Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:40:08.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of an on-farm point-of-care diagnostic with conventional culture in analysing bovine mastitis samples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2019

Geoff Jones ,
Olaf Bork ,
Scott A Ferguson  and
Andrew Bates
Geoff Jones*
Affiliation:
Institute of Fundamental Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Olaf Bork
Affiliation:
Mastaplex Ltd, Dunedin, New Zealand
Scott A Ferguson
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Andrew Bates
Affiliation:
Vetlife Ltd, Temuka, New Zealand
*
Author for correspondence: Geoff Jones, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The performance of a new point-of-care diagnostic (Mastatest), an on-farm test designed to identify bacteria and provide antibiotic sensitivity testing information from milk samples, was compared with standard microbiological culture methods. A total of 292 milk samples from clinical mastitis cases in dairy cows on New Zealand dairy farms were examined, and latent class analysis was used to estimate the performance characteristics of both tests. Two hundred and fifty-six samples (87.7%) demonstrated bacterial infection in standard culture, and 269 (92.1%) using the point-of-care diagnostic. The most common bacterial species detected was Streptococcus uberis, found in 195 samples (66.8%) using standard culture and 190 samples (65.1%) using the point-of-care diagnostic. Latent class analysis found no significant differences in test characteristics between the point-of-care diagnostic and standard culture. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of the point-of-care diagnostic against all targets combined were 94.6 and 72.1% respectively; the corresponding estimates for standard culture were 90.5 and 73.9%. Comparison of antibiotic susceptibility testing using the point-of-care diagnostic and the reference method showed similar trends and, in some cases, identical MIC50 and MIC90 values, with at most one antibiotic dilution difference.

Keywords

Bovine mastitislatent class analysispoint-of-care diagnosticsensitivityspecificity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 222 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Hannah Dairy Research Foundation 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2009) Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated from Animals; Approved standard, M31-A3, vol. 28. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.Google Scholar
Dendukuri, N and Joseph, L (2001) Bayesian approaches to modeling conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics 57, 158–167.Google Scholar
Dohoo, IR, Smith, IJ, Andersen, S, Kelton, DF, Godden, S and Mastitis Research Workers Conference (2011) Diagnosing intramammary infections: evaluation of definitions based on a single milk sample. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 250–261Google Scholar
Erskine, R, Cullor, J, Schaellibaum, M, Yancey, B and Zecconi, A (2004) Bovine mastitis pathogens and trends in resistance to antibacterial drugs. National Mastitis Council Research Committee ReportGoogle Scholar
FDA (2017) Judicious use of antimicrobials for dairy cattle veterinarians. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Avaialable at: https://www.archive-it.org/collections/7993?q=Judicious+Use+of+Antimicrobials+for+Dairy+Cattle+Veterinarians&show=ArchivedPages&hitsPerDupe=0&go=Search+the+Archive (accessed 31 May 2018)Google Scholar
Hiitio, H, Riva, R, Autio, T, Pohjanvirta, T (2015), Performance of a real-time PCR assay in routine bovine mastitis diagnostics compared with in-depth conventional culture, Journal of Dairy Research 82, 200–208Google Scholar
Hui, SL and Zhou, XH (1998) Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 7, 354–370.Google Scholar
Jones, G, Johnson, WO, Hansen, TE and Christensen, R (2010) Identifiability of models for multiple diagnostic testing in the absence of a gold standard. Biometrics 66, 855–863.Google Scholar
McDougall, S, Arthur, DG, Bryan, MA, Vermunt, JJ and Weir, AM (2007) Clinical and bacteriological response to treatment of clinical mastitis with one of three intramammary antibiotics. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 55, 161–170.Google Scholar
McDougall, S, Hussein, H and Petrovski, K (2014) Antimicrobial resistance in Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus uberis and Streptococcus dysgalactiae from dairy cows with mastitis. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 62, 68–76.Google Scholar
Murdough, PA, Deitz, KE and Pankey, JW (1996) Effects of freezing on the viability of nine pathogens from quarters with subclinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 334–336.Google Scholar
NMC (2004) Microbiological Procedures for the Diagnosis of Bovine Udder Infection and Determination of Milk Quality, 4th edn. New Prague: National Mastitis Council.Google Scholar
NMC (2017) Laboratory Handbook on Bovine Mastitis, 3rd edn. New Prague: National Mastitis Council.Google Scholar
Royster, E, Godden, S, Goulart, D, Dahlke, A, Rapnicki, P and Timmerman, J (2014) Evaluation of the Minnesota Easy Culture System II Bi-Plate and Tri-Plate for identification of common mastitis pathogens in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 3648–3659.Google Scholar
Ruegg, PL (2014) Treatment of mastitis in lactating cows: new bugs, old drugs and changing expectations. Cattle Practice 22(2), 169–175.Google Scholar
Ruegg, PL (2015) Responsible use of antibiotics for treatment of clinical mastitis. Available at http://articles.extension.org/pages/72958/responsible-use-of-antibiotics-for-treatment-of-clinical-mastitisGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Jones et al. supplementary material

Jones et al. supplementary material 1

Download Jones et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 378.2 KB