Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Preventive
Veterinary
Medicine
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p r e v e t m e d
Factors
affecting
the
cost-effectiveness
of
on-farm
culture
prior
to
the
treatment
of
clinical
mastitis
in
dairy
cows
P.M.
Down
a,∗,
A.J.
Bradley
b,
J.E.
Breen
a,b,
M.J.
Green
aaUniversityofNottingham,SchoolofVeterinaryScienceandMedicine,SuttonBoningtonCampus,SuttonBonington,LoughboroughLE125RD,United
Kingdom
bQualityMilkManagementServicesLtd,CedarBarn,EastonHill,Easton,WellsBA51DU,UnitedKingdom
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Articlehistory:
Received30March2017
Receivedinrevisedform6July2017 Accepted7July2017
Keywords:
Mastitis On-farmculture Cost-effectiveness Treatment
Probabilisticsensitivityanalysis
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Theobjectiveofthisstudywastouseprobabilisticsensitivityanalysistoevaluatethecost-effectivenessof usinganon-farmculture(OFC)approachtothetreatmentofclinicalmastitisindairycowsandcompare thistoa‘standard’treatmentapproach.Aspecificaimwastoidentifytheherdcircumstancesunder whichanOFCapproachwouldbemostlikelytobecost-effective.AstochasticMonteCarlomodelwas developedtosimulate5000casesofclinicalmastitisatthecowlevelandtocalculatetheassociatedcosts simultaneouslywhentreatedaccordingto2differenttreatmentprotocols;i)a’conventional’approach (3tubesofintramammaryantibiotic)andii)anOFCprogramme,wherebycowsaretreatedaccordingto theresultsofOFC.ModelparametersweretakenfromrecentpeerreviewedliteratureontheuseofOFC priortotreatmentofclinicalmastitis.Spearmanrankcorrelationcoefficientswereusedtoevaluatethe relationshipsbetweenmodelinputvaluesandtheestimateddifferenceincostbetweenthestandardand OFCtreatmentprotocols.Thesimulationanalysesrevealedthatboththedifferenceinthebacteriological curerateduetoadelayintreatmentwhenusingOFCandtheproportionofGram-positivecasesthatoccur onadairyunitwouldhaveafundamentalimpactonwhetherOFCwouldbecost-effective.Theresultsof thisstudyillustratedthatanOFCapproachforthetreatmentofclinicalmastitiswouldprobablynotbe cost-effectiveinmanycircumstances,inparticular,notthoseinwhichGram-positivepathogenswere responsibleformorethan20%ofallclinicalcases.Theresultshighlightanethicaldilemmasurrounding reduceduseofantimicrobialsforclinicalmastitissinceitmaybeassociatedwithfinanciallossesand poorercowwelfareinmanyinstances.
©2017TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1. Introduction
Mastitisisoneofthemostprevalentandcostlydiseases affect-ingdairycowsworldwide.Thecostofclinicalmastitisismadeupof ‘direct’costs,suchasthecostofdrugs,discardedmilkandincreased labour and ‘indirect’ costs,such as reduced future production, increasedcullingandincreasedtheriskofdiseasetransmissionto herdmates.Theoverallcostofacaseofclinicalmastitishasbeen showntobehighlyvariable(Huijpsetal.,2008;Greenetal.,2009) andmostinfluencedby‘indirect’costs(KossaibatiandEsslemont,
2000;Huijpsetal.,2008;Downetal.,2013).
Notonlyismastitisimportantintermsoftheeconomics,but thetreatmentandpreventionofmastitisiswidelyreportedasthe mostcommonreasonforantimicrobialdruguseondairyfarms
∗Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddress:peter.down@nottingham.ac.uk(P.M.Down).
(PolandRuegg,2007;Thomsonetal.,2008;Gonzálezetal.,2010).
Thereisincreasingpressureontheagriculturalsectortoreduce antimicrobialdrugusageduetofearsoverantimicrobialresistance (AMR)(O’Neill,2015)andthewayinwhichantimicrobialdrugs areappliedwithrespecttothetreatmentofmastitisis,therefore,a sensibletarget.Conventionally,allcasesofclinicalmastitiswould receiveacourseofantimicrobialagentsbutanalternativeapproach istheselectivetreatmentofcasesaccordingtotheresultsofan on-farmculture(OFC)system.WiththeOFCsystem,onlynon-severe casesthatyieldaGram-positiveormixed-culturearetreatedwith antimicrobialdrugsresultinginmanycasesofclinicalmastitisnot beingtreatedat all(Lago etal.,2011a).Thiswasdemonstrated recentlyinastudyperformedin8herdsbasedinMinnesota, Wis-consinandOntario,whichreportedthat51%ofcowsenrolledin theOFCgroupreceivedantimicrobialdrugsasopposed to100% ofthecowsenrolledintheconventionalgroup.Thesamestudy reportednostatisticaldifferencesbetweenthetwogroupswith respecttothebacteriologicalcurerisk,thetimetakentoclinical
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.07.006
92 P.M.Downetal./PreventiveVeterinaryMedicine145(2017)91–99
cure,newintramammaryinfectionrisk,treatmentfailureriskor riskofremovalfromtheherdwithin21days(Lagoetal.,2011a).
WhileOFCappearstobeeffectiveinreducingantimicrobialdrug usage;littleisknownaboutfactorsinfluencingtheoverall cost-effectivenessofthisapproachand,therefore,thetypesofherdsin whichitismostlikelytobecost-effective.Whenperformingsucha cost-effectivenessanalysis,thereareinevitablymultiplesourcesof evidenceforparameterestimatesandadegreeofuncertainty sur-roundingtheirtruevalue(Adesetal.,2006).Fordecision-making purposes,itisimportantthatcost-effectivenessmodelsareableto incorporatemultiplesourcesofevidenceandreflectuncertaintyin themodeloutputs(Claxtonetal.,2005;BaboMartinsandRushton, 2014).An approachtothis now widelyreported inthehuman healthliterature(Briggsetal.,2002;Brownetal.,2006)and increas-inglyintheveterinaryliterature(Downetal.,2013;Hudsonetal.,
2014,2015)is probabilistic sensitivityanalysis(PSA).The main
featureofthis techniqueisthat allinputparametersare speci-fiedasfullprobabilitydistributions,ratherthanpointestimates, torepresenttheuncertaintysurroundingtheirvalues.This param-eteruncertaintyisthenpropagatedthroughthecost-effectiveness modelsothattheresultingimprecisionisreflectedinmodel out-putsandinferencesmade(Briggsetal.,2002).
Thepurposeofthisresearchwastouseprobabilisticsensitivity analysistoinvestigatethemainfactorsthat influencethe cost-effectivenessofanOFCapproachtotreatingclinicalmastitis.The modelusedwasanadaptationofonereportedpreviously(Down etal.,2013),withtheadditionofOFC-specificparametersbasedon previousresearch(Lagoetal.,2011a).Aspecificaimwasto iden-tifytheherdcircumstancesunderwhichanOFCapproachwould bemostlikelytobecost-effective.
2. Materialsandmethods
2.1. Modelstructure
AstochasticMonte Carlomodel wasdeveloped using Open-BUGS3.2.2software(Thomasetal.,2006).Themodel wasused tosimulateacaseofclinicalmastitisatthecowlevelandto cal-culatetheassociatedcostssimultaneouslywhentreatedaccording to2differenttreatmentprotocols;i)a‘conventional’approach(3 tubesofintramammaryantibiotic)andii)anOFCprogrammeas describedbyLagoetal.(2011a)inwhichmilksamplestakenfrom cowswithCMwereculturedon-farmusingtheMinnesotaEasy CultureSystem(UniversityofMinnesota,St.Paul).Thison-farm milkculturesystemconsistedofabi-plate,whichisaPetridish withtwodifferenttypesofagar:MacConkeyagarononehalfthat selectivelygrowsGram-negativebacteriaandFactormediaonthe otherhalfoftheplatethatselectivelygrowsGram-positive bacte-ria.Theplatewasplacedinanon-farmincubatorandincubated atapproximately37◦Cfor18–24h.Thenextday,theplatewas examinedforbacterialgrowthandinterpretedbyherdpersonnel andifbacteriadidnotgrow,theplatewasreturnedtotheincubator andre-readapproximately18–24hlater.Resultsforeachsample platewererecordedas(1)Gram-positive,whenbacteriagrewonly intheFactoragarmediaofthebi-plate;(2)Gram-negative,when bacteriagrewonlyintheMacConkeyagarmediaofthebi-plate; (3)nogrowth,when bacteriadidnotgrowoneithermedia;or (4)mixedinfectionwhenbacteriagrewonbothmedia.Quarters fromwhichGram-positivebacteriawereisolatedorhadamixed infectionreceivedintramammaryantibiotictreatmentandifthe on-farmmilkcultureresultwasGram-negativeornogrowth,the quarterdidnotreceiveintramammarytherapy.
Thegeneralmodelstructureandassumptionswereconsistent irrespectiveofthetreatmentprotocolappliedandwasasdescribed previouslybyDownetal.(2013)(Fig.1).Aninitialcaseofclinical
mastitis(CM1)couldeither;i)curebacteriologically,ii)cure clin-icallybutremainsubclinicallyinfected,oriii)failtocure(either clinicallyorbacteriologically).IfCM1failedtocure,thenarepeat treatment(sameasinitialtreatment)wouldbeadministeredand thesamethreeoutcomespermitted.IfCM1curedbacteriologically, thenthecowcouldeitherend thelactationorbeculledbefore theendoflactation.IfCM1curedclinicallybutnot bacteriologi-cally,thenitcouldeitherendthelactation,beculledbeforethe endoflactation,orhavearepeatepisodeofclinicalmastitis(CM2). CM2wouldbetreatedaccordingtothesameprotocolasCM1and wouldthenfollow thesamepossibleoutcomesasCM1.Athird clinicalrecurrencewaspermittedforsubclinicallyinfectedcows (CM3)whichwereagaintreatedinthesamewayasCM1andCM2. IfthecowremainedsubclinicallyinfectedafterCM3orfailedto cureclinically,thenthecowwouldbeculledbeforetheendof lac-tation.IfthecowcuredbacteriologicallyafterCM3,thenitcould eitherfinishthelactationorbeculledbeforetheendoflactation.
Ariskoftransmissionparameterwasincludedfromcowsthat remainedsubclinicallyinfectedafterCM1 andCM2.This repre-sentedtheriskthattheinfectionwastransmittedfromtheinfected cowtooneoftheother99‘susceptible’cowsintheherdduringa 12-weekperiod.The12-weekperiodwassplitinto14-dayblocks meaningtheinfected cowcouldinfectanothercowintheherd every14-days.Ifinfectiondidspreadtoanothercow,thenittoo wouldbeconsideredtobeinfectiousduringthesubsequent 14-dayblocks.Forexample,ifacowremainedsubclinicallyinfected afterCM1,andittransmittedaninfectiontoanothercowduring thefirst14-dayblock,thentherewouldbetwoinfectiouscowsat thestartofthesecond14-dayblock,andthesusceptiblepopulation wouldbe98cows.However,itshouldbenotedthatthe transmis-sionparameterwouldbeapplicabletoherdsofdifferentsizesand theresultsofthemodelcouldbeextrapolatedtoherdsofanysize.
2.2. Modelinputparameters
The model was parameterized with distributions based on existing literatureand current commercialdata wherepossible
(Table1).Allparameterinputswerespecifiedasuniform
distri-butionswiththepurposeofsimulatingawidevarietyofdifferent scenarioswithoutmakingassumptionsastowhichwasthemost likely.Thedistributionrangeswerebasedontheliterature wher-ever possible, but if only point estimates were available, then plausible ranges were added to the point estimate. The input parameterswerethesameasusedin thestudyby Downetal.
(2013),withtheadditionofsomeOFC-specificparametersbased
onthestudybyLagoetal.(2011a).
Economicparameterdistributionsincludedthecostofdrugs, labour,milkwithdrawalandlossofmilkproduction,cullingand death(Table 1).Thecost of labouris subject tolargevariation quotedintheliterature.Forthisreasonawidedistributionwas assignedtothehourlycostoflabourwiththeupperlimittaken
fromHuijpsetal.(2008).Thetotaltimetakentotreateachcase
ofCM wasassigned adistributioncentredonthefigures given
bySteeneveldetal.(2011)surroundedbyanadditionalvariation
of+/−10minutes.Thetotalcostoflabourwastheproductofthe hourlyrateandthetotaltreatmenttime.
ThelengthofmilkwithdrawalafterCMwasdefinedbya distri-butionbasedonthecommonlyusedmedicinesintheUKandthe amountofmilkbeingdiscardedeachdaywastakenfromaplausible milkyielddistribution(Table1).Thedistributiondefinedformilk pricewastakenfromDairyCo(2012a)andbasedontheaverageUK milkpriceoverthelast12months(range:lowestpriceandhighest price).ThecostofmilkproductionwasbasedonHuijpsetal.(2008)
Fig.1.Schematicrepresentationofthetreatmentmodel.Completecure=bacteriologicalandclinicalcure.Clinicalcure=non-bacteriologicalcurebutclinicalcure.No cure=nobacteriologicalorclinicalcure.Cull=culledsometimewithintheremainderofthecurrentlactation.Extendedtreatment=arepeatofthesametreatmentthatthe casereceivedinitially.RT=riskoftransmission.CM1=initialcaseofclinicalmastitis.CM2=firstclinicalflare-up.CM3=seconclinicalflare-up.
ThecalculationoftotalyieldlossfollowingacaseofCMwas based onthe herd 305day yield, the parity of theanimal and thestageoflactationinwhich theinfectionoccurred(Table1). Thedistributionsgoverningthepercentageoftotallossin305day milkyieldwerebasedonHagnestametal.(2007).Theproportion of cases occurring at each stage postpartum and the propor-tionofcasesaffectingmultiparouscowsversusprimiparouscows wasgovernedbydistributionsbasedonSteeneveldetal.(2011)
(Table1).Thecostassociatedwiththetotallossinmilkyieldwas
calculatedaccordingtothetotallossinearnings(i.e.thequantity ofmilkmultipliedbythemilkprice)minusthesavingsmadein feedcosts(i.e.thequantityofmilklossmultipliedbythecostof production).AlldistributionsareprovidedinTable1.
Thecostofcullingacowwithintheremainderofthecurrent lac-tationwastakenfromauniformdistributionbasedonHuijpsetal.
(2008)andKossaibatiandEsslemont(2000),whichincludedthe
slaughtervalueandreplacementcosts,withanappropriaterange addedtoreflectthevariabilityofthisparameter(Table1).Thecost ofthedeathofanindividualwasbasedoncurrentUKaveragesales pricesforfreshlycalvedcowsandheifers(DairyCo,2012b)which wouldberequiredtoreplacethedeadcowinadditiontothecost ofcarcassdisposal(Table1).
TheoriginalcalculationsweremadeinGreatBritishPounds(
£
) andconvertedtoUSDollars($)usingtheexchangerateof1.45$/£
(http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/;accessed15thFebruary
2016).
2.3. On-farmculturespecificinputparameters
The OFC-specific input parameters comprised distributions reflectingchangestothebacteriologicalcurerisk,theproportionof culture-positivecases,thetimetakentoset-upandreadtheculture platesandthecostofaplate.Thedistributionforthereductionin
bacteriologicalcureriskassociatedwiththeOFCprotocolwas uni-form(−0.22to0),meaningthemaximumreductionpossiblewas 22%,andtheminimumwas0.Themiddlevalueof11%wasthe non-significanteffectsizereportedbyLagoetal.(2011a)which wastheoverallreductioninbacteriologicalcureriskincasesof clinicalmastitistreatedwiththeOFCprotocolcomparedtocases treatedwiththeconventionalapproach.Thedistribution specify-ingthe‘herd-level’proportionofGram-positivecaseswasuniform (0.1–0.9),meaningthelowestproportionwas10%ofcaseswitha Gram-positivecultureandthehighestproportionwas90%.This dis-tributionreflectsthewidespreadofvaluesidentifiedinthestudy
byLagoetal.(2011a).Therewerenopublishedfiguresforthecost
ofthebiplateusedinthestudyorthetimetakentoset-upand evaluatethecultureresultssoplausiblerangeswereestimatedas ($1.45–2.03)and(30–60min)respectively.Thedistributionsused forallotherinputparametersarelistedinTable1.
2.4. Modelsimulation
94 P.M.Downetal./PreventiveVeterinaryMedicine145(2017)91–99
Table1
Probabilitydistributionsapplicabletobothtreatmentprotocolsandrelevantsourcesofliteratureonwhichtheyarebasedwhereapplicable.
Inputparameters Upperandlowerlimits ofuniformdistribution
Source
Probabilityofbacteriologicalcure(0.40,0.80) a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h
Probabilityofbacteriologicalcureafterextendedtx(0.30,0.90) BaseduponSteeneveldetal.(2011)
Decreaseinprobabilityofbacteriologicalcure1 BaseduponSteeneveldetal.(2011)
Parity≥2 (−0.15,−0.05)
Daysinmilk≥60days (−0.15,−0.05)
Cowissystemicallyill (−0.25,−0.15)
SCC200,000–500,000cells/mLatmostrecentrecording (−0.15,−0.05) SCC>500,000cells/mLatmostrecentrecording (−0.25,−0.15) Repeatedcase(>1stcaseincurrentlactation) (−0.25,−0.15)
Probabilityofbeingculledforbacteriologicallynoncuredcases BaseduponBaretal.(2008)
Initialcase (0,0.32)
Followingfirstflare-up(CM2) (0.04,0.36)
Probabilityofbeingculledforcompletelycuredcases BaseduponBaretal.(2008)
Initialcase (0.04,0.06)
Followingfirstflare-up(CM2) (0.10,0.20)
Followingsecondflare-up(CM3) (0.20,0.30)
Probabilityofdeathfornonclinicalcuredcases (0.04,0.06) BaseduponBaretal.(2008)
Probabilityofdrying-offquarterfornonclinicalcuredcases (0.94,0.96) BaseduponSteeneveldetal.(2011) Probabilityofbeingculledforcowswithdriedoffquarters (0.27,0.39) BaseduponSteeneveldetal.(2011) Increaseinallcullingprobabilitieswhencowissystemicallyill (0.05,0.15) BaseduponSteeneveldetal.(2011) Probabilityofclinicalflare-upforbacteriologicallynoncuredcases (0.05,0.12) m,n,o
ProbabilityoftransmissionafterCM1andCM2 (0.002,0.25) vandenBorneetal.(2010)
Proportionalyieldloss j,k
Casein1stor2ndmonthoflactation (0.07,0.09) j,k,l
Casebetweenmonths3and6 (0.03,0.08)
Caseaftermonth6 (0,0.04)
Parity≥2 (0,0.02)
305dYield(Kg) (7000,10,000) Author2
Milkwithdrawal(d) (5.00,9.00) BaseduponcommonlyusedpreparationsintheUK
Dailymilkdiscard(Kg) (5.00,50,00) Author2
Valueofdiscardedmilk($/Kg) (0.33,0.39) DairyCo(2012a)
Costofmilkproduction($/Kg) (0.043,0.145) BaseduponHuijpsetal.(2008)
TreatmentTime(hr) (0.53,0.87) BaseduponSteeneveldetal.(2011)
Costoflabour($/hr) (1.45,23.01) BaseduponHuijpsetal.(2008)
Costofdrugs($) (8.10,10.11) Baseduponestimateofcurrentretailpriceof
commonlyusedpreparationsintheUK
Costofcull($) (174,1044) BaseduponHuijpsetal.(2008),Kossaibatiand
Esslemont(2000)
Costofdeath($) (1740,2900) DairyCo(2012b)
aBaseduponMcDougall(1998),bBaseduponMcDougall(2003),cBaseduponOliveretal.(2003),dBaseduponWraight(2003),eBaseduponSérieysetal.(2005),fBased uponMcDougalletal.(2007),gBaseduponBradleyandGreen(2009),hBaseduponSoletal.(2000),jBaseduponGröhnetal.(2004),kBaseduponSchukkenetal.(2009),l BaseduponHagnestametal.(2007),mBaseduponSwinkelsetal.(2005a),nBaseduponSwinkelsetal.(2005b),oBaseduponDöpferetal.(1999).
1 Thevalueselectedfromthisdistributionwassubtractedfromthevalueselectedfromthebacteriologicalcuredistribution.
2 Author–wheretherewasnorelevantliteratureidentifiedonwhichtobasetheparameter,distributionswerebasedonbiologicallyplausiblevaluesinstead.
Table2
On-farmculturespecificmodelinputparametersandtherelevantsourcesofliteratureonwhichtheywerebasedwhereapplicable.
Inputparameters Upperandlowerlimitsofuniformdistribution Source
ProportionofGram-positivecases (0.10,0.90) BaseduponLagoetal.(2011a)
Reductioninbacteriologicalcurerisk (−0.22,0.00) BaseduponLagoetal.(2011a)
Costofplate($) (1.45,2.03) Baseduponcurrentretailprice
Culturetime(h) (0.30.1.00) Expertopinion
theOFCprotocolwasmorecost-effective.Thedistribution specify-ingtheherd-levelproportionofGram-positivecaseswouldgovern whetherthecasetreatedaccordingtotheOFCprotocolwas Gram-positive(ormixedinfection)and,therefore,treatedwithantibiotics orGram-negative(ornogrowth)and,therefore,nottreatedwith antibiotics.In this way, theimpactof the proportionof Gram-positivecasesontheoverallcost-effectivenessoftheOFCprotocol couldbeassessed.
2.5. Dataanalysis
Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated to exploretheunivariateassociationsbetweenmodelinput param-etersandthedifferenceincostbetweentheconventionalandOFC treatmentprotocols.Thestrengthanddirectionoftherelationships wereevaluatedusingtheSpearmanrankrho()value.Theoutcome
variableofspecificinterestwasthedifferenceincostbetweenthe twotreatmentprotocols.However,additionalmodelparameters wereincludedtoprovidefurtherinsightintowherecostdifferences arose.Thesewerethecostofantimicrobialdrugs,thedifferencein timetakentotreateachcase,thedifferenceinmilkwithdrawal periodandthedifferenceintheriskoftransmission.
Fig.2. Differenceincostbetweenconventionalandon-farmcultureprotocols.Apositivedifferenceincostindicatesthattheon-farmcultureprotocolcostmorethanthe conventionalprotocol.
Fig.3.Differenceincostbetweenconventionalandon-farmcultureprotocolswhentherewasasmalldifference(SD)inbacteriologicalcurerisk.Apositivedifferencein costindicatesthattheon-farmcultureprotocolcostmorethantheconventionalprotocol.
Table3
Spearmanrankcorrelationcoefficientsforon-farmspecificmodelinputparameters andthedifferenceincostbetweentheconventionalandon-farmculturetreatment protocols.
Parameter rho
Proportionculture-positive 0.31 Differenceinbacteriologicalcurerisk −0.28
Costofplate 0.0062
Culturetime 0.02
thenassessedforthedifferentgroupsandatdifferentproportions ofGram-positivecases.
3. Results
3.1. Dataanalysis
Acrossall5000simulatedcases,theconventionalprotocolwas themostcost-effective68%ofthetime.Themediancostrelated toacasetreatedwiththeconventionalprotocolwas$529,andthe mediancostrelatedtoacasetreatedwiththeOFCprotocolwas $554.Themaximumdifferenceincostbetweenthetwoprotocols was$328withamedianof$28.
TheSpearmanrankcorrelationcoefficientsfortheOFC-specific parametersareshowninTable3.Thedifferenceincostbetween
thetwoprotocolswasmostcloselyrelatedtothedifferencein bac-teriologicalcureriskandtheproportionofGram-positivecases.As thedifferenceinbacteriologicalcureriskandproportionof Gram-positive cases increased, the difference in overall cost became higher,makingtheOFCprotocollesscost-effectivethanthe con-ventionalprotocol.Boththecostofthebiplateandthetimetaken toset-upand evaluatethebiplatehada negligiblerelationship withthecost-effectivenessoftheOFCprotocolasmeasuredbythe Spearmanrankcorrelationcoefficients(Table3).
Withrespecttothemodelinputparameterscommontoboth protocols,thosesignificantlyassociatedwiththedifferenceincost werethedifferenceinthemilkwithdrawalperiod(rho=0.75), dif-ferenceinthecostofdrugs(rho=0.61),differenceinthetimetaken totreatthecow(andculture)(rho=0.61)andthedifferenceinthe riskoftransmission(rho=0.51).
3.2. Scenarioandsensitivityanalysis
96 P.M.Downetal./PreventiveVeterinaryMedicine145(2017)91–99
Fig.4.Differenceincostbetweenconventionalandon-farmcultureprotocolswhentherewasamoderatedifference(MD)inbacteriologicalcurerisk.Apositivedifference incostindicatesthattheon-farmcultureprotocolcostmorethantheconventionalprotocol.
Fig.5.Differenceincostbetweenconventionalandon-farmcultureprotocolswhentherewasalargedifference(LD)inbacteriologicalcurerisk.Apositivedifferencein costindicatesthattheon-farmcultureprotocolcostmorethantheconventionalprotocol.
average$42moreexpensivepercasethantheconventional proto-col.However,thedifferenceincostbetweenthetreatmentgroups wassensitivetotheunderlyingbacteriologicalcureriskof Gram-positivecases.Whenclinicalmastitiswassubdividedaccordingto whetherthedifferenceinbacteriologicalcureriskwassmall(SD) medium(MD)orlarge(LD)thedifferenceinthecost-effectiveness ofthetreatmentswasasfollows.TheOFCprotocolwasmore cost-effectivethantheconventionalprotocolwhentheproportionof Gram-positivecaseswaslessthan47%intheSDgroup(Fig.3)and lessthan21%intheMDgroup(Fig.4).TheOFCprotocolwasnever morecost-effectivethantheconventionalprotocolforcasesinthe LDgroup(Fig.5).Therefore,theunderlyingbacteriologicalcurerisk wasakeyparameterdeterminingrelativecost-effectivenessofthe treatmentapproaches.
4. Discussion
Thesimulationanalysesrevealedthatboththedifferenceinthe bacteriologicalcureriskduetoadelayintreatmentandthe
pro-portionofGram-positivecasesthatoccuronadairyunitwillhave afundamentalimpactonwhetherOFCwillbecost-effective.There hasundoubtedlybeenashiftintheaetiologyofclinicalmastitis towardsenvironmentalpathogens,withcoliformsandno-growths frequentlyreportedasaccountingforapproximately50%ofall clin-icalmastitiscultureresults(BradleyandGreen,2001;Bradleyetal.,
2007;Breenetal.,2009)aswasthecaseinthestudybyLagoetal.
(2011a).Onthisbasis,itwouldbefairtoassumethatmostdairy
furtherworktoquantifyanylikelyreductioninbacteriologicalcure riskthatisassociatedwithOFCiscritical,ifthecost-effectiveness andwelfareimplicationsofOFCaretobeestablished.
OneoftheaimsstatedbytheauthorsoftheoriginalOFCstudies
(Lagoetal.,2011a,b)wastousetheirresultstoevaluatethe
over-allcost-benefitofusinganOFCsystem,buttodate,nodatahave beenpublished.Inadecisiontreeanalysisusedtoevaluatethe eco-nomicimpactofdifferentdurationsofintramammarytreatment forthefirstcase ofmildormoderateclinicalmastitisoccurring inearlylactation,itwasfoundthatOFCwasonlylikelytooffer economicbenefitsinherdsusingextended-durationtherapy with-outregardforpathogendiagnosis(Pinzón-Sánchezetal.,2011). TheresultsofthisstudyservetoillustratethatanOFCapproach forthetreatmentofclinicalmastitiswouldprobablynotbe cost-effectiveinmanycircumstances,inparticular,notthoseinwhich Gram-positivepathogensrepresentmorethan20%ofallclinical cases.SinceStreptococcusuberisandStaphylococcusaureusremain commonmastitispathogensondairyunitsinmanycountries,the cost-effectivenessofOFCshouldbecarefullyscrutinisedinthese circumstances.
WhileOFCwillreducetotalantimicrobialdrugusageonfarm, theeffectoncowhealthandwelfareandoveralldairyfarm prof-itabilityshouldalsobeconsidered.Theassertionthatthereisno importantreductioninbacteriologicalcurefromdelayedtreatment ofGram-positive pathogensis fragile andrequires substantially moreresearchwithsufficient powertodetectsmalldifferences ineffectsize.InthestudybyLagoetal.(2011a),statistical anal-ysisrevealedanon-significantdifferenceof11%inbacteriological cureriskbetweentheconventionalandOFCgroups.Inthatstudy, thesamplesizeusedmeantthat adifference≥14%wouldhave beenneededbetweengroupstodetectthedifferenceasbeing ‘sig-nificant’(Lagoetal.,2011a)andit,therefore,remainsuncertain whetherthereisatruedifferenceinbacteriologicalcurebetween groups.Thesensitivityanalysisinthecurrentstudysuggeststhat a differencein curerisk ofless than14%couldcertainly deter-minewhetherOFCiscost-effectiveand,therefore,largerstudies toascertainthistruedifferenceareneeded.
Significantdifferenceswerereportedinthepathogen-specific bacteriologicalcureriskinthestudybyLagoetal.(2011a), partic-ularlywithrespecttoStaphylococcusaureus.Whilethereasonfor thesedifferencesisunknown,itispossiblethatthereductionin bacteriologicalcureriskassociatedwithOFCisaresultofdelayed treatmentaswashypothesisedbyLagoetal.(2011a)andhasbeen reportedinapreviousstudy(HillertonandSemmens,1999).Given theimportanceofthisparameter,futureresearchshouldinclude pathogen-specific differences in bacteriological cure risk, when treatmentisdelayedbyusingOFC.
Inthecurrentstudy,theoverallproportionofGram-positive cases was also shown to be related to the likelihood of cost-effectivenessofanOFCtreatmentprogramme.Theproportionof Gram-positivecaseswasshowntobehighlyvariableinthestudy
byLago etal.(2011a) inwhich theproportionofquartercases
receivingintramammaryantibiotic treatmentasa consequence ofassignmenttotheOFCprotocolrangedfrom31%–89%inthe eightstudyherds.Inthecurrentstudy,theoverallproportionof Gram-positivecaseshadtobelessthan12%(dependingon bac-teriologicalcurerisk)forOFCtobemorecost-effectivethanthe conventionalprotocol.Bythismeasure,OFCwouldnothavebeen cost-effectiveinanyoftheherdsinthestudybyLagoetal.(2011a). However,whencasesweregroupedaccordingtothedifferencein bacteriologicalcurerisk,OFCwouldbecost-effectivewhenthe pro-portionofGram-positivecaseswaslessthan47%intheSDgroup andlessthan21%intheMDgroup.TheOFCapproachwould, there-fore,bemostsuitableforherdsinwhichGram-negativepathogens areresponsibleformostclinicalmastitisandwherethetreatment ofcowsusinganOFCapproachresultsinaminimalreductionin
thebacteriologicalcurerisk.Inpractice,itispossibletoassessthe proportionofGram-positivecasesonaunit,andthiswillinform decisionmakingonthelikelycost-benefitofOFC.
Theremaybeabalancetobestruckbetweenreducing antimi-crobial usage and possible deleterious effects in terms of cow welfareandfarmfinances;wouldtheextracostincurredby adopt-inganOFCapproachbeconsideredapriceworthpayingifitresults inareductioninantibioticdrugusageondairyfarmsby25%,aswas estimatedbyLagoetal.(2011a)?If,forsocietalreasons,thiswas consideredtobeapriceworthpaying,thereisalsoanissueofwho shouldbearthecost.Whilstdifficult,itisperhapstimesuchdebates becametransparentgiventheincreasingpressureonantimicrobial drugusageandthepotentialrisksposedbyantimicrobial resis-tantbacteria.Intheabsenceoflegaljurisdiction,itisincumbent onthose advisingonanimal health and welfare toensurethat theadoptionofnewtechnologies,suchasOFC,areundertakenin lightofcomprehensive,transparentwelfareandcost-effectiveness assessments.
Whilsttheoveralllikelihoodofcost-effectivenesswasaffected mostlybytheproportionofGram-positivecasesandthedifference inbacteriologicalcurerisk,theparameterswithinthemodelthat hadthelargestimpactonthedifferenceincostwerethe differ-enceinmilk-withdrawalperiod,thedifferenceinthecostofdrugs, thedifferenceincultureandtreatmenttimeandthedifferencein riskoftransmission.Clearly,OFCwouldbeexpectedtoreducethe amountofmilkwithdrawnfromsaleandtheamountofmoney spentondrugsbecauseaproportionofthecowswouldnotreceive anyantimicrobialtreatmentandwould thereforenot incurany statutorymilkwithholduponresolutionofclinicalsigns.Thisis inagreementwithLagoetal.(2011a)thatreportedareductionin milkwithdrawalperiod(5.2daysv5.9days)andquantityof antimi-crobialdrugusage(51%ofOFCcasestreatedv100%ofconventional casestreated)associatedwithOFC.Theincreaseinlabourrequired toacquiremilksamplesfromclinicalmastitiscasesinanaseptic mannerandplateoutforcultureisperhapshardertoassessandis likelytorepresentacostnotonlyintermsofthetimetaken,but alsotheopportunitycostincurredasaresultoftheherdsmanbeing unabletoperformotherdutiesasaresult.Thedistributionusedin thisstudyof30–60minis,therefore,likelytobearealisticestimate formostcircumstances.Thelargeimpactthattransmissioncould haveonthecostofacaseofclinicalmastitishasbeenreported pre-viously(Downetal.,2013)anditisnotsurprisingthereforethat itwascloselyrelatedtothedifferenceincostbetweenthe con-ventionalandOFCapproachesalso.Whiletheriskwouldclearlybe influencedbyherdmanagementandpathogen-specificfactors;it couldalsobeaffectedbyanydelayintreatmentanddifferences in bacteriological curerisk associated withOFC resulting inan increasedriskoftransmission.Thisagainwouldneedtobeassessed attheherdlevel.Itisworthnotingthatmilkpricehadverylittle impactonthedifferenceincostbetweenthetwoprotocols.Thisis unsurprisinggiventhepoorcorrelationbetweenmilkpriceandthe costofacaseofCMthathasbeenreportedpreviously(Downetal., 2013)andservestodemonstratethatwhilstimportantinterms ofoverallfarmprofitability(SmithandThanassoulis,2015),milk priceplaysaminorroleintermsofthecostofCM.
98 P.M.Downetal./PreventiveVeterinaryMedicine145(2017)91–99
arbitrarythresholdsof‘significance’(Gurrinetal.,2000;Greenland
andPoole,2013)meaningtheclinicianisfreetomaketheirown
judgementas towhat is clinically ‘significant’ accordingtothe degreeofuncertaintytheyarecomfortablewith.Inthisstudy,the PSAallowedanevaluationoftheparameterslikelytobeimportant indeterminingthecost-effectivenessoftheOFCapproachandhas highlightedthatmoreresearchisneededinthisfieldbeforethe techniquecanberecommendedonawidespreadbasis.
5. Conclusions
Theresultsofthisstudyindicatethattheproportionof Gram-positive cases and the difference in bacteriological cure risk betweenthetwotreatmentapproacheshasthegreatestimpacton theprobabilitythatanOFCapproachwouldbemorecost-effective thanaconventionalapproachforthetreatmentofclinical masti-tis.TheOFCapproachappearstobesuitable forherdsin which Gram-negativepathogensareresponsibleformostclinical masti-tisandwherethetreatmentofcowsaccordingtotheresultsofan OFCapproachresultsinminimalreductionsinthebacteriological curerisk.TheseresultssuggestthatOFCwillprobablynotbe cost-effectiveformanyherdsandthatOFCshould,therefore,onlybe adoptedaftercarefulconsiderationofthepredominantpathogens presentineachherdandanhonestdiscussionabouttheuncertainty surroundingitsoverallcost-effectiveness.
Conflictofintereststatement
Theauthorshavenoconflictsofinterest
Acknowledgements
Thisworkwassupportedby theBiotechnologyand Biologi-calSciencesResearchCouncil[grantnumberBB/I015493/1];and AHDBDairy. The study sponsors werenot directlyinvolved in studydesign,analysisorinterpretationofdata,inthewritingof themanuscript,orinthedecisiontosubmitthemanuscript for publication.
References
Ades,A.E.,Sculpher,M.,Sutton,A.,Abrams,K.,Cooper,N.,Welton,N.,Lu,G.,2006. Bayesianmethodsforevidencesynthesisincost-effectivenessanalysis. Pharmacoeconomics24,1–19.
BaboMartins,S.,Rushton,J.,2014.Cost-effectivenessanalysis:addingvalueto assessmentofanimalhealthwelfareandproduction.Rev.Sci.Tech.33, 681–689.
Bar,D.,Gröhn,Y.T.,Bennett,G.,González,R.N.,Hertl,J.A.,Schulte,H.F.,Tauer,L.W., Welcome,F.L.,Schukken,Y.H.,2008.Effectsofrepeatedepisodesofgeneric clinicalmastitisonmortalityandcullingindairycows.J.DairySci.91, 2196–2204.
Boshuizen,H.C.,vanBaal,P.H.M.,2009.Probabilisticsensitivityanalysis:bea Bayesian.ValueHealth12,1210–1214.
Bradley,A.J.,Green,M.J.,2001.AetiologyofclinicalmastitisinsixSomersetdairy herds.Vet.Rec.148,683–686.
Bradley,A.J.,Green,M.J.,2009.Factorsaffectingcurewhentreatingbovineclinical mastitiswithcephalosporin-basedintramammarypreparations.J.DairySci. 92,1941–1953.
Bradley,A.J.,Leach,K.A.,Breen,J.E.,Green,L.E.,Green,M.J.,2007.Surveyofthe incidenceandaetiologyofmastitisondairyfarmsinEnglandandWales.Vet. Rec.160,253–258.
Breen,J.E.,Green,M.J.,Bradley,A.J.,2009.Quarterandcowriskfactorsassociated withtheoccurrenceofclinicalmastitisindairycowsintheUnitedKingdom.J. DairySci.92,2551–2561.
Briggs,A.H.,Goeree,R.,Blackhouse,G.,O’Brien,B.J.,2002.Probabilisticanalysisof cost-effectivenessmodels:choosingbetweentreatmentstrategiesfor gastroesophagealrefluxdisease.Med.Decis.Making22,290–308.
Brown,J.,Welton,N.J.,Bankhead,C.,Richards,S.H.,Roberts,L.,Tydeman,C.,Peters, T.J.,2006.ABayesianapproachtoanalysingthecost-effectivenessoftwo primarycareinterventionsaimedatimprovingattendanceforbreast screening.HealthEcon.15,435–445.
Buxton,M.J.,Drummond,M.F.,VanHout,B.A.,Prince,R.L.,Sheldon,T.A.,Szucs,T., Vray,M.,1997.Modellingineconomicevaluation:anunavoidablefactoflife. HealthEcon.6,217–227.
Claxton,K.,Sculpher,M.,McCabe,C.,Briggs,A.,Akehurst,R.,Buxton,M.,Brazier,J., O’Hagan,T.,2005.ProbabilisticsensitivityanalysisforNICEtechnology assessment:notanoptionalextra.HealthEcon.14,339–347.
Döpfer,D.,Barkema,H.W.W.,Lam,T.J.G.M.J.,Schukken,Y.H.H.,Gaastra,W.,1999. RecurrentclinicalmastitiscausedbyEscherichiacoliindairycows.J.DairySci. 82,80–85.
DairyCo,2012a.GBFarmgateMilkPrices[WWWDocument].URLhttp://www. dairyco.org.uk/market-information/milk-prices-contracts/farmgate-prices/ uk,-gb-and-ni-farmgate-prices/.
DairyCo,2012.http://www.dairyco.org.uk/market-information/farm-expenses/ cow-heifer-prices/gb-cow-heifer-prices/[WWWDocument].URLhttp://www. dairyco.org.uk/library/market-information/datum/hygienic-quality.aspx. Down,P.M.,Green,M.J.,Hudson,C.D.,2013.Rateoftransmission:amajor
determinantofthecostofclinicalmastitis.J.DairySci.96,6301–6314. González,S.M.,Steiner,A.,Gassner,B.,Regula,G.,2010.AntimicrobialuseinSwiss
dairyfarms:quantificationandevaluationofdataquality.Prev.Vet.Med.95, 50–63.
Gröhn,Y.T.,Wilson,D.J.,González,R.N.,Hertl,J.A.,Schulte,H.,Bennett,G., Schukken,Y.H.,2004.Effectofpathogen-specificclinicalmastitisonmilkyield indairycows.J.DairySci.87,3358–3374.
Green,M.J.,Hudson,C.D.,Breen,J.E.,Bradley,A.J.,2009.Thetruecostsofmastitis. In:Br.Mastit.Conf.2009,StoneleighPark,Warwickshire,UK,14thOct.2009. Greenland,S.,Poole,C.,2013.Livingwithpvalues:resurrectingaBayesian
perspectiveonfrequentiststatistics.Epidemiology24,62–68. Gurrin,L.C.,Kurinczuk,J.J.,Burton,P.R.,2000.Bayesianstatisticsinmedical
research:anintuitivealternativetoconventionaldataanalysis.J.Eval.Clin. Pract.6,193–204.
Hagnestam,C.,Emanuelson,U.,Berglund,B.,2007.Yieldlossesassociatedwith clinicalmastitisoccurringindifferentweeksoflactation.J.DairySci.90, 2260–2270.
Hillerton,J.E.,Semmens,J.E.,1999.Comparisonoftreatmentofmastitisby oxytocinorantibioticsfollowingdetectionaccordingtochangesinmilk electricalconductivitypriortovisiblesigns.J.DairySci.82,93–98. Hudson,C.D.,Huxley,J.N.,Green,M.J.,2014.Usingsimulationtointerpreta
discretetimesurvivalmodelinacomplexbiologicalsystem:fertilityand lamenessindairycows.PLoSOne9,e103426.
Hudson,C.D.,Bradley,A.J.,Breen,J.E.,Green,M.J.,2015.Dairyherdmastitisand reproduction:usingsimulationtoaidinterpretationofresultsfromdiscrete timesurvivalanalysis.Vet.J.204,47–53.
Huijps,K.,Lam,T.J.,Hogeveen,H.,2008.Costsofmastitis:factsandperception.J. DairyRes.75,113–120.
Kossaibati,M.A.,Esslemont,R.J.,2000.ThecostsofclinicalmastitisinUKdairy herds.CattlePract.8,323–327.
Lago,A.,Godden,S.M.,Bey,R.,Ruegg,P.L.,Leslie,K.,2011a.Theselectivetreatment ofclinicalmastitisbasedonon-farmcultureresults:I.Effectsonantibioticuse milkwithholdingtime,andshort-termclinicalandbacteriologicaloutcomes.J. DairySci.94,4441–4456.
Lago,A.,Godden,S.M.,Bey,R.,Ruegg,P.L.,Leslie,K.,2011b.Theselectivetreatment ofclinicalmastitisbasedonon-farmcultureresults:II.Effectsonlactation performanceincludingclinicalmastitisrecurrence,somaticcellcount,milk production,andcowsurvival.J.DairySci.94,4457–4467.
McDougall,S.,Arthur,D.G.,Bryan,M.A.,Vermunt,J.J.,Weir,A.M.,2007.Clinicaland bacteriologicalresponsetotreatmentofclinicalmastitiswithoneofthree intramammaryantibiotics.N.Z.Vet.J.55,10.
McDougall,S.,1998.Efficacyoftwoantibiotictreatmentsincuringclinicaland subclinicalmastitisinlactatingdairycows.N.Z.Vet.J.46,7.
McDougall,S.,2003.Intramammarytreatmentofclinicalmastitisofdairycows withacombinationoflincomycinandneomycin,orpenicillinand dihydrostreptomycin.N.Z.Vet.J.51,6.
O’Hagan,A.,2003.APrimeronBayesianStatisticsinHealthEconomicsand OutcomesResearch.MedtapIntInc,London.
O’Neill,J.,2015.AntimicrobialsinAgricultureandtheEnvironment:Reducing UnnecessaryUseandWaste.
Oliver,S.P.,Almeida,R.A.,Gillespie,B.E.,Ivey,S.J.,Moorehead,H.,Lunn,P.,Dowlen, H.H.,Johnson,D.L.,Lamar,K.C.,2003.Efficacyofextendedpirlimycintherapy fortreatmentofexperimentallyinducedStreptococcusuberisintramammary infectionsinlactatingdairycattle.Vet.Ther.4,299–308.
Pinzón-Sánchez,C.,Cabrera,V.E.,Ruegg,P.L.,2011.Decisiontreeanalysisof treatmentstrategiesformildandmoderatecasesofclinicalmastitisoccurring inearlylactation.J.DairySci.94,1873–1892.
Pol,M.,Ruegg,P.L.,2007.Treatmentpracticesandquantificationofantimicrobial drugusageinconventionalandorganicdairyfarmsinWisconsin.J.DairySci. 90,249–261.
Sérieys,F.,Raguet,Y.,Goby,L.,Schmidt,H.,Friton,G.,2005.Comparativeefficacyof localandsystemicantibiotictreatmentinlactatingcowswithclinicalmastitis. J.DairySci.88,93–99.
Schukken,Y.H.,Hertl,J.,Bar,D.,Bennett,G.J.,González,R.N.,Rauch,B.J., Santisteban,C.,Schulte,H.F.,Tauer,L.,Welcome,F.L.,Gröhn,Y.T.,2009.Effects ofrepeatedgram-positiveandgram-negativeclinicalmastitisepisodeson milkyieldlossinHolsteindairycows.J.DairySci.92,3091–3105. Smith,H.,Thanassoulis,J.,2015.Pricesprofits,andpass-throughofcostsalonga
Sol,J.,Sampimon,O.C.,Barkema,H.W.,Schukken,Y.H.,2000.Factorsassociated withcureaftertherapyofclinicalmastitiscausedbyStaphylococcusaureus.J. DairySci.83,278–284.
Steeneveld,W.,vanWerven,T.,Barkema,H.W.,Hogeveen,H.,2011.Cow-specific treatmentofclinicalmastitis:aneconomicapproach.J.DairySci.94,174–188. Swinkels,J.M.,Hogeveen,H.,Zadoks,R.N.,2005a.Apartialbudgetmodelto
estimateeconomicbenefitsoflactationaltreatmentofsubclinical Staphylococcusaureusmastitis.J.DairySci.88,4273–4287.
Swinkels,J.M.,Rooijendijk,J.G.,Zadoks,R.N.,Hogeveen,H.,2005b.Useofpartial budgetingtodeterminetheeconomicbenefitsofantibiotictreatmentof chronicsubclinicalmastitiscausedbyStreptococcusuberisorStreptococcus dysgalactiae.J.DairyRes.72,75–85.
Thomas,A.,O’Hara,B.,Ligges,U.,Sturtz,S.,2006.MakingBUGSopen.RNews6, 12–17.
Thomson,K.,Rantala,M.,Hautala,M.,Pyörälä,S.,Kaartinen,L.,2008. Cross-sectionalprospectivesurveytostudyindication-basedusageof antimicrobialsinanimals:resultsofuseincattle.BMCVet.Res.4,15. vandenBorne,B.H.P.,Halasa,T.,vanSchaik,G.,Hogeveen,H.,Nielen,M.,2010.
Bioeconomicmodelingoflactationalantimicrobialtreatmentofnewbovine subclinicalintramammaryinfectionscausedbycontagiouspathogens.J.Dairy Sci.93,4034–4044.