This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel trimethoprim-sulfadiazine oral suspension for the treatment of naturally acquired Streptococcus equi subsp zooepidemicus infection in horses. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled field trial. ANIMALS: 180 horses with S equi subsp zooepidemicus infection. PROCEDURES: Horses with lower respiratory tract infections caused by S equi subsp zooepidemicus were treated with a new formulation of combined trimethoprim-sulfadiazine oral suspension at a dosage of 24 mg/kg (10.9 mg/lb) twice daily for 10 days (treatment group) or with an equivalent volume of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (placebo group). Response to treatment, including clinical signs and fecal consistency scores, was assessed twice daily. Any adverse effects were recorded. The primary outcome variable was clinical response; the secondary outcome variable was eradication of S equi subsp zooepidemicus on study day 17 as determined by bacteriologic culture of repeated transtracheal-wash specimens. RESULTS: Of the 119 horses allocated to the treatment group, 69 (58%) had a positive clinical response. A significantly smaller proportion of horses in the placebo group (9/61 [15%]) had a positive clinical response. By day 5, 25 of 61 (41%) placebo horses had been withdrawn from the study because of negative clinical response, compared with only 10 of 119 (8.4%) treated horses. By day 10, 28 of 61 (46%) placebo horses had been withdrawn because of negative clinical response, compared with only 13 of 119 (11%) treated horses. There were few adverse events associated with the trimethoprim-sulfadiazine suspension. There were no significant differences in fecal consistency scores between treatment and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The new oral suspension administered at 24 mg/kg twice daily effectively treated the clinical signs of S equi subsp zooepidemicus lower respiratory infection in horses and eliminated the organism from the respiratory tract. Adverse effects were minimal.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McClure et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: