Objective-To compare the efficacy of gamithromycin with that of tulathromycin for control of undifferentiated bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC) in feedlot calves. Animals-2,529 weaned crossbred beef calves. Procedures-At each of 2 feedlots, calves at risk of developing BRDC were administered a single dose of gamithromycin (6.0 mg/kg, SC; n = 1,263) or tulathromycin (2.5 mg/kg, SC; 1,266) metaphylactically. Health (BRDC morbidity, mortality, case-fatality, and retreatment rates) and performance (average daily gain, dry matter intake, and feed-to-gain ratio) outcomes were compared between treatments via classical hypothesis testing. Bioequivalence limits for gamithromycin and tulathromycin were established for outcomes for which no significant difference between treatments was detected. Results-Mean BRDC morbidity rate (31.0%) for calves administered gamithromycin was greater than that (22.9%) for calves administered tulathromycin; otherwise, health and performance did not differ between treatments. Limits for mean differences within which gamithromycin was considered bioequivalent to tulathromycin were +/- 10% for BRDC retreatment rate, +/- 3.5% for BRDC mortality rate, ± 16% for case-fatality rate, +/- 37 kg for final body weight, +/- 0.1 kg/d for average daily gain, +/- 0.3 kg/d for dry matter intake, and +/- 0.7 for feed-to-gain ratio. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-The efficacy of gamithromycin did not differ from that of tulathromycin for all outcomes except morbidity rate; calves administered gamithromycin had a higher BRDC morbidity rate than did calves administered tulathromycin. On the basis of the bioequivalence limits established for this dataset, gamithromycin was considered equivalent to tulathromycin for the control of BRDC.

Objective-To evaluate the use of high-resolution manometry (HRM) in awake and sedated dogs and to assess potential effects of a standard sedation protocol. Animals-22 Beagles. Procedures-An HRM catheter with 36 pressure sensors was inserted intranasally in each dog. After an adaption period of 5 minutes, each set of measurements included 5 swallows of a liquid and 5 swallows of a solid bolus. Measurements were repeated 30 minutes after IM administration of buprenorphine and acepromazine. Results-HRM was successfully performed in 14 dogs. Data sets of 8 dogs were adequate for analysis. For the upper esophageal sphincter, median values of baseline pressure, residual pressure, relaxation time to nadir, and relaxation duration were determined for awake and sedated dogs for liquid and solid swallows. For the tubular portion of the esophagus, median values of peristaltic contractile integral, bolus transit time, and contractile front velocity were determined for awake and sedated dogs for liquid and solid swallows. For the lower esophageal sphincter, median values of baseline pressure and residual pressure were determined for awake and sedated dogs for liquid and solid swallows. Significant differences (awake vs sedated) were found for the upper esophageal sphincter residual pressure (liquid swallows), relaxation time to nadir (liquid swallows), bolus transit time (solid swallows), and contractile front velocity (solid swallows). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-HRM was feasible for evaluation of esophageal function in most awake dogs. Although sedation in uncooperative patients may minimally influence results of some variables, an overall assessment of swallowing should be possible.