Comparison of different antimicrobial use indicators and antimicrobial resistance data in food-producing animals

An Evaluation of the Impact of an OPEN Stewardship Generated Feedback Intervention on Antibiotic Prescribing among Primary Care Veterinarians in Canada and Israel

An interrupted time-series study design was implemented to evaluate the impact of antibiotic stewardship interventions on antibiotic prescribing among veterinarians. A total of 41 veterinarians were enrolled in Canada and Israel and their prescribing data between 2019 and 2021 were obtained. As an intervention, veterinarians periodically received three feedback reports comprising feedback on the participants' antibiotic prescribing and prescribing guidelines. A change in the level and trend of antibiotic prescribing after the administration of the intervention was compared using a multi-level generalized linear mixed-effect negative-binomial model. After the receipt of the first (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 0.98), and second (IRR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97) feedback reports, there was a reduced prescribing rate of total antibiotic when other parameters were held constant. This decline was more pronounced among Israeli veterinarians compared to Canadian veterinarians. When other parameters were held constant, the prescribing of critical antibiotics by Canadian veterinarians decreased by a factor of 0.39 compared to that of Israeli veterinarians. Evidently, antibiotic stewardship interventions can improve antibiotic prescribing in a veterinary setting. The strategy to sustain the effect of feedback reports and the determinants of differences between the two cohorts should be further explored.

Comparing human and animal antimicrobial usage: a critical appraisal of the indicators used is needed

Comparisons between antimicrobial usage (AMU) in humans and food-producing animals are regularly made. The accuracy of such comparisons depends on the indicators used to quantify AMU. Indicators for AMU quantitatively relate use data (the numerator) to population data (the denominator). The denominator should be a proxy for the population at risk in a certain period when comparing the exposure of different populations to antimicrobials. Denominators based on numbers of animals slaughtered, such as the commonly used population correction unit, do not consider the time at risk of antimicrobial treatment. Production-based indicators underestimate animal AMU. Additionally, production-based indicators are fundamentally different from indicators used to quantify human AMU. Using such indicators to compare human and animal AMU therefore leads to biased results. More caution should be taken in selecting the indicator to quantify AMU when comparing AMU in food-producing animals and humans.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a new regulation restricting antimicrobial use in dairy production in Québec, Canada: A qualitative study

With the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), many countries are implementing restrictive regulations to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) in animal production. Although these measures are effective at the national level, their implementation may generate challenges for producers and veterinarians. The objective of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of implementing a new regulation restricting the use of antimicrobials of very high importance for human health in the dairy production sector in the province of Québec, Canada. Individual interviews were conducted with fifteen veterinarians and twenty-seven dairy producers. Thematic analysis was performed based on the COM-B model of behavior change (capability-opportunity-motivation-behavior). Our results indicated that the lack of availability of alternative treatments, the long delays related to diagnostic tests and the fear of economic consequences were major barriers to the implementation of the regulation. A small number of producers also perceived that the regulation negatively impacted the health and wellbeing of their animals. Additionally, participants acknowledged the importance of early education and training to better understand the purpose of the regulation and increase its acceptability. Lastly, most participants reported that they had not only reduced their use of antimicrobials of very high importance for human health following the regulation, but they had also increased preventive practices on their farm. This study reveals that the implementation of restrictive regulations to reduce AMU in animal production can lead to multiple challenges in practice. Our results highlight the need for better communication and training of producers and veterinarians before and during the implementation of similar regulations in the future and underline the importance of measuring the direct and indirect impacts of those regulations on productivity and on animal health and wellbeing.

Current Insights Regarding the Role of Farm Animals in the Spread of Antimicrobial Resistance from a One Health Perspective

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a global threat to both human and animal health and has received increasing attention over the years from different stakeholders. Certain AMR bacteria circulate between humans, animals, and the environment, while AMR genes can be found in all ecosystems. The aim of the present review was to provide an overview of antimicrobial use in food-producing animals and to document the current status of the role of farm animals in the spread of AMR to humans. The available body of scientific evidence supported the notion that restricted use of antimicrobials in farm animals was effective in reducing AMR in livestock and, in some cases, in humans. However, most recent studies have reported that livestock have little contribution to the acquisition of AMR bacteria and/or AMR genes by humans. Overall, strategies applied on farms that target the reduction of all antimicrobials are recommended, as these are apparently associated with notable reduction in AMR (avoiding co-resistance between antimicrobials). The interconnection between human and animal health as well as the environment requires the acceleration of the implementation of the ‘One Health’ approach to effectively fight AMR while preserving the effectiveness of antimicrobials.