Kirsten E. Bailey

Equine rotaviruses--current understanding and continuing challenges.

Abstract Equine rotaviruses were first detected in foals over 30 years ago and remain a major cause of infectious diarrhoea in foals. During this time, there has been substantial progress in the development of sensitive methods to detect rotaviruses in foals, enabling surveillance of the genotypes present in various horse populations. However, there has been limited epidemiological investigation into the significance of these circulating genotypes, their correlation with disease and the use of vaccination in these animal populations. Our knowledge of the pathogenesis of rotavirus infection in foals is based on a limited number of studies on a small number of foals and, therefore, most of our understanding in this area has been extrapolated from studies in other species. Questions such as the concentrations of rotavirus particles shed in the faeces of infected foals, both with and without diarrhoea, and factors determining the presence or absence of clinical disease remain to be investigated, as does the relative and absolute efficacy of currently available vaccines. The answer to these questions may help direct research into the development of more effective control measures.

Update on Viral Diseases of the Equine Respiratory Tract

Many viral agents have been associated with respiratory disease of the horse. The most important viral causes of respiratory disease in horses are equine influenza and the equine alphaherpesviruses. Agents such as equine viral arteritis virus, African horse sickness virus, and Hendra virus establish systemic infections. Clinical signs of disease resulting from infection with these agents can manifest as respiratory disease, but the respiratory tract is not the major body system affected by these viruses. Treatment of viral respiratory disease is generally limited to supportive therapies, whereas targeted antimicrobial therapy is effective in cases of bacterial infection.

Antimicrobials used for surgical prophylaxis by companion animal veterinarians in Australia

Antimicrobials are widely used in veterinary practices, but there has been no investigation into the classes of antimicrobials used or the appropriateness of their use in surgical prophylaxis. Antimicrobial usage guidelines were published by the Australian Infectious Disease Advisory Panel (AIDAP) in 2013, but there has been no investigation of compliance with them. This study aimed to investigate antimicrobial use for surgical prophylaxis in companion animal practice and assess compliance with AIDAP guidelines for selected conditions by conducting a cross-sectional study of antimicrobial usage patterns of Australian veterinarians using an online questionnaire. Information solicited included: details of the respondent, the frequency with which antimicrobials were used for specific surgical conditions (including dose and duration) and practice antimicrobial use policies and sources of information about antimicrobial drugs and their uses. A total of 886 members of the Australian veterinary profession completed the survey. Few (22%) reported that their practice that had an antimicrobial use policy. Generally, the choice of antimicrobial drug was appropriate for the given surgical conditions. There was poor compliance with AIDAP guidelines for non-use of antimicrobials for routine neutering. Veterinarians caring solely for companion animals had higher odds of optimal compliance with guidelines than veterinarians in mixed species practices (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.1-1.9). Recent graduates (>2011) had lower odds of compliance than older graduates (OR 0.8, 95%CI 0.6-0.9). The findings suggest that antimicrobial use guidelines need to be expanded and promoted to improve the responsible use of antimicrobials in small animal practice in Australia.

Barriers to and enablers of implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs in veterinary practices

Background Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs are yet to be widely implemented in veterinary practice and medical programs are unlikely to be directly applicable to veterinary settings. Objective To gain an in‐depth understanding of the factors that influence effective AMS in veterinary practices in Australia. Methods A concurrent explanatory mixed methods design was used. The quantitative phase of the study consisted of an online questionnaire to assess veterinarians’ attitudes to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and antimicrobial use in animals, and the extent to which AMS currently is implemented (knowingly or unknowingly). The qualitative phase used semi‐structured interviews to gain an understanding of the barriers to and enablers of AMS in veterinary practices. Data were collected and entered into NVivo v.11, openly coded and analyzed according to mixed methods data analysis principles. Results Companion animal, equine, and bovine veterinarians participated in the study. Veterinary practices rarely had antimicrobial prescribing policies. The key barriers were a lack of AMS governance structures, client expectations and competition between practices, cost of microbiological testing, and lack of access to education, training and AMS resources. The enablers were concern for the role of veterinary antimicrobial use in development of AMR in humans, a sense of pride in the service provided, and preparedness to change prescribing practices. Conclusion and Clinical Importance Our study can guide development and establishment of AMS programs in veterinary practices by defining the major issues that influence the prescribing behavior of veterinarians.

Antimicrobials used for surgical prophylaxis by equine veterinary practitioners in Australia

BACKGROUND Antimicrobials are widely used in Australian veterinary practices, but no investigation into the classes of antimicrobials used, or the appropriateness of use in horses, has been conducted. OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to describe antimicrobial use for surgical prophylaxis in equine practice in Australia. STUDY DESIGN Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. METHODS An online questionnaire was used to document antimicrobial usage patterns. Information solicited in the questionnaire included demographic details of the respondents, the frequency with which antimicrobials were used for specific surgical conditions (including the dose, timing and duration of therapy) and practice antimicrobial use policies and sources of information about antimicrobials and their uses. RESULTS A total of 337 members of the Australian veterinary profession completed the survey. Generally, the choice of antimicrobial was appropriate for the specified equine surgical condition, but the dose and duration of therapy varied greatly. While there was poor optimal compliance with British Equine Veterinary Association guidelines in all scenarios (range 1-15%), except removal of a nonulcerated dermal mass (42%), suboptimal compliance (compliant antimicrobial drug selection but inappropriate timing, dose or duration of therapy) was moderate for all scenarios (range 48-68%), except for an uninfected contaminated wound over the thorax, where both optimal and suboptimal compliance was very poor (1%). Veterinarians practicing at a university hospital had higher odds of compliance than general practice veterinarians (Odds ratio 3.2, 95% CI, 1.1-8.9, P = 0.03). MAIN LIMITATIONS Many survey responses were collected at conferences which may introduce selection bias, as veterinarians attending conferences may be more likely to have been exposed to contemporary antimicrobial prescribing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS Antimicrobial use guidelines need to be developed and promoted to improve the responsible use of antimicrobials in equine practice in Australia. An emphasis should be placed on antimicrobial therapy for wounds and appropriate dosing for procaine penicillin.

Cross-sectional study of antimicrobials used for surgical prophylaxis by bovine veterinary practitioners in Australia

Antimicrobials are widely used in veterinary practices, but there has been no investigation of antimicrobial classes used or the appropriateness of their use in bovine practice. This study investigated antimicrobial use for surgical prophylaxis in bovine practice in Australia. A cross-sectional study of veterinarian antimicrobial usage patterns was conducted using an online questionnaire. Information solicited included respondent’s details, the frequency with which antimicrobials were used for specific surgical conditions (including the dose, timing and duration of therapy) and details of practice antimicrobial use policies and sources of information about antimicrobials. In total, 212 members of the Australian veterinary profession working in bovine practice completed the survey. Antimicrobials were always or frequently used by more than 75 per cent of respondents in all scenarios. Generally, antimicrobial drug choice was appropriate for the reported surgical conditions. Procaine penicillin and oxytetracycline accounted for 93 per cent of use. However, there was a wide range of doses used, with underdosing and inappropriate timing of administration being common reasons for inappropriate prophylactic treatment. There was very low use of critically important antimicrobials (3.3 per cent of antimicrobials reported). Antimicrobial use guidelines need to be developed and promoted to improve the responsible use of antimicrobials in bovine practice.

First detection of bovine noroviruses and detection of bovine coronavirus in Australian dairy cattle: First detection of bovine noroviruses and detection of bovine coronavirus in Australian dairy cattle

Background and objective Noroviruses have been recognised as a significant cause of neonatal enteritis in calves in many countries, but there has been no investigation of their occurrence in Australian cattle. This study aimed to establish whether bovine noroviruses could be detected in faecal samples from Australian dairy cattle. It also sought to determine whether bovine coronaviruses, also associated with neonatal enteritis in calves, could be detected in the same faecal samples. Methods A selection of faecal samples that were negative for rotaviruses from dairy farms located in three geographically distinct regions of Victoria were pooled and tested by reverse transcription‐PCR for the presence of noroviruses (genogroup III), neboviruses and bovine coronaviruses. Results and conclusion Genetically distinct genogroup III noroviruses were detected in two sample pools from different geographic regions and bovine coronavirus was detected in a third pool of samples. This is the first report of bovine norovirus infection in Australian cattle and suggests that future work is required to determine the significance of these agents as a cause of bovine enteric disease in Australia.

Antimicrobial labelling in Australia: a threat to antimicrobial stewardship?

Antimicrobial resistance is a public health emergency, placing veterinary antimicrobial use under growing scrutiny. Antimicrobial stewardship, through appropriate use of antimicrobials, is a response to this threat. The need for antimicrobial stewardship in Australian veterinary practices has had limited investigation. A 2016 survey undertaken to investigate antimicrobial usage patterns by Australian veterinarians found that antimicrobial dose rates were varied and often inappropriate. Doses of procaine penicillin in horses and cattle were often low, with 68% and 90% of respondents, respectively, reporting doses that were unlikely to result in plasma concentrations above minimum inhibitory concentrations for common equine and bovine pathogens. Frequency of penicillin administration was also often inappropriate. Gentamicin doses in horses were largely appropriate (89% of dose rates appropriate), but 9% of respondents reported twice daily dosing. Amoxycillin and amoxycillin-clavulanate were administered at the appropriate doses, or above, to dogs and cats by 54% and 70% of respondents, respectively. Here, we explore the potential reasons for inappropriate antimicrobial dose regimens and report that antimicrobial labels often recommend incorrect dose rates and thus may be contributing to poor prescribing practices. Changes to legislation are needed to ensure that antimicrobial drug labels are regularly updated to reflect the dose needed to effectively and safely treat common veterinary pathogens. This will be especially true if changes in legislation restrict antimicrobial use by veterinarians to the uses and doses specified on the label, thus hampering the current momentum towards improved antimicrobial stewardship.

Population wide assessment of antimicrobial use in dogs and cats using a novel data source – A cohort study using pet insurance data

Antimicrobial use in veterinary practice is under increasing scrutiny as a contributor to the rising risk of multidrug resistant bacterial pathogens. Surveillance of antimicrobial use in food animals is extensive globally, but population level data is lacking for companion animals. Lack of census data means cohorts are usually restricted to those attending veterinary practices, which precludes aggregating data from large cohorts of animals, independent of their need for veterinary intervention. The objective of this study was to investigate the exposure of dogs and cats to antimicrobials at a population level. A retrospective cohort study was performed using a novel data source; a pet insurance database. The rate of antimicrobial prescribing, and the rate of prescribing of critically important antimicrobials, was measured in a large population of dogs (813,172 dog-years) and cats (129,232 cat-years) from 2013 - 2017. The incidence rate of antimicrobial prescribing was 5.8 prescriptions per 10 dog years (95% CI 5.8-5.9 per 10 dog years) and 3.1 prescriptions per 10 cat years (95% CI 3.1-3.2 per 10 cat years). Critically important antimicrobials accounted for 8% of all the antimicrobials prescribed over the 4-year study. Cats were 4.8-fold more likely than dogs to be prescribed 3rd-generation cephalosporins. The level of antimicrobial exposure in dogs and cats was less than half that for the coincident human community. Data such as this provides a unique opportunity to monitor antimicrobial prescribing in veterinary medicine, which is a critical component of optimal antimicrobial stewardship.

Erratum to “Antimicrobials used for surgical prophylaxis by companion animal veterinarians in Australia” [Vet. Microbiol. 203C (2017) 301–307]

Erratum Erratum to “Antimicrobials used for surgical prophylaxis by companion animal veterinarians in Australia” [Vet. Microbiol. 203C (2017) 301–307] Laura Y. Hardefeldta,, Glenn F. Browning, Karin Thursky, James R. Gilkerson, Helen Billman-Jacobe, Mark A. Stevenson, Kirsten E. Bailey a Asia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia b National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Peter Doherty Institute, Grattan St., Parkville, Victoria, Australia