Summary
Zoetis Florham Park, NJ 07932
Arrival administra-
tion of DRAXXIN ®
provided better BRD
control and fewer
combined BRD
mortalities and
chronics than
metaphylaxis using
Zuprevo® or Micotil.®
eedyard veterinarians and managers are
perpetually interested in better ways to lower
the economic impacts of bovine respiratory
disease (BRD) in their operations, particularly
for high-risk cattle. One of the major develop-
ments in BRD management has been the
advent of macrolide antimicrobials that have
greatly expanded the choice of available BRD
medications. Macrolides are typically the
preferred drug class for the control of BRD in
high-risk calves, used to help reduce morbidity
and mortality and improve performance.
Zoetis continues to conduct research to investi-
gate the efficacy and benefits of medication
strategies based on metaphylactic administra-
tion of a macrolide and the post-metaphylactic
interval (PMI)/post-treatment interval (PTI)
concepts. A comparative study1 evaluated the
impacts of three macrolide products –
F
DRX13056
September 2013
Comparative Efficacy of DRAXXIN® vsZuprevo® or Micotil® for Control of BRD inHigh-Risk Feedlot Cattle
• A study1 at a commercial feedlot evaluated three macrolide antibiotics for the control
of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in high-risk cattle:
# DRAXXIN® (tulathromycin) administered as an antibiotic for the control of BRD
on arrival, followed by EXCEDE® (ceftiofur crystalline free acid) for BRD therapy
upon occurrence following a 10-day post-metaphylaxis interval (PMI).
# A similar protocol but using Zuprevo® (tildipirosin) for arrival control of BRD.
# A similar protocol but using Micotil® (tilmicosin) for arrival control of BRD with a
3-day PMI.
# A 7-day post-treatment interval (PTI) was observed after initial EXCEDE treatment.
• Cattle that received arrival DRAXXIN experienced at least 23% better metaphylaxis
success rates (no BRD) at days 28 and 56 (P < 0.01), at least 76% fewer combined
mortalities and chronics (P < 0.01), and at least 18% better daily gain and feed/gain
(P < 0.01) than cattle that received Zuprevo metaphylaxis.
• DRAXXIN cattle also demonstrated similar or greater health and performance
advantages compared to calves that received metaphylaxis with Micotil.
• DRAXXIN remains the unsurpassed choice for helping optimize the health and
productivity of feedlot cattle at high risk for BRD.
2
DRAXXIN® (tulathromycin), Zuprevo®
(tildipirosin), or Micotil® (tilmicosin) – for the
control component, followed by use of
EXCEDE® (ceftiofur crystalline free acid) for
initial BRD treatment upon occurrence.
DRAXXIN® OverviewDRAXXIN (tulathromycin) Injectable Solution
is a unique, novel antibiotic for the control and
treatment of BRD that conveniently delivers a
full course of therapy in a single dose.
Tulathromycin is a semi-synthetic macrolide
compound developed by Zoetis scientists as a
highly bioavailable, long-acting antimicrobial
for treatment of BRD.2 Admin istered as a single
subcutaneous (SC) injection at 1.1 mL/100 lb
body weight (2.5 mg/kg), DRAXXIN is indi -
cated for the treatment of BRD associated with
4 of the most common bacterial respiratory
pathogens of cattle: Mannheimia haemolytica,
Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni, and
Mycoplasma bovis. DRAXXIN is also the only
BRD product approved for the control of respi-
ratory disease in cattle at high risk of develop-
ing BRD associated with the same 4 pathogens.
These indications make DRAXXIN particularly
well-suited for use in control programs for
arriving feedlot cattle, when animals are experi-
encing stress due to transport, commingling,
etc., and are at high risk of BRD pathogen
exposure. DRAXXIN is also indicated for treat-
ment of infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis
associated with Moraxella bovis, and bovine
foot rot (inter digital necro bacillosis) associated
with Fuso bacterium necrophorum and
Porphyro monas levii.
Experiment DesignThe study involved 1370 crossbred beef steers
sourced from livestock auctions in the south-
eastern US and transported by truck to a major
feedyard in northern Texas. Overall health of
calves was good at the time of purchase, but the
stress of marketing, commingling, and shipping
put these animals at high risk for the develop-
ment of BRD. Calves averaged 626 lb body
weight (BW) when placed on feed for a typical
commercial grow/finish period. Only healthy
cattle were enrolled in the study; animals were
excluded if systemic disease or complicating
physical conditions were observed.
The study was designed to address the follow-
ing hypothesis: treatment success rate for
control of BRD is greater for calves adminis-
tered DRAXXIN vs either Micotil or Zuprevo
upon arrival in the feedyard. The study
employed a split-plot design, with type of
housing (with or without shelter) as the whole-
plot factor and arrival BRD metaphy laxis
treatment (DRAXXIN, Zuprevo, or Micotil) as
the split-plot factor. Cattle arriving on the same
day were commingled before arrival processing
to form arrival lots of at least 234 calves.
Within each arrival lot, calves were randomly
assigned to 1 of 6 pens based on the order they
passed through the chute at arrival processing
until each pen reached the desired capacity of
approximately 40 calves. Blocks consisted of 6
pens, of which 3 pens had shelter/shade and 3
pens had no shelter. Within each block and type
of housing, either of the 3 BRD metaphylaxis
treatments was randomly assigned to pens (all
calves in a pen received the same treatment).
Cattle were processed (study day 0) within
36 hours of arrival according to standard
procedures at the feedyard (vaccinated with
The study investigatedthe efficacy of threedifferent macrolidesfor the control of BRD,and PMI/PTI concepts.
Figure 1 – Experiment design; metaphylaxis and treatment protocols used in the study.
Day 10................................ ..............................
Day 3 ............................................. ............................................Day 0
10 days
Repeat E at any timeXCEDEif needed
7 days
3days
Observe animals for BRD;treat at any time if needed
Observe animals for BRD;treat at any time if needed
Micotil (3-day PMI)
Metaphylaxis
Day 0 (processing)
D or ZuprevoRAXXIN (10-day PMI)
EXCEDE (7-day PTI)
1 Treatmentst (if needed)
Trt+7...................... ......................TrtEnd ofstudy
BOVI-SHIELD GOLD® IBR-BVD and
ULTRACHOICE™ 7, treated for internal and
external parasites with DECTOMAX® Injectable
Solution, implanted with Component® TE-IS,
and identified with identical tags in each ear).
The 3 antibiotics used for the control of BRD
were administered at processing as follows
(Figure 1):
! DRAXXIN Injectable Solution (tulathro-
mycin): 2.5 mg/kg BW (1.1 mL/100 lb)
single dose SC in the lateral neck for
metaphylaxis on day 0, with a 10-day PMI (n=456 across 12 pens);
! Zuprevo 18% Injectable Solution (tildipiro -
sin): 4.0 mg/kg BW (1 mL/100 lb) single
dose SC in the lateral neck for metaphylaxis
on day 0, with a 10-day PMI (n=456 across
12 pens);
! Micotil 300 (tilmicosin): 10 mg/kg BW
(1.5 mL/100 lb) single dose SC in the lateral
neck for metaphylaxis on day 0, with a
3-day PMI (n=458 across 12 pens).
Cattle were observed daily from study day 1
through day 56 for clinical signs of BRD
using a standard clinical appearance score
index (CAS; animals rated using 5 categories,
0-4; 0=normal, 4=moribund). During the PMI
period, any animal with a CAS = 3 was
removed from study and administered
emergency therapy. Calves completing their
treatment group’s respective PMI and then
demonstrating a CAS ≥ 2 (moderate BRD or
worse) were pulled for BRD treatment as
follows:
• EXCEDE® Sterile Suspension: 6.6 mg/kg
BW (1.5 mL/100 lb) single dose SC in the
middle third of the posterior ear or at the
base of the ear for the first therapeutic BRD
treatment, with a 7-day PTI;
• EXCEDE (same dose/route) for the second
BRD treatment (if needed), choice and
timing of any additional re-treatments was
at the discretion of the feedlot.
Calves were returned to their home pens
following treatment. Any additional BRD
episodes occurring after these 2 therapeutic
treatments (assuming at least 1 BRD episode
occurred during the first 28 days) qualified a
calf as a BRD chronic (removed from study
and treated with standard feedlot therapy).
Calves scoring a CAS of 4 at anytime were
removed from study and humanely euthanized.
Feedyard personnel making clinical observa-
tions (pen riders, feed-bunk readers) were
blinded and did not have knowledge of treat-
ment group assignments.
Water was provided ad libitum and cattle
were offered standard rations used at the
feedlot, formulated to meet or exceed nutrient
requirements for their class and weight. Ration
changes were made according to facility
procedures and could include an ionophore and
tylosin (coccidia and liver abscess control), but
did not include antimicrobials affecting BRD
therapy (e.g., tetracyclines, sulfas).
Treatment success rates during the immediate
28 and 56 days after initial BRD metaphylaxis
were the primary parameters of interest.
Success rate was defined as the percentage of
cattle that were alive and did not qualify for
BRD treatment following the PMI (clinical
signs of BRD during the PMI did not constitute
a treatment failure unless severity warranted
removal of the animal from the study). Other
evaluated parameters included BRD mortality
(days 0-28, 56, harvest), chronic rates (days 0-
56, harvest), and the number of BRD treat-
ments. Individual animal weights were obtained
on day 0 and at re-implant (day 71), and pen
weights were obtained at harvest, to allow
computation of average daily gain (ADG) and
feed efficiency (feed/gain, F/G).
Collected data were statistically analyzed by
appropriate methods using pen as the experi-
mental unit. The analysis model included the
fixed effects of treatment, type of housing (with
or without shelter), and interaction of treatment
and type of housing; random effects included
block, block within type of housing, and inter-
action of block within type of housing and
treatment. Data from animals removed from
the study for protocol deviations or reasons/
conditions other than BRD were not included
in analyses. Least squares (LS) means (back-
transformed where appropriate) and 95%
confidence intervals/ranges were calculated for
each treatment, with differences assessed at the
5% level of signifi cance (P ≤ 0.05). No treat-
ment × housing-type interactions were detected
(P > 0.05), so all statistical comparisons were
made across both types of housing. The study
was conducted in accordance with the Zoetis
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
3
Cattle received eitherDRAXXIN,® Zuprevo,® orMicotil ® for the control
of BRD; subsequent treatment regimens withEXCEDE ® were identical.
4
ResultsHealth outcomesDRAXXIN metaphylaxis provided superior
disease control for calves at high risk of
developing BRD. As shown in Figure 2,
excellent metaphylaxis success rates (no BRD
development) of 79.5% and 72.4% were
achieved by the DRAXXIN treatment group at
days 28 and 56, respectively. These outcomes
were significantly greater (P < 0.01) than
metaphylaxis success rates observed in the
Zuprevo or Micotil groups. In terms of relative
improvements, DRAXXIN success rates were
23.3% to 48.0% better than those achieved by
the other medications.
No significant BRD mortality differences were
observed between treatment groups at 28 and
56 days, or at harvest.
Rates of costly BRD chronics (≥3 therapeutic
BRD treatments, with at least 1 BRD episode
occurring during the first 28 days) were signifi-
cantly (P < 0.01) reduced in DRAXXIN-treated
calves at both 56 days and over the entire study
(Figure 3). Notably, compared to Zuprevo,
DRAXXIN metaphylaxis reduced chronic
rates by 83.6% and 80.0% for days 0-56 and
0-harvest, respectively. Even greater significant
reductions (P < 0.01) in chronic rate were
achieved by DRAXXIN relative to Micotil.
Figure 4 summarizes the rates of both mortality
and chronics at 56 days and harvest, reflecting
perhaps the most costly aspects of BRD. Calves
receiving DRAXXIN metaphylaxis generated
dramatic 4-fold (or more) reductions (P < 0.01)
in mortality+chronics rate compared to either
Zuprevo or Micotil (reductions of 76.3% and
81.0%, respectively, for day 0-harvest). These
outcomes significantly favor DRAXXIN as the
choice agent for BRD metaphylaxis.
The percent of cattle receiving re-treatment for
BRD further demonstrated the excellent BRD
control offered by DRAXXIN. While 76.9% of
calves receiving DRAXXIN at arrival required
no therapeutic BRD treatments during the
course of the feeding period, only 57.7% and
68.3% of Micotil- and Zuprevo-treated animals,
respectively, completed the feeding period
without BRD therapy. Furthermore, DRAXXIN
cattle demonstrated the lowest rates in the other
BRD treatment frequency categories (1, 2, or 3
treatments, data not shown).
Metaphylaxis successrate was at least 23%greater for cattle thatreceived DRAXXIN ®
compared to calvesthat received Zuprevo.®
DRAXXIN ® metaphylaxissuccess rate was about48% greater than thatachieved using Micotil.®
Figure 2 – 28-day and 56-day success rates of BRD metaphylaxis (no BRD cases).
90
80
70
60
50
40
0
53.7
63.8
Micotil Zuprevo
Metaphylaxis success (%)mP � 0.01 vs Micotil
+48.0% 79.5mz
Draxxin
+24.6%
zP � 0.01 vs Zuprevo
28-day Success
49.0
58.7
Micotil Zuprevo
+47.8% 72.4mz
Draxxin
+23.3%
56-day Success
Figure 3 – BRD chronic rates during days 0-56and for the entire feeding period.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
9.0
6.7
BRD chronics (%)mP � 0.01 vs Micotil
1.1mz
zP � 0.01 vs Zuprevo
10.7
8.0
1.6mz
Micotil Zuprevo Draxxin Micotil Zuprevo Draxxin
Day 0-56 Day 0-harvest
Figure 4 – BRD mortality+chronics during days0-56 and for the entire feeding period.
9.6
7.6
BRD mortality+chronics (%)mP � 0.01 vs Micotil
1.6mz
zP � 0.01 vs Zuprevo11.6
9.3
2.2mz
12
10
8
6
4
2
0Micotil Zuprevo Draxxin Micotil Zuprevo Draxxin
Day 0-56 Day 0-harvest
Metaphylaxis withDRAXXIN ® cut incidenceof deads and chronicsmore than 4-fold compared to Zuprevo.®
Performance outcomesGrowth results summarized in Figure 5,
calculated on a deads-in basis (including
chronics removed from the study), reveal that
DRAXXIN metaphylaxis generated at least
28% better (P < 0.01) ADG during the feeding
period compared to either Zuprevo or Micotil.
Furthermore, F/G for cattle that received
DRAXXIN meta phylaxis was 18.5% better
(P < 0.01) than that of the Zuprevo group over
the entire feeding period, and improved 17.0%
(P < 0.05) compared to F/G experienced by the
Micotil group (Figure 6). No significant differ-
ences were detected between treatment groups
for ADG or F/G when calculated on a deads-
out basis (data not shown).
ConclusionsResults of this study confirm that use of
DRAXXIN for arrival metaphylaxis provided
substantial health and performance benefits
relative to Zuprevo or Micotil for controlling
the negative impacts of BRD in high-risk
calves arriving at a commercial feedyard.
DRAXXIN-medicated cattle experienced
significantly improved metaphylaxis success
rates (no BRD) at both 28 and 56 days after
arrival treatment. In addition to reduced BRD
morbidity, cattle receiving DRAXXIN
metaphylaxis experienced significantly reduced
incidences of BRD mortality and chronics
compared to animals treated metaphylactically
with Zuprevo or Micotil. The DRAXXIN group
also demonstrated signifi cantly improved ADG
and F/G compared to the other medicated
groups.
The use of DRAXXIN for arrival metaphylaxis
offers beef producers a reliable, cost-effective,
and unsurpassed strategy for helping optimize
the health and profitability of feedlot cattle at
high risk for BRD.
5
DRAXXIN ® arrival metaphylaxis providedsubstantial health and performance benefits
relative to Zuprevo®
or Micotil.®
Figure 5 – Average daily gain (lb) during the entire feeding period (day 0-harvest,deads/chronics-in).
3.4
3.0
2.6
2.2
0
ADG (lb)mP � 0.01 vs MicotilzP � 0.01 vs Zuprevo
2.47 2.43
+28.7% 3.18mz+30.9%
Micotil Zuprevo Draxxin
Figure 6 – Average feed/gain during the entirefeeding period (day 0-harvest,deads/chronics-in).
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
0
Feed/GainmP � 0.05 vs MicotilzP � 0.01 vs Zuprevo
7.007.13
5.81mz
Micotil Zuprevo Draxxin
Overall ADG and F/G forcattle on the DRAXXIN ®
protocol was improvedat least 28% and 17%,
respectively, comparedto the other medications.
Important Safety Information: Do not use DRAXXIN in female dairy cattle 20 months
of age or older. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. DRAXXIN has an 18 day pre-slaughter
withdrawal
Important Safety Information: As with all drugs, the use of EXCEDE is contraindicated
in animals with known allergy to ceftiofur or to the β-lactam group (penicillins and cephalosporins)
of antimicrobials. Though safe in cattle when properly administered, inadvertent intra-arterial
injection is possible and fatal. EXCEDE has a pre-slaughter withdrawal time of 13 days in cattle.
Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
6
References1. Data on file, Study Report No. A131R-US-12-028, Zoetis Inc.
2. Evans NA. Tulathromycin: an overview of a new triamilide antibiotic for livestock respiratory disease.Vet Ther 2005; 6:83-95.
(Ceftiofur Crystalline Free Acid)Sterile Suspension
rySterile Suspension
)idd)ystalline Free Accitiofur CrCefft((C
third of the posterior aspect of the ear.
third of the posterior aspect of the ear.
the head (base of the ear) while main
administered ventrally into the loose skin in the caudal aspect of the base of the e
Figure 7. Diagram of head showing the direction of base of ear injections wh
e 7.iguree Ftaining needle position. Sthe head (base of the ear) while main
administered ventrally into the loose skin in the caudal aspect of the base of the e
Figure 7. Diagram of head showing the direction of base of ear injections wh
ee acid:stalline frytiofur crefe of ctuructre 1. SigurF
based suspension.iglyic trylic/capr, in a caprtiofurefo 200 mg ct talenequiv
onile suspension cer-use sto-teadyEach mL of this resulting fr, roin vitrro, icidalerttiofur is bactef, cinsephalosporc
tamaseß-lacia including erte baccttivam-negaand Gre positivephalosportrum coad spect, which is a brtiofurr,efftacid of c
tion thamulaor-use fo-teadyile Suspension is a rertCEDE SEXDESCRIPTION
y or on the oro use bts this drug tictestrw r) laal (USAederFUTIONAC
.ealor vvessed ffocoe pro bes talvc
eef and non-laco the head (base of the ear) in bttaches ta
ostt of the ear or in the pecerior aspostd of the pthir
or sub. Fttleay cting dairtahead (base of the ear) in lac
t of the ear wherecerior asposttion in the pcutaneous injecor subF
onseed oilott and c)®oliglyide (Merceee acidstalline frytiofur creftains con
.thesisall synell wom inhibition of cesulting frLike other. ainsstroducing -prtamase
am-e against Grtivtibiotic actin anephalosporeestalline frytains the cront ction tha
ian.inareretensed vder of a licy or on the or
or use inot ff. Nttleay cting dairtaeef and non-lac
e itt of the ear wherecerior aspost
tion in the middlecutaneous injecor sub
o thettaches te it at of the ear wher
of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension into ear arteries is likely to be fatal.
posterior ear and the recommended
of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension into ear arteries is likely to be fatal.
needle insertion locations. Administrationposterior ear and the recommended
FOR USE IN ANIM
ARNINGSWWA
e typersensitivo be hound teviously fprCEDE S, the use of EXs with all drugsA
TIONSAATAINDICONTRC
needle insertion locations. Administration
AN USET FOR HUMNOYYALS ONLLYFOR USE IN ANIM
.o the druge ted in animtaindicatronile Suspension is coertCEDE S
ophorerium necrrotteusobacFed with tassociaobacillosis) necreaor the tred ftile Suspension is also indicaertCEDE SEX
.H. somni and cida,oultto. mPP., ahaemolyticM.isk of devt high re attle which ary cating dairtaand non-lact
oncthe or fed tindicaalso is Suspension ile ertSCEDE EXt, and lactyting dairta, non-lacin beeff,ophilus somniiHisttoand
Mannheimiaed with t, pneumonia) associaerr,evshipping ft of botmeneaor tred ftile Suspension is indicaertCEDE SEX
TIONSAATINDIC
ylic acidxbooxcarene 2--2-t-clo[4.2.0]octy-5-thia-1-azabicyoxoox8-]- 3-[[(2-furyl]aminoet)aceyiminoxolyl)-2-(metho-4-thiazminoA7-[[2-(2-
ee acid:stalline frytiofur crefChemical name of c
es 4 and 5.iguree F. Seeytion of an iectdir
tion fadministrAAd
,beeff,inomonas leviii yrroorphPPo and ophorumitaldigertot (inoot rvine ft of botmenea
ed withteloping BRD associaisk of devbeefin disease y ortaespirrof ol tron
.ttley cating dairtacida,oulttoella meurreasttePPa, ahaemolyticMannheimia
,y disease (BRDortaespirvine rt of bo
yl]-] methyl)thiobonylcaran]- 3-[[(2-fur
es 4 and 5.d the animalarwwoough the head tould pass thrt wy line thainartion of an imag
echniqueTTeeyyee Eositppd the OarwwaoTTo: ase of the Earor the Btion f
es opposit’d the animalARNINGSRESIDUE WWA
.of the animalCEDE of EXtion injecial erta-artrnI. eey
tion or base of the ear injecd of the ear injecvia middle thircur dury oction maial injecterta-artrnI
t please call 1-800-366-5288.enevta sheet please call 1-800-733-5500. y daetial saferto obtain a maT
onsheet cta y daetsafial erthe maTesash, hivin r., sk.gcurs (etion oceactr
ash with soap and w, wexposurin eskexposure eeytal cidenof acn case I
.toducto this pre txposureypersensitivitwn hnoersons with a kP
oided bvy be ain mation of the skensitizaSt of the prtacont cecoid dirvtion. Asensitiza
some individualstions ineactric gallertimicro such anes txposuropical eTins can cause allerephalosporenicillins and cP
KEEP OUT OF REA
FOR USE IN ANIM
sudden deesult in ro likely tis ile Suspension ertSCEDE d the oppoarwoed ttecttion dirr base of the ear injectile SuspensertCEDE Stion of EXaing administrcur dur
ey advt aneporo rTta sheet please call 1-800-733-5500. tmaory infetsaftional cupaoce detailed mortains on
tion.enttthing), seek medical aea, difficult brf alle. Ied clothingttaminaone cvemo. Rertaash with soap and wcideacn case of . Ies15 minutor er ftawflush with , e
vins should aephalosporo penicillin or cy typersensitivit.esve glotivecoting preary woided b
, mouth and clothesin, eyt with the skoductt of the pry leade maxposureolonged or pred tepea. Rsome individualso sevy elicit mild t, matiofurr,ef, including cobialstimicr
ed individutions in sensitizeacic rgins can cause allerCH OF CHILDREN.KEEP OUT OF REA
.AN USET FOR HUM. NOYY.ALS ONLLYFOR USE IN ANIM
CEDE Stion of EXat administre thatClinical studies indica).Wsuspension per 100 lb B
t a dosage of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) Bttle ay cating dairtabeef and non-lactttaches te it at of the ear wherior aspecterthe ear or in the post
tion either in the mer as a subcutaneous injectdministAol of BRDtronC
.edtaluaeevnosis should be r, the diagedvobseree tt within thrtmeneao trespond tost animals will rM
ile suspension per 100 lb BerW (1.5 mL stdosage of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) Bof d thirmiddle the in tion injecsubcutaneous single a as
ile Suspension maertCEDE S, EXttley cating dairtan beef and non-lactIile suspension per 100 lb Ber) (1.5 mL stWt (BeighCE)/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) body w(
t a dosage of 3.0 mg cttle ao cao the head (base of the ear) tttaches tait tion in theer as a single subcutaneous injectdministA
otoot rvine ft of BRD and botmenearTGEDOSA
eptible tganisms suscial orerted with bactttum) associapartmeneatror ed ftindicaalso ile Suspension is ertSCEDE EX
.ttley cating dairta, and lactyy,ting dairtanon-lactophorumobacillosis)
the head (base of the ear) while main
igurey
or thee ftivectile Suspension is effertCEDE S
ileerW (1.5 mL stt a dosage of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) Boo the head (base of the ear) tttaches t
t ofior aspecterd of the posttion either in the middle thir
t isemenvof no impr. Isye dao fivee t).Wile suspension per 100 lb B
at aear the of taspectior erpostthe of ederty also be adminisile Suspension ma
).Wile suspension per 100 lb Btsalentiofur equiveft a dosage of 3.0 mg cet of the ear wherior aspecctertion in the post
.ttley cating dairtatiofur in lactefo ceptible t-s postyda(0-10 itis metre of acutt tmen
,yrorph
aspect of the ear where it attaches to the head (base of the ear).
Figure 4. Subcutaneous administration of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the posterior
e 4.iguree F. Staining this anglethe head (base of the ear) while main
aspect of the ear where it attaches to the head (base of the ear).
Figure 4. Subcutaneous administration of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the posterior
ior aspecertion in the postwing injectolloFyo htion tentttion. Amaoress fin absc
, localiztionsal injecertens with other parAizertacelling (charthickening and sw
tion in the middle thirwing subcutaneous injecolloFUTIONSAPREC
ia.ertt bactesistandrug-red animals and mateao trvide benefit too prt
ial drugs in the absencerttibacse of anUARNINGSTERIAL WWACAANTIB
.esalvting cumina-repr
amuscular injectrneck or in
opry unaption baadministr
or this pred fequird is reriod pardisc
al pwaer withdrt-slaughepr
Figure 4. Subcutaneous administration of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the posterior
o the head (bttaches te it at of the ear wheror aspect.eencrcure their oces can minimizedurocienic prgy
ey rtions maecial inferttion bac-injeced post, localizy oce) of the ear mataellular infiltry aseptic ced biz
t of theior aspecterd of the posttion in the middle thir
elopmenisk of the devease the ry incred animals and mation is unlikecial inferteptible bace of a suscial drugs in the absenc
.esiduese rtivveause violay ction) ma
tion in thecutaneous injeces (subouted rvveo
.
.tducoor this pr
.ttmeneaer the last trted afequird is rerioal p
1100
(lb)
Weight
1.5100
(mL)(lb)
Dose VolumeWeight
ension.erile SusptCEDE Sor EXchedule fable 1. Dosing STTa
.wing the initial doseolloely 72 hours ftximaoear apprt this dose in the cepea). RWile suspension per 100 lb BerW (1.5 mL stBt a dosage of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg)ttle ay cating dairtao laco the head (base of the ear) tt
ior aspecertion in the poster as a subcutaneous injectdministAitisetre Mcutt of AtmenearT
ning).tion, dehoracastre aressivcxink or ee shressivcxed eiencxpere evttle haca
et or cemely wtrxo ee txposurtinued eone had cvttle hacaal of 30° F or morivro arin tigom ore change frturaempert tambien
e included fvy hat mat times (thaansporended trtxe had evttle haca,insigm orom multiple fare frttle ara C
.eloping BRDdevtactypically charors ttwing factolloe of the f. One or morBRD
ting dairtay disease in beef and non-lactortaespirol of rtronco
16.51100
(mL)(lb)
Dose VolumeWeight
ension.
e)al (oppositerta-latront this dose in the ct a dosage of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg)
ttachese it at of the ear wheror aspecct
es (such asedurocessing procal privr,onditionsther coeaold wco
,eal of 30° F or morops),est sty rew if ane included f
isk oft high ral aivres on ares calvizertelopingof dev””iskhigh r“t ttle ay cating dair
the ear).
Suspension in the posterior aspect of the ear where it attaches to the head (base of
Injection 5. Figure
onon
Suspension in the posterior aspect of the ear where it attaches to the head (base of
EXCEDE of administration subcutaneous the for location Injection
t of the ear (middle thirthe posttiofur creftion of caSubcutaneous administr
ed rile Suspension) is metabolizertSile Suspension), or certTU S R®CENELide (EXochlordryh
ed as either certiofur administefCOGYOLLOCCOAAL PHARMCLINIC
y of the clinical and taring antion durmulaortibiotic or fantion. No other aial injecterta-artrin
th (see ANIMe deae of acutincidencing the cur. Dth of the animalsudden dea
tion injecial erta-artrnI. eeye opposittion or base of the ear injecd of the ear injecvia middle thir
cur dury oction maial injecerta-artrnISTVERSE EFFECAD
.minedere not been detvhavine rtiofur on boefts of ceche effT
.ttletage of caencsmall perer than 20 mL, in the middle thirtearg
im loss of edible tissue aesulting in trtion rapost administrtion and sigaoloreas of discof the ear), ar
ior aspecertion in the postwing injectolloF
location for
Suspension in the posterior aspect of the ear where it attaches to the head (base of
Sterile EXCEDE
, MOE) of beef and non-lacd of the eart of the ear (middle thir, either in the middle thiree acidstalline frytiofur cr
y metaboimar, the prtiofurefylcoo desfurapidly ted rCee acid (EXstalline frytiofur crefile Suspension), or ctioefder), cwoile Pert S®CELXtiofur sodium (NAefed as either c
.y studiesetget animal safy of the clinical and taror either ed fe noterts wectemic effsterse sytion. No other adv
teresult of inadvo be the rmed tonfir) cYTAL SAFEas a e w, thert of clinical studiesonducting the c
esulro tlikely is Suspension ile ertSCEDE EXof tion d arwoed ttection diron or base of the ear inject
ile SuspensertCEDE Stion of EXaing administrcur dur
tta, and lacynancyeg, premancorfe pertivoducteprvine r
aining lesions esult in open dry r, mad of the earer than 20 mL, in the middle thirolumtion of vnject. Iertt slaughim loss of edible tissue a
t least 13 dy persist ation mans of inflammation and sigo the head (bttaches te it at of the ear wheror aspect
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
15.01000
13.5900
12.0800
10.5700
9.0600
7.5500
6.0400
4.5300
3.0200
es 2 and 3.iguree F. Sesselsoiding all blood vv, aearr,
erile Suspension subcutaneously in the postertCEDE SEXe packompletead the clease rP. e usingorefell be wwhakS
THE EARTHIRD OF THE MIDDLE TION FORAATADMINISTR
TIONAATADMINISTR
30.02000
28.51900
27.01800
25.51700
24.01600
22.51500
21.01400
19.51300
18.01200
the head (base of the ear) while main
side of the headtion of an iectdir
tion fadministrAA
.ttleior ear of caeringere administort befage insere pack
THE EAR
skin in the caudal aspect of the base of the ear.
administered rostrally toward the eye on the same side of the head into the loose
Figure 6. Diagram of head showing the direction for the base of ear injections
e 6.iguree Ftaining the needle position. Sthe head (base of the ear) while main
es 5 and 6.iguree F. Sside of the headd the eyarwoough the head tould pass thrt wy line thainartion of an imag
echnique or RostTTee yyeame Ed the SarwwaoTTo: ase of Earor the Bffo
on
skin in the caudal aspect of the base of the ear.
administered rostrally toward the eye on the same side of the head into the loose
Figure 6. Diagram of head showing the direction for the base of ear injections
e 6.
e on the samed the ey
tioneciral Dechnique or Rostr
g g
es (MOE and BOE) demonstrtion sitinjectistical analytaable 2. STTaound in e fand BOE) arers fametinetic parokmache pharT
Single Dose Regimen
e 8).iguree Ftion (Saadministr, ophilus somnii,Histto and ahaemolytic
or the labeled BRD pa) f90es (MICtisolaenoncy corest minimum inhibitwlo
tiofur and desfureftions of catrenonccting dairta, non-lact, BOE) of beefear
ior aspecer, or in the postttley cadairt of the ear (midior aspecterthe post
administered rostrally toward the eye on the same side of the head into the loose
Figure 6. Diagram of head showing the direction for the base of ear injections
o the base of the ear (BOE Ltell inas wwe
er administrtes afolited metabtelar
.talenapeutically equive thert they are thataes (MOE and BOE) demonstro subcutanewom these tta frses of the datistical analy
tion (Mtions of injecto subcutaneous locawor the ters f
er a sintally not less than 150 hours afor gener, fcida, Mannheioultella meurastP, thogensor the labeled BRD pa
eptompass 90% of the most susco enction tatrenevaboes in plasma ed metabolittela-rtiofurefylcotiofur and desfur
apevides thero, prttley cating dairta, and lacyting dairo the head (base of ttaches te it at of the ear wherior aspec
tta, MOE) of beef and non-lacd of the eart of the ear (middle thir
.ttleay cting dairtating) in lactaaco the base of the ear (BOE L
eriletCEDE Stion of EXXaer administr
inge and needle and inser. Hold the syrechniquesal ttrenvy be made using the ttion ma) injecthe subcutaneous (SCT
o the head (base of the ear).tior aspecerin the postSuspension subcutaneously ile ertSCEDE EX
e packompletead the clease r P.e usingoreffell be wwehakS
echniquestion te injecte eyd the oppositarwwoal or ttren, valostrrtion in tttle the SC injecty cating dairtan beef and non-lacctI
.echniquestion tal injecttrenal or vostrr(base head the o tttaches ait e wherear the of taspectior erpost
or subcutaneous (SCechniques ftion tttle the injecty cating dairtan lactITHE EARASE OF TION FOR BAATADMINISTR
.d the base of the eararwoowt
.iallyerta-artrer ino not administ. Dtag holes
in in the postskally ttrenting vpoin
tion fadministrAA
.wibed belot the needle as descringe and needle and inser, oralostr, ree eyd the oppositarwoy be made using the t
ttachese it at of the ear wheror aspectingere administort befage insere pack
.echniquesy thetion in the base of the ear can be made b
they bmade be can ear) the of (base tion in the) injector subcutaneous (SC
o the head (base of the ear) while ttaches te it at of the ear wherior aspecerin in the posted inthe needle will be inserT. d the base of the eararwoally t
echniqueTTeal trenVVe: ase of the Earor Bffo
o the head (base of the ear) while o the loose ted in
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n o
f c
eft
iofu
r a
nd
Day
Two-Dose Regimen
A two-dose regimen of 6.6 mg CE/kg BW administered 72 hours apart is required for the treatment of acute metritis in lactating cows. The mean plasma concentration vs. time profile for ceftiofur and desfuroylceftiofur-related metabolites for the 2-dose regimen in 12 cows is shown in Figure 9 below. The pharmacokinetic parameters for the 2-dose regimen are provided in Table 3.
Figure 9. LS-Mean DCA Plasma Concentration Time Profile Following Two Subcutaneous
MICROBIOLOGY
Ceftiofur has demonstrated in vitro activity against Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni, three major pathogens associated with BRD, and against Fusobacterium necrophorum and Porphyromonas levii associated with bovine foot rot. A summary of the susceptibility of BRD and foot rot pathogens is presented in Table 4. BRD isolates were obtained from cattle enrolled in a field study conducted in the United States that were diagnosed with BRD. Foot rot isolates were obtained from cattle enrolled in a field study conducted in the United States and Canada that were diagnosed with foot rot. Susceptibility testing was conducted according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M7-A3 and M11-A6 standards for BRD and foot rot isolates, respectively.
Based on pharmacokinetic and clinical effectiveness studies of ceftiofur in cattle after a single administration of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW and the MIC and susceptibility data, the following breakpoints are recommended for BRD pathogens by CLSI.
EFFECTIVENESS
A field dose confirmation study for the treatment of BRD evaluated the effectiveness of single doses of 2.0 and 3.0 mg CE/lb (4.4 or 6.6 mg CE/kg) BW for the treatment of the bacterial component of BRD under field conditions. All treatments were administered subcutaneously in the middle third of the posterior aspect of the ear. Cattle were clinically evaluated on Days 2 to 4, 14 and 28 and were observed on all other study days. The 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW EXCEDE Sterile Suspension dose significantly (p ≤0.05) increased Day 14 treatment success rate, defined as animals that did not require any ancillary treatment and had a rectal temperature of <104°F, normal respiration index, and had no or mild depression on that day. The effectiveness of a single dose of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension for the control of BRD in feedlot cattle was evaluated in a nine-location field effectiveness study. In addition to standard processing on arrival at feedlots, cattle (n=3911) considered to be at high risk for BRD were assigned to one of four arrival treatments, including EXCEDE Sterile Suspension at 2.0 or 3.0 mg CE/lb (4.4 or 6.6 mg CE/kg) BW or negative control. Effectiveness evaluation was based on the incidence of clinical BRD within 28 days following arrival processing. Administration of a single dose of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension administered subcutaneously in the middle third of the posterior aspect of the ear at arrival processing significantly reduced the incidence of BRD in high-risk feedlot cattle in the 28-day period after arrival processing compared to negative controls. Base of the ear administration (beef and non-lactating dairy cattle) and middle third of the ear administration (lactating dairy cattle) were compared to the middle third of the ear pharmacoki netic data for beef and non-lactating dairy cattle and were found to be therapeutically equivalent. The effectiveness of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension for the treatment of bovine foot rot was evaluated in a six-location field effectiveness study. Cattle diagnosed with bovine foot rot were enrolled and treated with EXCEDE Sterile Suspension, administered by subcutaneous injection in the base of the ear as a single dose of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) dBW or an equivalent volume of a vehicle control. Cattle were clinically evaluated 7 days post-treatment for treatment success, which was based on defined decreases in lesion, swelling and lameness scores. A total of 169 beef and dairy cattle were included in the analysis. There was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0054) in treatment success for EXCEDE-treated cattle (58.4%) compared to vehicle-treated control cattle (13.2%). The effectiveness of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension for the treatment of acute metritis was evaluated in a 15-location field effectiveness study. A total of 1023 cows with a fetid vaginal discharge and a rectal temperature of ≥ 103 °F were enrolled in the study and treated with either a two-dose regimen of EXCEDE (6.6 mg CE/BW) or an equivalent volume of vehicle control, administered approximately 72 hours apart at the base of opposite ears. At 14 days post-treatment, each cow remaining in the study was examined and rectal temperature and vaginal discharge score were recorded. Cows with a non-fetid discharge, and a rectal temperature < 103 °F, and that did not require alternate (“escape”) therapy during the 14_day observation period were classified as a cure. The cure rate was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in EXCEDE-treated cows (362/493, 74.3%) than in vehicle-treated cows (271/489, 55.3%). One cow died 15 to 20 minutes after the second administration of EXCEDE. Necropsy findings determined the probable cause of death to be intra-arterial injection.
ANIMAL SAFETY
Systemic Safety Studies
After parenteral administration, ceftiofur crystalline free acid (as EXCEDE Sterile Suspension), ceftiofur sodium and ceftiofur hydrochloride are rapidly metabolized to desfuroylceftiofur. Therefore, studies conducted with ceftiofur sodium are adequate to evaluate the systemic safety of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension. Results from a five-day tolerance study conducted with ceftiofur sodium in normal feeder calves indicated that ceftiofur was well tolerated at 25 mg CE/lb/day for five consecutive days, approx-imately 8 times the approved dose of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW. Ceftiofur administered parenterally had no adverse systemic effects. In a 15-day safety/toxicity study, five steer and five heifer calves per group were administered ceftiofur sodium intramuscularly at 0 (vehicle control), 1, 3, 5 or 10 mg CE/lb/day thus, evaluating up to 3.3 times the approved dose of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension of 3.0 mg CE/lb/day (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW. There were no adverse systemic effects, indicating that ceftiofur has a wide margin of safety when injected intramuscularly into feeder calves. Local tissue tolerance to subcutaneous injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the posterior ear of cattle was evaluated in a separate study. The systemic safety of ceftiofur concentrations resulting from product administration at the base of the ear was established via a pharmacokinetic comparison of the two routes of administration (base of the ear versus middle third of the ear). Based upon the results of this relative bioavailability study, it was determined that the two routes of administration are therapeutically equivalent. To support systemic target animal safety for the 2-dose metritis regimen, five projected daily doses of NAXCEL Sterile Powder (ceftiofur sodium) at 2.2 mg/kg BW were compared pharmacokinetically with EXCEDE administered 2 times at a 72 hour interval at 6.6 mg/kg BW. The peak concentration (Cmax) and the extent of exposure (AUC) after two doses of EXCEDE were statistically no higher than the exposure following five daily doses of NAXCEL Sterile Powder in beef cattle.Investigation of Intra-Arterial and Intravenous Injection
In approximately 6000 animals enrolled in the BRD clinical studies, nine animals died following injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension. All deaths were within 30 minutes of the time of injection. The exact cause was confirmed in three animals. These deaths resulted from inadvertent intra-arterial injection of this oil-based suspension into one of the two major auricular (ear) arteries. Intra-arterial injection at this location resulted in direct administration of the oil-based formulation into the arterial blood supply of the brain resulting in embolism and death. Since intra-arterial injection was confirmed in three animals that died following injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension, the consequences of purposeful intra-arterial injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension were investigated in feeder cattle. Two heifers (body weight approximately 225 kg) were given a single 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW bolus dose of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the middle auricular artery. Both heifers collapsed immediately and died within approximately eight minutes of injection. Intra-arterial injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the ear will result in death and must be avoided. Since subcutaneous injection in the ear may potentially result in inadvertent intravenous administration of an injectable product, the consequences of purposeful intravenous injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension were investigated in feeder cattle. Three heifers and three steers (body weight range 197-223 kg) were given a single 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW bolus dose of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the jugular vein and were monitored for adverse effects following injection. One steer and one heifer had transient (2 to 5 minutes) increases in heart rate without any other untoward signs in these or the other cattle. Intravenous injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension is an unacceptable route of administration.Safety Studies in Beef Cattle
Middle of the ear injection: A study was designed and conducted to specifically address tissue tolerance in cattle when EXCEDE Sterile Suspension was administered as a single subcutaneous injection into the posterior aspect of the ear of cattle at the recommended dose of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW. Results from this study indicate that the subcutaneous injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension into the middle third of the posterior aspect of the ear of cattle is well tolerated and characterized by a biphasic thickening of the ear. The initial increase in thickness is attributed to the space required for the volume of injected material. Additional increases in thickness were observed through Day 14 after injection. After Day 14, post injection ear thickness decreased in all animals. One animal carried an injected ear in a drooping position for 7 days post injection. At necropsy, subcutaneous areas of discoloration and some foci of hemorrhage were observed in ears of injected cattle. The discoloration was markedly reduced in size by the end of the study. Ears are inedible tissues in the US (9 CFR 301.2). No signs of irritation were observed on the edible portions of the carcass around the base of the ear. The local tolerance of the ear of cattle to a single subcutaneous injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension was also evaluated in a large multi-location effectiveness study. None of the 1927 animals treated with EXCEDE Sterile Suspension were removed from this trial due to ear irritation although swelling was noted at some injection sites. Leak back and/or bleeding from the injection site was observed in a small fraction of the treated animals immediately after administration. It was concluded that administration of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the posterior aspect of the ear was well tolerated and was acceptable under feedlot conditions. A study evaluated the 56-day feedlot performance of beef steers administered EXCEDE Sterile Suspension alone, EXCEDE Sterile Suspension with a growth promoting implant, growth promoting implant alone, or neither product, in a total of 207 Angus and Angus
cross-bred steers. The administration of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the posterior aspof the ear with or without growth promoting implants was well tolerated by cattle andnot adversely affect feedlot cattle performance. Based upon the results of this study, location of implants administered after EXCEDE Sterile Suspension may need toadjusted slightly within the boundaries of the middle third of the ear in some animals. Base of the ear injection: The local tolerance of the ear to a single subcutaneous injection at the base of the eaEXCEDE Sterile Suspension was evaluated in a multi-location field study in 2926 beef catNormal restraint was adequate for adminis tration of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension for 99of cattle. No post injection problems (exces sive bleeding or leak back) were obserin 99.8% of cattle. On Days 28 and 56 post-injec tion, 97.8% and 98.9% of the cattle “normal” (no observed swelling) ears. In a residue study, 72 beef cattle were injected in the base of the ear with EXCEDE SteSuspension at a dose rate of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW. Injection sites were obserdaily from treatment to necropsy (4, 7, 10, or 13 days post-injection) for swelling drooping, and evaluated grossly at necropsy, using skinning and trimming procedusimilar to slaughterhouse practices. All animals had injection site swelling during study; swelling resolved prior to euthanasia in 23 of 72 animals. None of the animshowed ear drooping. At necropsy, signs of inflammation (hemorrhage, congestion, firmness of tissue) and presence of drug material were seen in the area around injection site and on the carcass. At 13 days post-injection, gross lesions were found in inedible portions of the base of the ear in all 18 animals, and in the exposed carcass tisin 11 of 18 animals. The ventral base of the ear injection technique was evaluated in a conditions of study in 200 beef cattle. Each animal received a single injection of EXCEDE SteSuspension at a dose of 6.6 mg CE/kg BW at the base of the ear using the ventral injecttechnique. Normal restraint was adequate for 95.5% of animals in the study. Injection scores were normal for 65.3% and 92.5% of cattle on Days 14 and 28, respectively. Oanimal had an unusually large swelling on Day 7 which reduced to a size comparableother study animals by Day 14. Safety Studies in Lactating Dairy Cattle
The local tolerance of the ear to a single subcutaneous injec tion at the base of the eaEXCEDE Sterile Suspension was evaluated in a multi-location field study in 114 adult dcattle. Successful injection in the base of the ear was achieved in 97.4% of cattle using norfacilities and restraint equipment. No leak back or excessive bleeding was observed fol lowinjection for 99.1% of cattle, with injection volumes ranging from 15 to 30 mL. On Daysand 56 following injection of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension in the base of the ear, 95.6% 100% of ears, respectively, were observed as normal with no injection site swelling. In a residue study, six dairy cows were injected in the base of the ear at a dose rate ofmg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW of EXCEDE Sterile Suspension. No animals exhibited droopears at any time after treatment but all animals had signs of swelling at the injection sitall observation times after treatment. Cows were slaughtered 10 days after injectionnecropsy, all six cows showed evidence of injection site inflammation (discoloration oftissue/fascia) and four of six cows had discoloration of tissue dor sal and posterior to thecanal on the carcass. In addition to discoloration, tan nodules and a milky white fexudate were also present at the sectioned surface. Injection site safety for base of the ear administration was evaluated in the meteffectiveness study described above. Normal restraint was adequate for ≥ 97.8%injections administered. Injection site scores were normal in 50.3%, 73.2%, and 96.4% or 3, 11, and 54±3 days after the second injection, respectively. The ventral and rostral base of the ear injection techniques were compared with toward the opposite eye technique in a conditions of use study in 197 lactating dairy catNormal restraint was adequate for 89.8% (ventral), 98% (rostral), and 100% (opposite eof animals in the study. Injection site scores were normal for 32% (rostral), 46.9% (ventand 47.9% (opposite eye) of cattle on Day 14, and 73% (rostral), 87.8% (ventral), and 64(opposite eye) of cattle on Day 28, respectively.
TISSUE AND MILK RESIDUE DEPLETION
A radiolabeled residue metabolism study established tolerances for ceftiofur residin cattle kidney, liver and muscle. A separate study established the tolerance for ceftioresidues in milk. The tolerances for ceftiofur residues are 0.4 ppm in kidney, 2.0 ppm in li1.0 ppm in muscle and 0.1 ppm in milk. A pivotal tissue residue decline study was conducted in dairy cattle. In this study, coreceived a single injection of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW. Ceftiofur residues in tisswere less than the tolerances for ceftiofur residues in tissues such as the kidney, liver muscle by 13 days after dosing. These data collectively support a 13-day pre-slaughwithdrawal period. A pivotal milk residue decline study was conducted in lactating dairy cattle. In study, cows received a single injection of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW. Ceftioresidues in milk were less than tolerances at all time points after treatment. These dcollectively support that no milk discard period is required for this product.Two-Dose Residue Decline Studies A pivotal tissue residue decline study was conducted in dairy cattle. In this study, coreceived two injections of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW with a 72 hour interval betwinjections. Ceftiofur residues in tissues were less than the tolerances for ceftiofur residin the kidney by 13 days after the second dose. These data collectively continue to suppa 13-day pre-slaughter withdrawal period after the last dose. A pivotal milk residue decline study was conducted in lactating dairy cattle. In study, cows received two injections of 3.0 mg CE/lb (6.6 mg CE/kg) BW with a 72 hinterval between injections. Milk residue decline data from this study supports that no mdiscard period is required for this product.
STORAGE CONDITIONS
Store at controlled room temperature 20° to 25°C (68° to 77°F). Shake well before us Contents should be used within 12 weeks after the first dose is removed.
HOW SUPPLIED
EXCEDE Sterile Suspension is available in the following package sizes: 100 mL vial 250 mL vial
NADA #141-209, Approved by FDA
www.EXCEDE.com or call 1-866-387-2287
Revised: December 2011
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n o
f c
eft
iofu
r a
nd
desfuroylceftiofur metabolites calculated after a single subcutaneous administration
third of the ear or the base of the ear.
Cmax (μg CE/mL) = maximum plasma concentration (in μg CE/mL).tmax (h) = the time after injection when Cmax occurs (in hours).AUC0-LOQ
of injection to the limit of quantitation of the assay (0.15 μg CE/mL).t>0.2,
model (h) = the time plasma concentrations remain above 0.2 μg CE/mL
(in hours), estimated using compartmental pharmacokinetic techniques.
t>0.2, nca (h) = the time plasma concentrations remain above 0.2 μg CE/mL (in hours), estimated using noncompartmental pharmacokinetic techniques.
t1/2 (h) = terminal phase biological half life (in hours)NE = Not estimated
Pharmacokinetic
Parameter
Beef - Middle Third
of the Ear Mean
Value ± Standard
Deviation
Beef - Base
of the Ear Mean
Value ± Standard
Deviation
Dairy Cow - Base
of the Ear Mean
Value ± Standard
Deviation
Cmax (μg CE/mL) 6.90 ± 2.68 6.39 ± 1.79 4.44 ± 1.65
tmax (h) 12.0 ± 6.2 19.8 ± 5.81 19.00 ± 8.02
AUC0-LOQ 376 ± 66.1 412 ± 67.3 313 ± 85.5
t>0.2, model (h) 183 ± 40.8 NE NE
t>0.2, nca (h) 246 ± 48.5 218 ± 45.5 205 ± 35.7
t½ (h) 62.3 ± 13.5 40.7 ± 11.2 43.92 ± 9.84
PK Parameter Mean ± Standard Deviation
AUC0-LOQ 651 ± 119
t½ (h) 55.7 ± 4.84
t>0.2 (h) 341 ± 34.0
Tmax (h) 77.1 ± 33.4
Cmax (μg/mL) 5.98 ± 2.51
Table 4. Ceftiofur minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values* of indicated
pathogens isolated from cattle with naturally occurring BRD or foot rot.
Indicated pathogenYear of
isolation
Number of
isolates
MIC ** MIC ** MIC range
Mannheimia haemolytica 1996 to 1997 75 0.008 0.015 0.001 to 0.015
Pasteurella multocida 1996 to 1997 43 0.004 0.004 0.001 to 0.015
Histophilus somni 1996 to 1997 11 0.004 0.004 0.002 to 0.015
Fusobacterium necrophorum 2006 to 2007 148 ≤ 0.25 0.5 ≤ 0.25 to >128
Porphyromonas levii 2006 to 2007 141 ≤ 0.25 2.0 ≤ 0.25 to 16
* The correlation between in vitro susceptibility data and clinical effectiveness is unknown.** The lowest MIC to encompass 50% and 90% of the most susceptible isolates, respectively.
Table 5. CLSI-accepted interpretive criteria* for ceftiofur against cattle
respiratory pathogens.
PathogenDisk
potency
Zone diameter
(mm)
MIC breakpoint
S I R S I R
Mannheimia haemolytica Pasteurella multocida Histophilus somni
30 μg ≥ 21 18 to 20 ≤ 17 ≤ 2.0 4.0 ≥ 8.0
S – Susceptible I – Intermediate R – Resistant
* These interpretive criteria are only intended for use when CLSI M31-A2 performance standards are used to determine antimicrobial susceptibility. Interpretive criteria for b i f t t th h t b t bli h d
Distributed byPharmacia & Upjohn CompanyDivision of Pfizer Inc, NY, NY 10017
All trademarks are the property of Zoetis Inc., its affiliates and/or its licensors. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. ©2013 Zoetis Inc. All rights reserved. DRX13056
OBSERVE LABEL DIRECTIONS
TAKE TIME