I D Barzelai1, T Whittem2. 1. OurVet Maribyrnong, Maribyrnong, Victoria, Australia. 2. Translational Research and Animal Clinical Trials Group (TRACTs), Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Highway, Werribee 3030, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Investigate the current antimicrobial prescribing patterns of veterinarians in Victoria for dogs and compare these results to patterns described 20 years ago. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 1380 veterinarians in Victoria. The first section collected demographic information of respondents. The second and third sections evaluated respondents' approach to use of antimicrobial drugs for scenarios in dogs in which 'clinical evidence suggests bacterial infection is the likely cause' and where 'it is unknown whether bacterial infection plays a role'. The final section evaluated respondents' approach to use of antimicrobial drugs during dental extraction in a dog. RESULTS: Of the 1380 veterinarians who were contacted, 259 responses were received (response rate 19%). Of these respondents, 95% (246/259) completed their veterinary degree at the University of Melbourne. The ratio of female to male respondents was 2.1 : 1 (171 : 82) and of urban to rural respondents was 1.9 : 1 (159 : 85). Drug selection for some scenarios was open to criticism. For example, to treat chronic prostatitis 16% (42/259) of respondents selected amoxicillin-clavulanate even though it has poor penetration of prostatic tissues. Some prescribing choices have changed since 1997; for example, for acute tracheobronchitis, 36% (73/204) of respondents indicated they would use antimicrobials, compared with 87% of respondents in 1997. For the treatment of idiopathic vestibular disease, only 5% (10/197) of respondents in the current study versus 45% (294/654) in the 1997 survey opted to use antimicrobials. CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial drug selection for treatment of dogs by registered veterinarians in Victoria was generally consistent with recent recommendations, although some details were widely variable.
OBJECTIVE: Investigate the current antimicrobial prescribing patterns of veterinarians in Victoria for dogs and compare these results to patterns described 20 years ago. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 1380 veterinarians in Victoria. The first section collected demographic information of respondents. The second and third sections evaluated respondents' approach to use of antimicrobial drugs for scenarios in dogs in which 'clinical evidence suggests bacterial infection is the likely cause' and where 'it is unknown whether bacterial infection plays a role'. The final section evaluated respondents' approach to use of antimicrobial drugs during dental extraction in a dog. RESULTS: Of the 1380 veterinarians who were contacted, 259 responses were received (response rate 19%). Of these respondents, 95% (246/259) completed their veterinary degree at the University of Melbourne. The ratio of female to male respondents was 2.1 : 1 (171 : 82) and of urban to rural respondents was 1.9 : 1 (159 : 85). Drug selection for some scenarios was open to criticism. For example, to treat chronic prostatitis 16% (42/259) of respondents selected amoxicillin-clavulanate even though it has poor penetration of prostatic tissues. Some prescribing choices have changed since 1997; for example, for acute tracheobronchitis, 36% (73/204) of respondents indicated they would use antimicrobials, compared with 87% of respondents in 1997. For the treatment of idiopathic vestibular disease, only 5% (10/197) of respondents in the current study versus 45% (294/654) in the 1997 survey opted to use antimicrobials. CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial drug selection for treatment of dogs by registered veterinarians in Victoria was generally consistent with recent recommendations, although some details were widely variable.
Authors: Robert Goggs; Julie M Menard; Craig Altier; Kevin J Cummings; Megan E Jacob; Denise F Lalonde-Paul; Mark G Papich; Keri N Norman; Virginia R Fajt; H Morgan Scott; Sara D Lawhon Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 3.333