Opportunities and challenges to improving antibiotic prescribing practices through a One Health approach: Results of a comparative survey of doctors, dentists and veterinarians in Australia

© 2018 Article author(s). Objectives To explore and compare the knowledge, attitudes and experiences of doctors, dentists and veterinarians (as prescribers) in relation to antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance (AbR), and to consider the implications of these for policy-making that support a One Health approach. Design A cross-sectional survey conducted online. Setting Doctors, dentists and veterinarians practising in primary, secondary or tertiary care in Australia. Participants 547 doctors, 380 dentists and 403 veterinarians completed the survey. Main outcome measures Prescribers' knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of AbR, the extent to which a range of factors are perceived as barriers to appropriate prescribing practices, and perceived helpfulness of potential strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing in practice. Results There was substantial agreement across prescriber groups that action on AbR is required by multiple sectors and stakeholders. However, prescribers externalised responsibility to some extent by seeing the roles of others as more important than their own in relation to AbR. There were common and context-specific barriers to optimal prescribing across the prescriber groups. Prescriber groups generally perceived restrictive policies as unhelpful to supporting appropriate prescribing in their practice. Conclusions The results have implications for implementing a One Health approach that involves doctors, dentists and veterinarians as key players to tackling the crisis of AbR. The findings are that (1) prescribers understand and are likely receptive to a One Health policy approach to AbR, (2) policy development should be sensitive to barriers that are specific to individual prescriber groups and (3) the development and introduction of interventions that might be perceived as reducing prescriber autonomy will need to be carefully designed and implemented

A One Health investigation of Salmonella enterica serovar Wangata in north-eastern New South Wales, Australia, 2016-2017.

Salmonella enterica serovar Wangata (S. Wangata) is an important cause of endemic salmonellosis in Australia, with human infections occurring from undefined sources. This investigation sought to examine possible environmental and zoonotic sources for human infections with S. Wangata in north-eastern New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The investigation adopted a One Health approach and was comprised of three complimentary components: a case-control study examining human risk factors; environmental and animal sampling; and genomic analysis of human, animal and environmental isolates. Forty-eight human S. Wangata cases were interviewed during a 6-month period from November 2016 to April 2017, together with 55 Salmonella Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium) controls and 130 neighbourhood controls. Indirect contact with bats/flying foxes (S. Typhimurium controls (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-6.48)) (neighbourhood controls (aOR 8.33, 95% CI 2.58-26.83)), wild frogs (aOR 3.65, 95% CI 1.32-10.07) and wild birds (aOR 6.93, 95% CI 2.29-21.00) were statistically associated with illness in multivariable analyses. S. Wangata was detected in dog faeces, wildlife scats and a compost specimen collected from the outdoor environments of cases' residences. In addition, S. Wangata was detected in the faeces of wild birds and sea turtles in the investigation area. Genomic analysis revealed that S. Wangata isolates were relatively clonal. Our findings suggest that S. Wangata is present in the environment and may have a reservoir in wildlife populations in north-eastern NSW. Further investigation is required to better understand the occurrence of Salmonella in wildlife groups and to identify possible transmission pathways for human infections

Systematic review of influenza resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Antivirals play a critical role in the prevention and the management of influenza. One class of antivirals, neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs), is effective against all human influenza viruses. Currently there are two NAI drugs which are licensed worldwide: oseltamivir (Tamiflu^®) and zanamivir (Relenza^®); and two drugs which have received recent approval in Japan: peramivir and laninamivir. Until recently, the prevalence of antiviral resistance has been relatively low. However, almost all seasonal H1N1 strains that circulated in 2008-09 were resistant to oseltamivir whereas about 1% of tested 2009 pandemic H1N1 viruses were found to be resistant to oseltamivir. To date, no studies have demonstrated widespread resistance to zanamivir. It seems likely that the literature on antiviral resistance associated with oseltamivir as well as zanamivir is now sufficiently comprehensive to warrant a systematic review.</p> <p>The primary objectives were to systematically review the literature to determine the incidence of resistance to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir in different population groups as well as assess the clinical consequences of antiviral resistance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE without language restrictions in September 2010 to identify studies reporting incidence of resistance to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir. We used forest plots and meta-analysis of incidence of antiviral resistance associated with the three NAIs. Subgroup analyses were done across a number of population groups. Meta-analysis was also performed to evaluate associations between antiviral resistance and clinical complications and symptoms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 19 studies reporting incidence of antiviral resistance. Meta-analysis of 15 studies yielded a pooled incidence rate for oseltamivir resistance of 2.6% (95%CI 0.7% to 5.5%). The incidence rate for all zanamivir resistance studies was 0%. Only one study measured incidence of antiviral resistance among subjects given peramivir and was reported to be 0%. Subgroup analyses detected higher incidence rates among influenza A patients, especially for H1N1 subtype influenza. Considerable heterogeneity between studies precluded definite inferences about subgroup results for immunocompromised patients, in-patients, and children. A meta-analysis of 4 studies reporting association between oseltamivir-resistance and pneumonia yielded a statistically significant risk ratio of 4.2 (95% CI 1.3 to 13.1, p = 0.02). Oseltamivir-resistance was not statistically significantly associated with other clinical complications and symptoms.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results demonstrate that that a substantial number of patients may become oseltamivir-resistant as a result of oseltamivir use, and that oseltamivir resistance may be significantly associated with pneumonia. In contrast, zanamivir resistance has been rarely reported to date.</p

A novel strategy to reduce the immunogenicity of biological therapies.

Biological therapies, even humanized mAbs, may induce antiglobulin responses that impair efficacy. We tested a novel strategy to induce tolerance to a therapeutic mAb. Twenty patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis received an initial cycle of alemtuzumab (Campath-1H), up to 120 mg over 5 d, preceded by 500 mg SM3. This Ab differs from alemtuzumab by a single point mutation and is designed not to bind to cells. Twelve months later, they received a second cycle of alemtuzumab, up to 72 mg over 3 d. One month after that, 4 of 19 (21%) patients had detectable serum anti-alemtuzumab Abs compared with 145 of 197 (74%) patients who received two cycles of alemtuzumab without SM3 in the phase 2 CAMMS223 trial (p &lt; 0.001). The efficacy and safety profile of alemtuzumab was unaffected by SM3 pretreatment. Long-lasting "high-zone" tolerance to a biological therapy may be induced by pretreatment with a high i.v. dose of a drug variant, altered to reduce target-binding