I.S.Mu.L.T. Achilles Tendon Ruptures Guidelines

This work provides easily accessible guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of Achilles tendon ruptures. These guidelines could be considered as recommendations for good clinical practice developed through a process of systematic review of the literature and expert opinion, to improve the quality of care for the individual patient and rationalize the use of resources. This work is divided into two sessions: 1) questions about hot topics; 2) answers to the questions following Evidence Based Medicine principles. Despite the frequency of the pathology andthe high level of satisfaction achieved in treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures, a global consensus is lacking. In fact, there is not a uniform treatment and rehabilitation protocol used for Achilles tendon ruptures

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐β‐d‐mannanase produced by Thermothelomyces thermophilus DSM 33149 (Natupulse® TS/TS L) for chickens and turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds (BASF SE)

Free PMC article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9972018/Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo-1,4-β-d-mannanase produced by Thermothelomyces thermophilus DSM 33149 (Natupulse® TS/TS L) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens and turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds. The additive under assessment, Natupulse® TS/TS L, does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is tolerated by chickens for fattening, and this conclusion can be extrapolated to all poultry for fattening. Due to the lack of reliable data regarding the potential of the additive to induce chromosomal damage, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and on the safety for consumer. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered not to be irritant to the skin and eyes but is considered a respiratory sensitiser, although exposure by inhalation is unlikely. The Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. Due to the lack of reliable data, the FEEDAP Panel considered that a potential of the additive to induce chromosomal damage in exposed unprotected users cannot be excluded. Consequently, exposure of users should be minimised. The Panel concluded that the additive Natupulse® TS/TS L has the potential to be efficacious in chickens for fattening at the proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can be extrapolated to turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Safety of a feed additive consisting of Duddingtonia flagrans NCIMB 30336 (BioWorma®) for all grazing animals (International Animal Health Products Pty Ltd)

Free PMC article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10685997/Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of a feed additive consisting of Duddingtonia flagrans NCIMB 30336 (BioWorma®) for all grazing animals. The safety and efficacy of the additive have been already assessed previously, however the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and the consumers due to the limitations in the dataset provided. For the current assessment, the applicant submitted a new tolerance trial in dairy cows and new toxicological studies. After the assessment of the new data submitted, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for dairy cows. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all dairy bovines, ovines and caprines, but not to fattening and rearing animals of those species. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for other grazing species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumers.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced by Aspergillus oryzae DSM 33700) (RONOZYME® WX (CT/L)) for all poultry species and all Suidae (DSM nutritional products ltd)

Free PMC article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10585426/The additive RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) contains endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae; the additive is currently authorised for poultry for fattening, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, lactating sows and laying hens. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 26372 with A. oryzae DSM 33700, and to extend the use of the additive to all poultry species and all Suidae. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700, did not give rise to safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. No viable cells of the production strain nor its DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final formulations of the additive. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) was considered safe for all poultry species and all Suidae at the recommended inclusion levels. The use of RONOZYME® WX CT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700 raised no concerns for consumers. RONOZYME® WX L is not an eye irritant; however, no conclusions could be drawn on the potential of RONOZYME® WX CT to be an eye irritant. Both formulations are not irritant to the skin, but due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the potential of both formulations of the additive to be skin sensitisers. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33700 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all poultry species and all Suidae at 100 and 200 FXU/kg complete feed, respectively.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 12: Tetracyclines: tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline

[EN] The specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobialsSIThe specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobial

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 11: Sulfonamides

[EN] The specific concentrations of sulfonamides in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were identified for three sulfonamides: sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole and sulfamerazine. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.SIThe BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientificopinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank thefollowing for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare(AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sectionsunder their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives andProducts or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsementof ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency(EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the WorkingGroup (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members:Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plazaand Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, JordiTorren, and Julia F abrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge theEMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) and their experts

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 2: Aminoglycosides/aminocyclitols: apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin

[EN] The specific concentrations of apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for these antimicrobials, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for apramycin and neomycin, whilst for paromomycin and spectinomycin, no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these four antimicrobialsSIThe BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientific opinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sections under their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsement of ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency (EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the Working Group (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members: Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plaza and Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, Jordi Torren, and Julia F abrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) expert

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 3: Amprolium

[EN] The specific concentrations of amprolium in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for amprolium, it was not possible to conclude the assessment. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of amprolium in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. The lack of antibacterial activity at clinically relevant concentrations for amprolium suggests that further studies relating to bacterial resistance are not a priority.SI: The BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientific opinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sections under their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsement of ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency (EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the Working Group (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members: Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plaza and Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, Jordi Torren, and Julia Fabrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) and their experts

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 8: Pleuromutilins: tiamulin and valnemulin

[EN] The specific concentrations of tiamulin and valnemulin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tiamulin, while for valnemulin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.SIThe BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientific opinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sections under their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsement of ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency (EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the Working Group (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members: Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plaza and Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, Jordi Torren, and Julia Fabrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) and their expert