12 research outputs found

    EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biologicial Hazards), 2013. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (solipeds)

    Get PDF
    A risk ranking process identified Trichinella spp. as the most relevant biological hazard in the context of meat inspection of domestic solipeds. Without a full and reliable soliped traceability system, it is considered that either testing all slaughtered solipeds for Trichinella spp., or inactivation meat treatments (heat or irradiation) should be used to maintain the current level of safety. With regard to general aspects of current meat inspection practices, the use of manual techniques during current post-mortem soliped meat inspection may increase microbial cross-contamination, and is considered to have a detrimental effect on the microbiological status of soliped carcass meat. Therefore, the use of visual-only inspection is suggested for “non-suspect” solipeds. For chemical hazards, phenylbutazone and cadmium were ranked as being of high potential concern. Monitoring programmes for chemical hazards should be more flexible and based on the risk of occurrence, taking into account Food Chain Information (FCI), covering the specific on-farm environmental conditions and individual animal treatments, and the ranking of chemical substances, which should be regularly updated and include new hazards. Sampling, testing and intervention protocols for chemical hazards should be better integrated and should focus particularly on cadmium, phenylbutazone and priority “essential substances” approved for treatment of equine animals. Implementation and enforcement of a more robust and reliable identification system throughout the European Union is needed to improve traceability of domestic solipeds. Meat inspection is recognised as a valuable tool for surveillance and monitoring of animal health and welfare conditions. If visual only post-mortem inspection is implemented for routine slaughter, a reduction in the detection of strangles and mild cases of rhodococcosis would occur. However, this was considered unlikely to affect the overall surveillance of both diseases. Improvement of FCI and traceability were considered as not having a negative effect on animal health and welfare surveillance

    Intravenous pharmacokinetics of moxifloxacin following simultaneous administration with flunixin meglumine or diclofenac in sheep

    No full text
    In this study, the pharmacokinetics of moxifloxacin (5 mg/kg) was determined following a single intravenous administration of moxifloxacin alone and co-administration with diclofenac (2.5 mg/kg) or flunixin meglumine (2.2 mg/kg) in sheep. Six healthy Akkaraman sheep (2 +/- 0.3 years and 53.5 +/- 5 kg of body weight) were used. A longitudinal design with a 15-day washout period was used in three periods. In the first period, moxifloxacin was administered by an intravenous (IV) injection. In the second and third periods, moxifloxacin was co-administered with IV administration of diclofenac and flunixin meglumine, respectively. The plasma concentration of moxifloxacin was assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography. The pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a two-compartment open pharmacokinetic model. Following IV administration of moxifloxacin alone, the mean elimination half-life (t(1/2 beta)), total body clearance (Cl-T), volume of distribution at steady state (V-dss) and area under the curve (AUC) of moxifloxacin were 2.27 hr, 0.56 L h(-1) kg(-1), 1.66 L/kg and 8.91 hr*mu g/ml, respectively. While diclofenac and flunixin meglumine significantly increased the t(1/2 beta) and AUC of moxifloxacin, they significantly reduced the Cl-T and V-dss. These results suggest that anti-inflammatory drugs could increase the therapeutic efficacy of moxifloxacin by altering its pharmacokinetics

    Three methods for integration of environmental risk into the benefit-risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products

    No full text
    Veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) require, as part of the European Union (EU) authorization process, consideration of both risks and benefits. Uses of VMPs have multiple risks (e.g., risks to the animal being treated, to the person administering the VMP) including risks to the environment. Environmental risks are not directly comparable to therapeutic benefits; there is no standardized approach to compare both environmental risks and therapeutic benefits. We have developed three methods for communicating and comparing therapeutic benefits and environmental risks for the benefit-risk assessment that supports the EU authorization process. Two of these methods support independent product evaluation (i.e., a summative classification and a visual scoring matrix classification); the other supports a comparative evaluation between alternative products (i.e., a comparative classification). The methods and the challenges to implementing a benefit-risk assessment including environmental risk are presented herein; how these concepts would work in current policy is discussed. Adaptability to scientific and policy development is considered. This work is an initial step in the development of a standardized methodology for integrated decision-making for VMPs

    Use of antimicrobials in practice (targeted on cattle, pigs, poultry, horses)

    No full text
    Worldwide, antibiotics are used to treat and prevent bacterial infections, both in humans and animals. In Europe, 2014 data (2017 JIACRA) estimate that the average antimicrobial consumption (AMC) in animals was higher in animals (152 mg/kg) than in humans (124 mg/kg), but the opposite applied to the median AMC (67 and 118 mg/kg, respectively). In 18 of 28 European countries, AMC was lower in animals than in humans. Most European countries have taken extensive actions to promote responsible and prudent use of antibiotics in animals. Since 2011, the overall sales of veterinary antibiotics in EU/EEA countries are decreasing [EMA European Medicines Agency: answer to the request from the European Commission for updating the scientific advice on the impact on public health and animal health of the use of antibiotics in animals - categorisation of antimicrobials (EMA/CVMP/CHMP/682198/2017), 2019], and this is mainly accounted for reduction in antibiotic use in food-producing animals. Nevertheless, there seems to be still space for improvement, especially in certain pharmaceutical forms used for mass medication, consumptions of which create big part of the total figures of overall sales. The use in animals like dogs and cats in tonnes is relatively low. ESVAC sales data indicated that the majority of consumption of veterinary medicinal products used in 2017 (excluding topical formulation) can be allocated to food-producing animals in most of the EEA countries. The sales, in mg/PCU (Population Correction Unit), of antimicrobial veterinary medicinal products differ extensively between EU/EEA countries. This can partly be explained, among other factors, by the differences in the animal demographics, production systems and dosing of the various antimicrobials
    corecore