Tulissin 100: Product Information (Page 2 of 3)

MICROBIOLOGY

Cattle

Tulathromycin has demonstrated in vitro activity against Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni, and Mycoplasma bovis , four pathogens associated with BRD; against Moraxella bovis associated with IBK; and against Fusobacterium necrophorum and Porphyromonas levii associated with bovine foot rot.
The MICs of tulathromycin against indicated BRD and IBK pathogens were determined using methods recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, M31-A2). The MICs against foot rot pathogens were also determined using methods recommended by the CLSI (M11-A6). All MIC values were determined using the 9:1 isomer ratio of this compound.
BRD — The MICs of tulathromycin were determined for BRD isolates obtained from calves enrolled in therapeutic and at-risk field studies in the U.S. in 1999. In the therapeutic studies, isolates were obtained from pre-treatment nasopharyngeal swabs from all study calves, and from lung swabs or lung tissue of saline-treated calves that died. In the at-risk studies, isolates were obtained from nasopharyngeal swabs of saline-treated non-responders, and from lung swabs or lung tissue of saline- treated calves that died. The results are shown in Table 3.
IBK — The MICs of tulathromycin were determined for Moraxella bovis isolates obtained from calves enrolled in IBK field studies in the U.S. in 2004. Isolates were obtained from pre-treatment conjunctival swabs of calves with clinical signs of IBK enrolled in the tulathromycin injection and saline-treated groups. The results are shown in Table 3.Foot Rot — The MICs of tulathromycin injection were determined for Fusobacterium necrophorum and Porphyromonas levii obtained from cattle enrolled in foot rot field studies in the U.S. and Canada in 2007. Isolates were obtained from pre-treatment interdigital biopsies and swabs of cattle with clinical signs of foot rot enrolled in the tulathromycin injection and saline-treated groups. The results are shown in Table 3.

image description
(click image for full-size original)

Swine

In vitro activity of tulathromycin has been demonstrated against Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Pasteurella multocida, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Haemophilus parasuis, and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae.The MICs of tulathromycin against indicated SRD pathogens were determined using methods recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, M31-A and M31-A3). MICs for Haemophilus parasuis were determined using Veterinary Fastidious Medium and were incubated up to 48 hours at 35 to 37°C in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. All MIC values were determined using the 9:1 isomer ratio of this compound. Isolates obtained in 2000 and 2002 were from lung samples from saline-treated pigs and non-treated sentinel pigs enrolled in Treatment of SRD field studies in the U.S. and Canada. Isolates obtained in 2007 and 2008 were from lung samples from saline-treated and tulathromycin injection-treated pigs enrolled in the Control of SRD field study in the U.S. and Canada. The results are shown in Table 4.

image description
(click image for full-size original)
image description
(click image for full-size original)

EFFECTIVENESS

Cattle
BRD – In a multi-location field study, 314 calves with naturally occurring BRD were treated with tulathromycin injection. Responses to treatment were compared to saline-treated controls. A cure was defined as a calf with normal attitude/activity, normal respiration, and a rectal temperature of ≤ 104°F on Day 14. The cure rate was significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) in tulathromycin injection-treated calves (78%) compared to saline-treated calves (24%). There were two BRD-related deaths in the tulathromycin injection-treated calves compared to nine BRD-related deaths in the saline-treated calves.

Fifty-two tulathromycin injection-treated calves and 27 saline-treated calves from the multi-location field BRD treatment study had Mycoplasma bovis identified in cultures from pre-treatment nasopharyngeal swabs.
Of the 52 tulathromycin injection-treated calves, 37 (71.2%) calves were categorized as cures and 15 (28.8%) calves were categorized as treatment failures. Of the 27 saline-treated calves, 4 (14.8%) calves were categorized as cures and 23 (85.2%) calves were treatment failures.

A Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted to compare the BRD treatment success rate in young calves (calves weighing
250 lbs or less and fed primarily a milk-based diet) treated with tulathromycin injection to the success rate in older calves (calves weighing more than 250 lbs and fed primarily a roughage and grain-based diet) treated with tulathromycin injection. The analysis included data from four BRD treatment effectiveness studies conducted for the approval of tulathromycin injection in the U.S. and nine contemporaneous studies conducted in Europe. The analysis showed that the BRD treatment success rate in young calves was at least as good as the BRD treatment success rate in older calves. As a result, tulathromycin injection is considered effective for the treatment of BRD associated with M. haemolytica, P. multocida, H. somni, and M. bovis in suckling calves, dairy calves, and veal calves.

In another multi-location field study with 399 calves at high risk of developing BRD, administration of tulathromycin injection resulted in a significantly reduced incidence of BRD (11%) compared to saline-treated calves (59%). Effectiveness evaluation was based on scored clinical signs of normal attitude/activity, normal respiration, and a rectal temperature of ≤ 104°F on Day 14. There were no BRD-related deaths in the tulathromycin injection-treated calves compared to two BRD-related deaths in the saline-treated calves. Fifty saline-treated calves classified as non-responders in this study had Mycoplasma bovis identified in cultures of post-treatment nasopharyngeal swabs or lung tissue.

Two induced infection model studies were conducted to confirm the effectiveness of tulathromycin injection against Mycoplasma bovis. A total of 166 calves were inoculated intratracheally with field strains of Mycoplasma bovis. When calves became pyrexic and had abnormal respiration scores, they were treated with either tulathromycin injection (2.5 mg/kg BW) subcutaneously or an equivalent volume of saline. Calves were observed for signs of BRD for 14 days post-treatment, then were euthanized and necropsied. In both studies, mean lung lesion percentages were statistically significantly lower in the tulathromycin injection-treated calves compared with saline-treated calves (11.3% vs. 28.9%, P = 0.0001 and 15.0% vs. 30.7%, P < 0.0001).

IBK – Two field studies were conducted evaluating tulathromycin injection for the treatment of IBK associated with Moraxella bovis in 200 naturally-infected calves. The primary clinical endpoint of these studies was cure rate, defined as a calf with no clinical signs of IBK and no corneal ulcer, assessed on Days 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21. Time to improvement, defined as the first day on which a calf had no clinical signs of IBK in both eyes, provided that those scores were maintained at the next day of observation, was assessed as a secondary variable. At all time points, in both studies, the cure rate was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for tulathromycin injection-treated calves compared to saline-treated calves. Additionally, time to improvement was significantly less (P < 0.0001) in both studies for tulathromycin injection-treated calves compared to saline-treated calves.

Foot Rot — The effectiveness of tulathromycin injection for the treatment of bovine foot rot was evaluated in
170 cattle in two field studies. Cattle diagnosed with bovine foot rot were enrolled and treated with a single subcutaneous dose of tulathromycin injection (2.5 mg/kg BW) or an equivalent volume of saline. Cattle were clinically evaluated 7 days after treatment for treatment success, which was based on defined decreases in lesion, swelling, and lameness scores. In both studies, the treatment success percentage was statistically significantly higher in tulathromycin injection-treated calves compared with saline-treated calves (60% vs. 8%, P < 0.0001 and 83.3% vs. 50%, P = 0.0088).

Swine
In a multi-location field study to evaluate the treatment of naturally occurring SRD, 266 pigs were treated with tulathromycin injection. Responses to treatment were compared to saline-treated controls. Success was defined as a pig with normal attitude, normal respiration, and rectal temperature of < 104°F on Day 7. The treatment success rate was significantly greater (P ≤ 0.05) in tulathromycin injection-treated pigs (70.5%) compared to saline-treated pigs (46.1%). M. hyopneumoniae was isolated from 106 saline-treated and non-treated sentinel pigs in this study.

Two induced infection model studies were conducted to confirm the effectiveness of tulathromycin injection against M. hyopneumoniae. Ten days after inoculation intranasally and intratracheally with a field strain of M. hyopneumoniae , 144 pigs were treated with either tulathromycin injection (2.5 mg/kg BW) intramuscularly or an equivalent volume of saline. Pigs were euthanized and necropsied 10 days post-treatment. The mean percentage of gross pneumonic lung lesions was statistically significantly lower (P < 0.0001) for tulathromycin injection-treated pigs than for saline-treated pigs in both studies (8.52% vs. 23.62% and 11.31% vs. 26.42%).

The effectiveness of tulathromycin injection for the control of SRD was evaluated in a multi-location natural infection field study. When at least 15% of the study candidates showed clinical signs of SRD, all pigs were enrolled and treated with tulathromycin injection (226 pigs) or saline (227 pigs). Responses to treatment were evaluated on Day 7. Success was defined as a pig with normal attitude, normal respiration, and rectal temperature of < 104°F.

The treatment success rate was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in tulathromycin injection-treated pigs compared to saline-treated pigs (59.2% vs. 41.2%).

VetLabel.com provides trustworthy package insert and label information about marketed drugs as submitted by manufacturers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Package information is not reviewed or updated separately by VetLabel.com. Every individual animal healthcare product label entry contains a unique identifier which can be used to secure further details directly from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and/or the FDA.

Our database mirrors the FDA's central repository of drug labels and package inserts under the Structured Product Labeling standard. VetLabel.com provides the full animal health subset of the FDA's repository. Veterinary information provided here is not intended as a substitute for direct consultation with a qualified veterinary professional.

Terms of Use | Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.