Minimum inhibitory concentrations of cephalosporin compounds and their active metabolites for selected mastitis pathogens

Cristina S. Cortinhas Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP-17 13635-900, Brazil.

Search for other papers by Cristina S. Cortinhas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MV
,
Leane Oliveira Department of Dairy Science, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

Search for other papers by Leane Oliveira in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MV, PhD
,
Carol A. Hulland Department of Dairy Science, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

Search for other papers by Carol A. Hulland in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS
,
Marcos V. Santos Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP-17 13635-900, Brazil.

Search for other papers by Marcos V. Santos in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
Pamela L. Ruegg Department of Dairy Science, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

Search for other papers by Pamela L. Ruegg in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MPVM

Abstract

Objective—To compare the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of cephapirin and ceftiofur with MICs of their active metabolites (desacetylcephapirin and desfuroylceftiofur) for selected mastitis pathogens.

Sample—488 mastitis pathogen isolates from clinically and subclinically affected cows in commercial dairy herds in Wisconsin.

Procedures—Agar dilution was used to determine MICs for Staphylococcus aureus (n = 98), coagulase-negative staphylococci (99), Streptococcus dysgalactiae (97), Streptococcus uberis (96), and Escherichia coli (98).

Results—All S aureus isolates were susceptible to cephapirin and ceftiofur. Most coagulase-negative staphylococci were susceptible to cephapirin and ceftiofur. For E coli, 50 (51.0%; cephapirin) and 93 (94.95%; ceftiofur) isolates were susceptible to the parent compounds, but 88 (89.8%) were not inhibited at the maximum concentration of desacetylcephapirin. All S dysgalactiae isolates were susceptible to ceftiofur and cephapirin, and consistent MICs were obtained for all compounds. Most S uberis isolates were susceptible to cephapirin and ceftiofur. Of 98 S aureus isolates classified as susceptible to ceftiofur, 42 (42.9%) and 51 (52%) were categorized as intermediate or resistant to desfuroylceftiofur, respectively. For 99 coagulase-negative staphylococci classified as susceptible to ceftiofur, 45 (45.5%) and 17 (17.2%) isolates were categorized as intermediate or resistant to desfuroylceftiofur, respectively. For all staphylococci and streptococci, 100% agreement in cross-classified susceptibility outcomes was detected between cephapirin and desacetylcephapirin. No E coli isolates were classified as susceptible to desacetylcephapirin.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Differences in inhibition between parent compounds and their active metabolites may be responsible for some of the variation between clinical outcomes and results of in vitro susceptibility tests.

Abstract

Objective—To compare the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of cephapirin and ceftiofur with MICs of their active metabolites (desacetylcephapirin and desfuroylceftiofur) for selected mastitis pathogens.

Sample—488 mastitis pathogen isolates from clinically and subclinically affected cows in commercial dairy herds in Wisconsin.

Procedures—Agar dilution was used to determine MICs for Staphylococcus aureus (n = 98), coagulase-negative staphylococci (99), Streptococcus dysgalactiae (97), Streptococcus uberis (96), and Escherichia coli (98).

Results—All S aureus isolates were susceptible to cephapirin and ceftiofur. Most coagulase-negative staphylococci were susceptible to cephapirin and ceftiofur. For E coli, 50 (51.0%; cephapirin) and 93 (94.95%; ceftiofur) isolates were susceptible to the parent compounds, but 88 (89.8%) were not inhibited at the maximum concentration of desacetylcephapirin. All S dysgalactiae isolates were susceptible to ceftiofur and cephapirin, and consistent MICs were obtained for all compounds. Most S uberis isolates were susceptible to cephapirin and ceftiofur. Of 98 S aureus isolates classified as susceptible to ceftiofur, 42 (42.9%) and 51 (52%) were categorized as intermediate or resistant to desfuroylceftiofur, respectively. For 99 coagulase-negative staphylococci classified as susceptible to ceftiofur, 45 (45.5%) and 17 (17.2%) isolates were categorized as intermediate or resistant to desfuroylceftiofur, respectively. For all staphylococci and streptococci, 100% agreement in cross-classified susceptibility outcomes was detected between cephapirin and desacetylcephapirin. No E coli isolates were classified as susceptible to desacetylcephapirin.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Differences in inhibition between parent compounds and their active metabolites may be responsible for some of the variation between clinical outcomes and results of in vitro susceptibility tests.

Contributor Notes

Supported by Boehringer-Ingleheim Vetmedica Inc. Dr. Cortinhas was supported in part by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP – Brazil).

The authors thank Peter Ladell and Tonia Peters for technical assistance.

Address correspondence to Dr. Ruegg (plruegg@wisc.edu).
  • 1. Bradley AJ. Bovine mastitis: an evolving disease. Vet J 2002; 164:116128.

  • 2. Sawant AA, Sordillo LM, Jayarao BM. A survey on antibiotic usage in dairy herds in Pennsylvania. J Dairy Sci 2005; 88:29912999.

  • 3. Pol M, Ruegg PL. Relationship between antimicrobial drug usage and antimicrobial susceptibility of gram-positive mastitis pathogens. J Dairy Sci 2007; 90:262273.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Hornish RE, Kotarski SF. Cephalosporins in veterinary medicine—ceftiofur use in food animals. Curr Top Med Chem 2002; 2:717731.

  • 5. Salmon SA, Watts JL, Yancey RJ. In vitro activity of ceftiofur and its primary metabolite, desfuroylceftiofur, against organisms of veterinary importance. J Vet Diagn Invest 1996; 8:332336.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Pinzón-Sánchez C, Ruegg PL. Risk factors associated with short-term post-treatment outcomes of clinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2011; 94:33973410.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Cabana BE, Van Harken DR, Hottendorf GH. Comparative pharmacokinetics and metabolism of cephapirin in laboratory animals and humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1976; 10:307317.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Jones RN, Packer RR. Cefotaxime, cephalothin, and cephapirin: antimicrobial activity and synergy studies of cephalosporins with significant in vivo desacetyl metabolite concentrations. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1984; 2:6568.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Moats WA, Anderson KL, Rushing JE, et al. Conversion of cephapirin to deacetylcephapirin in milk and tissues of treated animals. J Agric Food Chem 2000; 48:498502.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Stockler RM, Morin DE, Lantz RK, et al. Effect of milk fraction on concentrations of cephapirin and desacetylcephapirin in bovine milk after intramammary infusion of cephapirin sodium. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2009; 32:345352.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Stockler RM, Morin DE, Lantz RK, et al. Effect of milking frequency and dosing interval on the pharmacokinetics of cephapirin after intramammary infusion in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92:42624275.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Constable PD, Morin DE. Treatment of clinical mastitis: using antimicrobial susceptibility profiles for treatment decisions. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2003; 19:139155.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Erskine RJ, Bartlett PC, Vanlente JL, et al. Efficacy of systemic ceftiofur as a therapy for severe clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2002; 85:25712575.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Hoe FGH, Ruegg PL. Relationship between antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical mastitis pathogens and treatment outcome in cows. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227:14611468.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Apparao D, Oliveira L, Ruegg PL. Relationship between results of in vitro susceptibility tests and outcomes following treatment with pirlimycin hydrochloride in cows with subclinical mastitis associated with gram-positive pathogens. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009; 234:14371446.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Apparao MD, Ruegg PL, Lago A, et al. Relationship between in vitro susceptibility test results and treatment outcomes for gram-positive mastitis pathogens following treatment with cephapirin sodium. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:25892597.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Pantoja JCF, Hulland C, Ruegg PL. Dynamics of somatic cell counts and intramammary infections across subsequent lactations. Prev Vet Med 2009; 90:4354.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Lago A, Godden SM, Bey R, et al. The selective treatment of clinical mastitis based on on-farm culture results: II. Effects on lactation performance including, clinical mastitis recurrence, somatic cell count, milk production and cow survival. J Dairy Sci 2011; 94:44574467.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Olivera L, Langoni H, Hulland C, et al. Minimum inhibitory concentration of Staphylococcus aureus recovered from clinical and subclinical cases of bovine mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2012; 95:19131920.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Richert RM, Cicconi KM, Gamroth MJ, et al. The role of the veterinarian on organic and conventional dairy farms. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;in press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. National Mastitis Council. Laboratory handbook on bovine mastitis. Madison, Wis: National Mastitis Council, 1999.

  • 22. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals. Approved standard. 3rd ed. CLSI document M31–A3. Wayne, Pa: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. SAS user's guide: statistics. Version 9. 1 edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc, 2008.

  • 24. Guérin-Faublée V, Carret G, Houffschmitt P. In vitro activity of 10 antimicrobial agents against bacteria isolated from cows with clinical mastitis. Vet Rec 2003; 152:466471.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Smith GW, Gehring R, Riviere JE, et al. Elimination kinetics of ceftiofur hydrochloride after intramammary administration in lactating dairy cows. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004; 224:18271830.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Makovec JA, Ruegg PL. Results of milk samples submitted for microbiological examination in Wisconsin from 1994 to 2001. J Dairy Sci 2003; 86:34663472.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Pyörälä S. Treatment of mastitis during lactation. Ir Vet J 2009; 62:S40S44.

Advertisement