Kari Grave1, Jordi Torren-Edo, David Mackay. 1. European Medicines Agency, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London E14 4HB, UK. kari.grave@ema.europa.eu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the sales of veterinary antibacterial agents between 10 European countries. METHODS: Data were compiled from published reports from the 10 countries. We express the usage as amounts sold of veterinary antibacterial agents per country and year, in mg active substances per kg biomass of slaughtered pigs, poultry and cattle plus estimated biomass of (live) dairy cattle for the corresponding year. RESULTS: The usage, as expressed in mg antibacterial drugs sold/kg biomass of slaughtered pigs, poultry and cattle and of (live) dairy cattle, varied from 18 to 188 mg/kg. The relative proportion of the various classes of antibacterial agents sold varied considerably. CONCLUSIONS: The apparent wide variations in the usage of veterinary antimicrobial agents between countries cannot be explained by differences in the animal species demographics alone. Further in-depth analyses are required to identify the factors underlying the observed differences.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the sales of veterinary antibacterial agents between 10 European countries. METHODS: Data were compiled from published reports from the 10 countries. We express the usage as amounts sold of veterinary antibacterial agents per country and year, in mg active substances per kg biomass of slaughtered pigs, poultry and cattle plus estimated biomass of (live) dairy cattle for the corresponding year. RESULTS: The usage, as expressed in mg antibacterial drugs sold/kg biomass of slaughtered pigs, poultry and cattle and of (live) dairy cattle, varied from 18 to 188 mg/kg. The relative proportion of the various classes of antibacterial agents sold varied considerably. CONCLUSIONS: The apparent wide variations in the usage of veterinary antimicrobial agents between countries cannot be explained by differences in the animal species demographics alone. Further in-depth analyses are required to identify the factors underlying the observed differences.
Authors: Ilse Overdevest; Ina Willemsen; Martine Rijnsburger; Andrew Eustace; Li Xu; Peter Hawkey; Max Heck; Paul Savelkoul; Christina Vandenbroucke-Grauls; Kim van der Zwaluw; Xander Huijsdens; Jan Kluytmans Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Jean Carlet; Vincent Jarlier; Stephan Harbarth; Andreas Voss; Herman Goossens; Didier Pittet Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Elisabeth C Keessen; Marjolein Pm Hensgens; Patrizia Spigaglia; Fabrizio Barbanti; Ingrid Mjg Sanders; Ed J Kuijper; Len Ja Lipman Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2013-04-08 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: L Cantas; Syed Q A Shah; L M Cavaco; C M Manaia; F Walsh; M Popowska; H Garelick; H Bürgmann; H Sørum Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Marcus A Shepheard; Vicki M Fleming; Thomas R Connor; Jukka Corander; Edward J Feil; Christophe Fraser; William P Hanage Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240