1
|
Echtermann T, Muentener C, Sidler X, Kuemmerlen D. Antimicrobial Usage Among Different Age Categories and Herd Sizes in Swiss Farrow-to-Finish Farms. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:566529. [PMID: 33385014 PMCID: PMC7769871 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.566529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2020] [Accepted: 11/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
In the Swiss pig sector, the usage of antimicrobials has been recorded, evaluated and systematically reduced on a voluntary basis since 2015. This monitoring has been carried out using various methods thereby enabling continuous national scrutiny as well as international comparisons. To gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the antimicrobial usage on Swiss farms, consumption data of farrow-to-finish farms were analyzed for (i) the within-herd relationships among different age categories and (ii) the influence of the herd size. The data were collected on 71 farms for the year 2017, encompassing the amount of active ingredients and number of defined daily doses Switzerland (nDDDch) in total, and stratified for the different age categories of piglets, weaners, fattening pigs, and sows. The differences in nDDDch per animal among the age categories were determined by a Wilcoxon test and subsequent post-hoc analysis according to Bonferroni. The within-herd relationship among the individual age categories as well as the influence of the herd size on nDDDch per animal measured as kept sows were analyzed by simple linear regression. The evaluation of the treatment days showed that 50% of the nDDDch were used in piglets, 44% for weaners, and 3% each for fattening pigs and sows. Compared to the other age categories, the examination of the number of nDDDch per animal showed a significantly higher number for sows, whereas for fattening pigs the number was significantly lower (P < 0.01). The farm-based analysis using linear regression showed a relationship between antimicrobial usage in sows and piglets (P < 0.001; adj. R2 = 0.19). Similarly, a significant relationship between larger herd size and increased antimicrobial usage was observed (P = 0.02; adj. R2 = 0.06). The present study provides an insight into the antimicrobial treatment dynamics of farrow-to-finish farms. In particular, the age categories piglets and sows—with their higher number of treatment days in total or per animal—are of interest regarding the potential reduction in antimicrobial usage. Likewise, larger farms with higher management requirements were found to be of particular importance for the reduction of antimicrobial usage. Monitoring programs should therefore evaluate different age categories separately to identify problems for individual farms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Echtermann
- Division of Swine Medicine, Department for Farm Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Cedric Muentener
- Institute of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Xaver Sidler
- Division of Swine Medicine, Department for Farm Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Dolf Kuemmerlen
- Division of Swine Medicine, Department for Farm Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kuemmerlen D, Echtermann T, Muentener C, Sidler X. Agreement of Benchmarking High Antimicrobial Usage Farms Based on Either Animal Treatment Index or Number of National Defined Daily Doses. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:638. [PMID: 33033725 PMCID: PMC7509045 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2020] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: While treatment frequency as an indicator of antimicrobial consumption is often assessed using defined doses, it can also be calculated directly as an Animal Treatment Index (ATI). In this study, the correlation of calculating antimicrobial usage on Swiss pig farms using either national Defined Daily Doses (DDDch) or an ATI (number of treatments per animal per year) and the agreement between the different methods for the identification of high usage farms were investigated. Material and Methods: The antimicrobial consumption of 893 Swiss pig herds was calculated separately for suckling piglets, weaned piglets, fattening pigs, lactating and gestating sows using the indicators nDDDch (number of DDDch) per animal per year and ATI. Correlations between the indicators were investigated by calculating Spearman's Rho coefficients. The 5, 10, and 25% highest usage farms were determined by applying both methods and the interrater reliability was described using Cohen's Kappa coefficients and visualized by Bland-Altman plots. Results: The Spearman's Rho coefficients showed strong correlations (r > 0.5) between nDDDch/animal/year and ATI. The lowest coefficient was shown for the correlation of both indicators in gestating sows (r = 0.657) and the highest in weaned piglets (r = 0.910). Kappa coefficients identifying high usage farms were the highest in weaned piglets (k = 0.71, 0.85, and 0.91, respectively for 5, 10, and 25% most frequent users) and the lowest in gestating sows (k = 0.54, 0.58, and 0.55 for 5, 10, and 25% most frequent users). Conclusions: In general, the investigated indicators showed strong correlations and a broad agreement in terms of the calculated levels of antimicrobial usage and the identification of high usage farms. Nevertheless, a certain proportion of the farms were defined differently depending on the indicator used. These differences varied by age category and were larger in all age categories except weaned piglets when a higher percentage benchmark was used to define high usage farms. These aspects should be considered when designing scientific studies or monitoring systems and considering which indicator to use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dolf Kuemmerlen
- Division of Swine Medicine, Department for Farm Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Echtermann
- Division of Swine Medicine, Department for Farm Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Cedric Muentener
- Institute of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Xaver Sidler
- Division of Swine Medicine, Department for Farm Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sanders P, Vanderhaeghen W, Fertner M, Fuchs K, Obritzhauser W, Agunos A, Carson C, Borck Høg B, Dalhoff Andersen V, Chauvin C, Hémonic A, Käsbohrer A, Merle R, Alborali GL, Scali F, Stärk KDC, Muentener C, van Geijlswijk I, Broadfoot F, Pokludová L, Firth CL, Carmo LP, Manzanilla EG, Jensen L, Sjölund M, Pinto Ferreira J, Brown S, Heederik D, Dewulf J. Monitoring of Farm-Level Antimicrobial Use to Guide Stewardship: Overview of Existing Systems and Analysis of Key Components and Processes. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:540. [PMID: 33195490 PMCID: PMC7475698 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2020] [Accepted: 07/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
The acknowledgment of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a major health challenge in humans, animals and plants, has led to increased efforts to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU). To better understand factors influencing AMR and implement and evaluate stewardship measures for reducing AMU, it is important to have sufficiently detailed information on the quantity of AMU, preferably at the level of the user (farmer, veterinarian) and/or prescriber or provider (veterinarian, feed mill). Recently, several countries have established or are developing systems for monitoring AMU in animals. The aim of this publication is to provide an overview of known systems for monitoring AMU at farm-level, with a descriptive analysis of their key components and processes. As of March 2020, 38 active farm-level AMU monitoring systems from 16 countries were identified. These systems differ in many ways, including which data are collected, the type of analyses conducted and their respective output. At the same time, they share key components (data collection, analysis, benchmarking, and reporting), resulting in similar challenges to be faced with similar decisions to be made. Suggestions are provided with respect to the different components and important aspects of various data types and methods are discussed. This overview should provide support for establishing or working with such a system and could lead to a better implementation of stewardship actions and a more uniform communication about and understanding of AMU data at farm-level. Harmonization of methods and processes could lead to an improved comparability of outcomes and less confusion when interpreting results across systems. However, it is important to note that the development of systems also depends on specific local needs, resources and aims.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pim Sanders
- The Netherlands Veterinary Medicines Institute (SDa), Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Wannes Vanderhaeghen
- Centre of Expertise on Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance in Animals (AMCRA), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Mette Fertner
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
| | - Klemens Fuchs
- Department for Data, Statistics and Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Vienna, Austria
| | - Walter Obritzhauser
- Unit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria
| | - Agnes Agunos
- Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | | | - Birgitte Borck Høg
- Division for Risk Assessment and Nutrition, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Vibe Dalhoff Andersen
- Research Group for Genomic Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Claire Chauvin
- Epidemiology, Health and Welfare Unit, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, Ploufragan, France
| | - Anne Hémonic
- IFIP-Institut du Porc, Domaine de la Motte au Vicomte, Le Rheu, France
| | - Annemarie Käsbohrer
- Unit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.,Unit for Epidemiology, Zoonoses and Antimicrobial Resistance, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany
| | - Roswitha Merle
- Institute for Veterinary Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Giovanni L Alborali
- Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e Dell'Emilia Romagna, Brescia, Italy
| | - Federico Scali
- Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e Dell'Emilia Romagna, Brescia, Italy
| | | | - Cedric Muentener
- Institute of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Lucie Pokludová
- Institute for State Control of Veterinary Biologicals and Medicines, Brno, Czechia
| | - Clair L Firth
- Unit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria
| | - Luís P Carmo
- Vetsuisse Faculty, Veterinary Public Health Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Edgar Garcia Manzanilla
- Moorepark Animal and Grassland Research Center, Teagasc, Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority, Cork, Ireland.,School Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Laura Jensen
- Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, Glostrup, Denmark
| | - Marie Sjölund
- Department of Animal Health and Antimicrobial Strategies, National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | - Stacey Brown
- Veterinary Medicines Directorate, Addlestone, United Kingdom
| | - Dick Heederik
- The Netherlands Veterinary Medicines Institute (SDa), Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Dewulf
- Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Echtermann T, Muentener C, Sidler X, Kümmerlen D. Antimicrobial Drug Consumption on Swiss Pig Farms: A Comparison of Swiss and European Defined Daily and Course Doses in the Field. Front Vet Sci 2019; 6:240. [PMID: 31380403 PMCID: PMC6657740 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2019] [Accepted: 07/02/2019] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Defined Daily Doses (DDD) and Defined Course Doses (DCD) have been established in both human and veterinary medicine in order to standardize the measurement of treatments in a population. In 2016 the European Medicines Agency published average defined daily dose (DDDvet) and defined course dose (DCDvet) values for antimicrobial agents used in livestock production. Similarly, national defined doses (DDDch and DCDch) for the pig sector in Switzerland have recently been determined. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of calculating antimicrobial consumption based on either DDDvet/DCDvet or DDDch/DCDch. Data from 227 Swiss pig farms describing antimicrobial use in 2015 was collected. The numbers of treatment days and treatments were calculated using DDDvet/DCDvet and DDDch/DCDch respectively, for each farm in total and for different antimicrobial classes. Associations between calculated numbers of DDDvet/DCDvet and DDDch/DCDch on farm level were investigated. In addition, differences concerning antimicrobial use were investigated between different production types of farms (piglet-producer, finishing farm or farrow-to-finishing farm). Using DDDch/DCDch values we calculated 1,805,494 treatment days and 433,678 treatments compared to 1,456,771 treatment days (19% ratio) and 303,913 treatments (30% ratio) based on DDDvet/DCDvet. Penicillins (21.4/26.6%), polypeptides (18.6/27.6%) and fluoroquinolones (9.5/8.8%) were the most frequently used classes of antimicrobials based on calculation using both DDDch and DDDvet. Similar findings were observed for complete treatments (DCDch/vet) (penicillins: 52.8/39.6%; polypeptides: 7.8/14.2%; fluoroquinolones: 13.2/12.9%). The number of treatment days or treatments per farm was higher for piglet-producers and farrow-to-finishing farms compared to finisher farms regardless of whether Swiss or European DDD or DCD values were used for the calculation (each P < 0.001). Similar results for antimicrobial use (AMU) obtained at farm level were observed when calculated either by Swiss or European definitions. Nevertheless, marked differences could be observed in the assessment of the use of specific antimicrobial classes in the field based on DDDvet/DCDvet compared to DDDch/DCDch.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Echtermann
- Division of Swine Medicine, Department for Farm Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Cedric Muentener
- Institute of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Xaver Sidler
- Division of Swine Medicine, Department for Farm Animals, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Dolf Kümmerlen
- Institute of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|