Chika C Okafor

Dr. Chika C Okafor

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
7 January 2019 in BMC Veterinary Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JEJohn Eddie Ekakoro
John Eddie Ekakoro
MCMarc Caldwell
Marc Caldwell
ESElizabeth B. Bramel Strand
Elizabeth B. Bramel Strand
COChika C Okafor
Chika C Okafor
In recent years, there has been an increased awareness of antimicrobial resistance in both animals and humans, which has triggered concerns over non-judicious antimicrobial use. In the United States, antimicrobial use in food-producing animals for growth promotion or improved feed efficiency is perceived as non-judicious. To facilitate judicious antimicrobial use, the United States Food and Drug Administration implemented the Veterinary Feed Directive, effective from January 1, 2017. Interventions, such as the VFD, designed to ensure the judicious use of antimicrobials among cattle producers may be more effective if the factors that inform and influence producer AMU practices are addressed. The specific objectives of this study were to determine the following among Tennessee beef cattle producers: (1) the most common drivers for using antimicrobials, (2) the perceived alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) the knowledge and perceptions regarding antimicrobial resistance, and (4) the preferred avenues for receiving information on prudent antimicrobial use. A total of 5 focus group meetings with beef producers were conducted in East, Middle, and West Tennessee. Each focus group was video recorded and thematic analysis was performed using NVivo. The factors that producers considered to drive antimicrobial use were the type of cattle operation, disease and animal welfare, economic factors, veterinarian consultation, producer’s experience and peer support, Veterinary Feed Directive, and perceived drug efficacy. Vaccination, proper nutrition, and other good management practices were considered alternatives to antimicrobial use. To encourage vaccine use among small producers, participants suggested packaging vaccines into smaller quantities. Antimicrobial resistance was perceived to be a problem affecting animal and public health. Participants suggested additional education for cattle producers on the prudent use of antimicrobials as a measure for improving antimicrobial use. The veterinarian, producer associations and meetings, and county extension agents emerged as trusted avenues for channeling information on prudent antimicrobial use to cattle producers. Several factors drive antimicrobial use among cattle producers in Tennessee. Participants generally perceived their antimicrobial use to be discreet and only when necessary. More awareness of drivers for the development of antimicrobial resistance and continuing education on prudent antimicrobial use is needed for Tennessee beef producers.

1 June 2019 in Veterinary and Animal Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JEJohn Eddie Ekakoro
John Eddie Ekakoro
COChika C Okafor
Chika C Okafor
Indiscriminate antimicrobial use (AMU) is a factor contributing to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objectives of this study were to (1) identify factors influencing AMU practices of veterinary clinicians at The University of Tennessee Veterinary Medical Center (UTVMC), (2) analyze the clinicians’ preferential choices of antimicrobials, and (3) evaluate their perceptions, opinions, and concerns regarding AMU and AMR. A total of 121 clinicians were surveyed. Among the 62 respondents, culture and susceptibility test results and pressure from clients were the most and least important factors in their antimicrobial prescription decision-making, respectively. Compared to clinicians who obtained their veterinary degree from 1970 to 1999, those who graduated from 2000 to 2009 and 2010–2016 were 3.96 (P = 0.034) and 5.39 (P = 0.01) times less concerned about AMR, respectively. There is a critical need to increase awareness about judicious AMU practices among clinicians, increase emphasis about AMR in the present veterinary curriculum, and implement antimicrobial stewardship program (AMS) in this institution. Educational activities in combination with awareness campaigns and the stewardship programs could be used to improve AMU practices at this hospital. More client education on AMR is needed.

1 January 2011 in Veterinary Medicine International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
COChika C Okafor
Chika C Okafor
DGDaniel L. Grooms
Daniel L. Grooms
CBColleen S. Bruning-Fann
Colleen S. Bruning-Fann
JAJames J. Averill
James J. Averill
JKJohn B. Kaneene
John B. Kaneene
Despite ongoing eradication efforts, bovine tuberculosis (BTB) remains a challenge in Michigan livestock and wildlife. The objectives of this study were to (1) review the epidemiology of BTB in Michigan cattle, privately owned cervids, and wildlife between 1975 and 2010 and (2) identify important lessons learned from the review and eradication strategies. BTB information was accessed from the Michigan BTB Eradication Project agencies. Cattle herds (49), privately owned deer herds (4), and wild white-tailed deer (668) were found infected with BTB during the review period. BTB has occurred primarily in counties located at the northern portion of the state's Lower Peninsula. Currently used BTB eradication strategies have successfully controlled BTB spread. However additional changes in BTB surveillance, prevention, and eradication strategies could improve eradication efforts.

27 December 2018 in Veterinary Medicine International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JEJohn Eddie Ekakoro
John Eddie Ekakoro
MCMarc Caldwell
Marc Caldwell
ESElizabeth B. Strand
Elizabeth B. Strand
COChika C Okafor
Chika C Okafor
Nonjudicious antimicrobial use (AMU) and inadequate antimicrobial stewardship are known modifiable factors driving the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). A mixed methods approach using a combination of focus groups and survey questionnaires was used to explore the AMU practices of Tennessee (TN) dairy cattle producers. Specifically, the objectives of the study were to determine the following: (1) the most common drivers for using antimicrobials, (2) perceived alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) knowledge of and perceptions regarding AMR, (4) and the appropriate avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU. Two focus groups were conducted, one in July 2017 and the other in March 2018. The questionnaire was simultaneously made available to participants both in print form and online from January 26, 2018, through May 11, 2018. Twenty-three dairy producers participated in the focus groups and 45 responded to the survey. Eight (18.6%) producers never used bacterial culture and sensitivity testing (C/S) to select antimicrobials, more than half (25 producers (58.1%)) sometimes used C/S, four (9.3%) used C/S about half the time, five (11.6%) most of the time, and one (2.3%) always used C/S. The most common drivers for using antimicrobials were disease and animal welfare, pathogen surveillance, economic factors, veterinarian recommendation, producer’s experience and judgment, drug attributes, and the Veterinary Feed Directive. Good management practices, vaccination, use of immunomodulatory products, and use of appropriate technology for early disease detection were considered alternatives to AMU. Four (9.1%) dairy producers were very concerned about AMR, 27 (61.4%) moderately concerned, and 10 (22.7%) not concerned. The veterinarian was considered to be a trusted source of information on prudent AMU. Use of C/S test results for antimicrobial selection is widespread among TN dairy producers. There is a need to popularize/promote selective dry cow therapy among TN dairy producers.

1 August 2014 in Preventive Veterinary Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
COChika C Okafor
Chika C Okafor
SLSandra L. Lefebvre
Sandra L. Lefebvre
DPDavid L. Pearl
David L. Pearl
MYMingyin Yang
Mingyin Yang
MWMansen Wang
Mansen Wang
CDCate E. Dewey
Cate E. Dewey

15 December 2013 in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
COChika C Okafor
Chika C Okafor
DPDavid L. Pearl
David L. Pearl
SLSandra L. Lefebvre
Sandra L. Lefebvre
MWMansen Wang
Mansen Wang
MYMingyin Yang
Mingyin Yang
CDCate E. Dewey
Cate E. Dewey
Objective—To identify factors associated with development of struvite urolithiasis in dogs evaluated at general care veterinary hospitals in the United States. Design—Retrospective case-control study. Animals—508 dogs with a first-time diagnosis of struvite urolithiasis and 7,135 control dogs. Procedures—Electronic medical records of all dogs evaluated at 787 general care veterinary hospitals in the United States between October 2007 and December 2010 were reviewed to identify dogs that developed struvite urolithiasis and 2 groups of control dogs with no history of urolithiasis. Information extracted included diet, age, sex, neuter status, breed size category, hospital location, and date of diagnosis. Urinalysis results, urolith composition, and other disease conditions were recorded if applicable. Potential risk factors were assessed with univariable and multivariable regression analysis. Results—Toy- or small-sized breeds had significantly greater odds of struvite urolithiasis, compared with medium- or large-sized breeds. Neutering significantly increased the odds of this outcome in females only; sexually intact females were more likely to develop struvite urolithiasis than were sexually intact males, but only up to 5 years of age. Urinary factors significantly associated with the outcome were basic (vs acidic) pH, presence of RBCs or WBCs, protein concentration > 30 mg/dL, and ketone concentration ≥ 5 mg/dL. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Evaluation of demographic characteristics and urinalysis results may be useful in the early identification of struvite urolithiasis in dogs. Periodic urinalysis in dogs is recommended because of the potential health impact of a late diagnosis of urolithiasis.