Monitoring of Farm-Level Antimicrobial Use to Guide Stewardship: Overview of Existing Systems and Analysis of Key Components and Processes

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

Monitoring of Farm-Level Antimicrobial Use to Guide Stewardship: Overview of Existing Systems and Analysis of Key Components and Processes

peer-reviewedThe 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

Analysis of Antimicrobial Use and the Presence of Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria on Austrian Dairy Farms—A Pilot Study

The assumed link between high levels of antimicrobial use on farms and selection for antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria on that farm remains difficult to prove. In the pilot study presented here, we analysed total antimicrobial use on 50 dairy farms in Austria and also collected environmental samples to ascertain whether specific AMR bacteria were present. Antimicrobial use (AMU) analysis was based on electronic veterinary treatment records over a one-year period. Faecal samples for the assessment of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli were collected from cowsheds, calf pens, and youngstock housing areas, as well as dust samples from barns, to isolate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Bacteriological cultures were carried out on selective agar. Farms were split into groups of 25 of the highest antimicrobial users and 25 of the lowest users. Overall, samples from 13/50 (26.0%) farms were found to be positive for the presence of ESBL-producing E. coli. Of these, eight farms were in the low user group and five were in the high user group. Only one farm was confirmed to harbour MRSA. Statistical analyses demonstrated that there was no significant difference in this study population between high or low antimicrobial use with respect to the presence of ESBL-producing E. coli on farms (p = 0.33). In conclusion, the presence of specific AMR bacteria on farms in this study population was not found to have a statistically proven relationship with their level of antimicrobial use

The effect of antibiotic versus no treatment at dry-off on udder health and milk yield in subsequent lactation: a retrospective analysis of Austrian health recording data from dairy herds

ABSTRACT: Bovine mastitis is the most commonly diagnosed disease of dairy cows worldwide and causes extensive economic losses to milk producers. Intramammary infection status before dry-off plays a decisive role with respect to udder health and milk yield in the subsequent lactation. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of antibiotic dry cow therapy (DCT) versus no treatment at dry-off on milk yield, somatic cell count (SCC), inflammation of the mammary gland (IMG), and the incidence of clinical mastitis in the subsequent lactation. Dairy herd data from 251 Austrian dairy farms were recorded over an observation period of 12 mo and subsequently analyzed. The data set included 5,018 dairy cows: 2,078 were treated with antibiotics (abDCT group) and 2,940 were not treated (noDCT group) at dry-off. The abDCT group was subdivided, based on the antimicrobial active substances used for drying off, into 4 different groups (penicillins, cloxacillin, cephalosporins, and rifaximin). Based on bacteriological culture results, infections were grouped into those caused by major, minor, and other pathogens. Additionally, the IMG was defined via SCC from milk recording data using a cutoff of 200,000 cells/mL before drying off and after calving. The incidence of clinical mastitis cases within 30 and 90 d in milk was calculated using veterinary diagnosis data. To investigate the effect of different dry cow therapies on the following parameters: milk yield, SCC, and diagnosed clinical mastitis cases, different linear mixed models were constructed. Overall, the abDCT group was determined to have a significantly higher milk yield over 305 d in milk in the subsequent lactation (increase of 6.18%), compared with the noDCT group (increase of 4.29%). Both groups (abDCT and noDCT) demonstrated a decrease in the first SCC after calving compared with the SCC before dry-off, although the treated cows had a significantly higher reduction. Regarding the different antibiotic groups, with exception of the rifaximin treated cows, all antibiotic groups showed a significant difference from not treated cows with respect to SCC. Additionally, we were able to demonstrate that cows with IMG before dry-off had a 2.073 times higher chance of an increased SCC (>200,000 cells/mL) after calving. With respect to the veterinary diagnosis data, neither the IMG before drying off nor the type of DCT had a significant influence on the probability of developing clinical mastitis within 30 or 90 d in milk. Only a small number of treatments was accompanied with a bacteriological examination before drying off. However, the existing data in this study indicates that the intramammary infection status before dry-off in combination with different dry cow treatments influences udder health and milk yield after calving. Nevertheless, further studies with larger data sets of bacteriological examinations are necessary to enable a more in-depth investigation into the effects of different antibiotic substances used for DCT

Comparison of Defined Course Doses (DCDvet) for Blanket and Selective Antimicrobial Dry Cow Therapy on Conventional and Organic Farms

Antimicrobial use in livestock production is a controversial subject. While antimicrobials should be used as little as possible, it is still necessary, from both an animal health and welfare point of view, to treat infected animals. The study presented here aimed to analyse antimicrobial use on Austrian dairy farms by calculating the number of Defined Course Doses (DCDvet) administered per cow and year for dry cow therapy. Antimicrobial use was analysed by production system and whether farmers stated that they used blanket dry cow therapy (i.e., all cows in the herd were treated) or selective dry cow therapy (i.e., only cows with a positive bacteriological culture or current/recent history of udder disease were treated). A statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was determined between antimicrobial use for blanket (median DCDvet/cow/year: 0.88) and selective dry cow therapy (median DCDvet/cow/year: 0.41). The difference between antimicrobial use on conventional and organic farms for dry cow therapy as a whole, however, was not statistically significant (p = 0.22) (median DCDvet/cow/year: 0.68 for conventional; 0.53 for organic farms). This analysis demonstrates that selective dry cow therapy leads to a lower overall use of antimicrobials and can assist in a more prudent use of antimicrobials on dairy farms

Antimicrobial consumption on Austrian dairy farms: an observational study of udder disease treatments based on veterinary medication records

Background Antimicrobial use in livestock production is an important contemporary issue, which is of public interest worldwide. Antimicrobials are not freely available to Austrian farmers and can only be administered to livestock by veterinarians, or by farmers who are trained members of the Animal Health Service. Since 2015, veterinarians have been required by law to report antimicrobials dispensed to farmers for use in food-producing animals. The study presented here went further than the statutory framework, and collected data on antimicrobials dispensed to farmers and those administered by veterinarians. Methods Seventeen veterinary practices were enrolled in the study via convenience sampling. These veterinarians were asked to contact interested dairy farmers regarding participation in the study (respondent-driven sampling). Data were collected from veterinary practice software between 1st October 2015 and 30th September 2016. Electronic data (89.4%) were transferred via an online interface and paper records (10.6%) were entered by the authors. Antimicrobial treatments with respect to udder disease were analysed by number of defined daily doses per cow and year (nDDDvet/cow/year), based on the European Medicines Agency technical unit, Defined Daily Dose for animals (DDDvet). Descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to analyse the results. Results Antimicrobial use data from a total of 248 dairy farms were collected during the study, 232 of these farms treated cows with antibiotics; dry cow therapy was excluded from the current analysis. The mean number of DDDvet/cow/year for the antimicrobial treatment of all udder disease was 1.33 DDDvet/cow/year. Of these treatments, 0.73 DDDvet/cow/year were classed as highest priority critically important antimicrobials (HPCIAs), according to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition. The Wilcoxon rank sum test determined a statistically significant difference between the median number of DDDvet/cow/year for acute and chronic mastitis treatment (W = 10,734, p < 0.001). The most commonly administered antimicrobial class for the treatment of acute mastitis was beta-lactams. Intramammary penicillin was used at a mean of 0.63 DDDvet/cow/year, followed by the third generation cephalosporin, cefoperazone, (a HPCIA) at 0.60 DDDvet/cow/year. Systemic antimicrobial treatments were used at a lower overall level than intramammary treatments for acute mastitis. Discussion This study demonstrated that Austrian dairy cows in the study population were treated with antimicrobial substances for udder diseases at a relatively low frequency, however, a substantial proportion of these treatments were with substances considered critically important for human health. While it is vital that sick cows are treated, reductions in the overall use of antimicrobials, and critically important substances in particular, are still possible

Monitoring of Farm-Level Antimicrobial Use to Guide Stewardship: Overview of Existing Systems and Analysis of Key Components and Processes

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