control nested within a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Eye swabs were collected from all spring-born calves without clinical signs of IBK (t0 swabs) on a research farm with a previous history of IBK disease outbreaks. At follow-up or weaning, calves were diagnosed as IBK positive or negative. The lag time between enrollment swabs (t0) and IBK diagnosis ranged from approximately one to three months. Cases were randomly selected from IBK positive calves and controls were selected from IBK negative calves (i.e. calves that did not exhibit clinical signs of IBK throughout the course of the RCT). Analysis of the fold-change differences between cases and controls did not reveal large-scale distinctions in bacterial composition. However, principal component analysis suggested bacterial composition differences between calf management groups, which were based on dam parity. Moraxella was found to be among the top ten most abundant genera in our population; however, the difference in abundance was not significant between the cases and controls. No large-scale differences in the bacterial communities of calves that did or did not develop IBK were observed in our population. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the "natural" bacterial population of the calf might ultimately impact disease status. Further study is warranted to examine bacterial taxa that were observed to be significantly more abundant in the cases or controls as potential vaccines/therapeutic targets.

What's in a Name? The Incorrect Use of Case Series as a Study Design Label in Studies Involving Dogs and Cats.

BACKGROUND: Study design labels are used to identify relevant literature to address specific clinical and research questions and to aid in evaluating the evidentiary value of research. Evidence from the human healthcare literature indicates that the label "case series" may be used inconsistently and inappropriately. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine the proportion of studies in the canine and feline veterinary literature labeled as case series that actually corresponded to descriptive cohort studies, population-based cohort studies, or other study designs. Our secondary objective was to identify the proportion of case series in which potentially inappropriate inferential statements were made. DESIGN: Descriptive evaluation of published literature. PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred published studies (from 19 journals) labeled as case series. METHODS: Studies were identified by a structured literature search, with random selection of 100 studies from the relevant citations. Two reviewers independently characterized each study, with disagreements resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Of the 100 studies, 16 were case series. The remaining studies were descriptive cohort studies (35), population-based cohort studies (36), or other observational or experimental study designs (13). Almost half (48.8%) of the case series or descriptive cohort studies, with no control group and no formal statistical analysis, included inferential statements about the efficacy of treatment or statistical significance of potential risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Authors, peer-reviewers, and editors should carefully consider the design elements of a study to accurately identify and label the study design. Doing so will facilitate an understanding of the evidentiary value of the results.

A mixed treatment meta-analysis of antibiotic treatment options for bovine respiratory disease - An update.

Bovine respiratory disease is the most economically important disease of feedlot cattle in North America. Choice of antibiotic is a critical factor for producers and veterinarians. We previously published a mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis that combined evidence from published trials and published estimates of comparative efficacy for 12 antibiotics registered for use in the USA. Some of the comparative efficacy estimates were based only on indirect evidence. Since the original review was published, new studies that provide direct evidence of comparative efficacy have been published. We updated the original review to include the current evidence. We also compared the results from the indirect estimates from the prior model with the observed results from randomized control trials. We repeated the original search and found that five of the new studies met the criteria for inclusion in the updated review. Four of these studies provided new data on direct comparisons of active drugs. The results from one study (performed in 2002) that compared ceftiofur pinna and enrofloxacin were inconsistent with the network and were excluded from the analysis. Three new direct comparison studies examined gamithromycin compared with tulathromycin, florfenicol, and tilmicosin. The results of our analysis suggested that the indirect estimates from the prior model provided reasonable estimates of the risk ratios revealed by the primary studies. For example, for the comparison of gamithromycin (referent) with tulathromycin, the original model predicted a risk ratio of re-treatment of 0.54 (95% credible interval 0.27-0.87). The subsequent randomized controlled trial revealed that the observed risk ratio of re-treatment was 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.45-0.78). The results of other comparisons were also similar. For the gamithromycin (referent) to florfenicol comparison, the observed randomized trial RR was 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.83-1.64) and the indirect estimate of RR from the prior model was 0.84 (95% credibility interval 0.48-1.3). The gamithromycin to tilmicosin (referent) observed RR from the randomized trial was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.67-1.47) and the indirect estimate of RR from the prior model was 1.09 (95% credible interval 0.64-1.79). The results suggested that indirect estimates provided reasonable estimates of RR when direct data were not available.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the antibiotic treatment for infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis: an update.

Infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis (IBK) is a common and important disease of calves. Without effective vaccines, antibiotic therapy is often implemented to minimize the impact of IBK. This review updates a previously published systematic review regarding comparative efficacy for antibiotic treatments of IBK. Available years of Centre for Biosciences and Agriculture International and MEDLINE databases were searched, including non-English results. Also searched were the American Association of Bovine Practitioners and World Buiatrics Congress conference proceedings from 1996 to 2016, reviews since 2013, reference lists from relevant trials, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration New Animal Drug Application summaries. Eligible studies assessed antibiotic treatment of naturally-occurring IBK in calves randomly allocated to group at the individual level. Outcomes of interest were clinical score, healing time, unhealed ulcer risk, and ulcer surface area. A mixed-effects model comparing active drug with placebo was employed for all outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed visually and using Cochran's Q-test. Thirteen trials assessing nine treatments were included. Compared with placebo, most antibiotic treatments were effective. There was evidence that the treatment effect differed by day of outcome measurement. Visually, the largest differences were observed 7-14 days post-treatment. These results indicate improved IBK healing with many antibiotics and suggest the need for randomized trials comparing different antibiotic treatments.

Radiotherapy treatment verification in the UK: an audit of practice in 2004.

AIMS: To audit current practice related to treatment verification undertaken in radiotherapy departments throughout the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated to the radiotherapy service managers of 62 radiotherapy centres in the UK. This looked in detail at the department demographics, imaging equipment, site-specific verification protocols, and training and competency assessment of staff responsible for verification. RESULTS: The response rate was 48% (30/62). All departments were using megavoltage imaging equipment in routine clinical practice. Twenty-four out of 29 (83%) departments that had electronic portal imaging capability were using image analysis software for verification. Twenty-nine out of 30 (97%) departments had site-specific written verification protocols. Twenty out of 30 (67%) treatment centres audited set-up errors within their department. Forty-three per cent of centres were using simulator image as the reference image of choice across all sites. Electronic portal imaging, alone or in combination with portal film, was being used for verification in 75% of the centres. Fifty-three per cent of centres used off-line correction strategies for measuring set-up errors across all sites. Radiographer-led interventions were primarily in the pelvis. CONCLUSION: Presently in the UK, verification strategies vary widely at individual treatment sites and between departments. Dedicated departmental verification teams, with input from radiographers, physicists and clinicians, may assist in the effective implementation of evidence-based verification. The inclusion of comprehensive verification protocols within multicentre radiotherapy trials encourages standardisation across treatment centres.