Steven Sarrazin1, Philip Joosten1, Liese Van Gompel2, Roosmarijn E C Luiken2, Dik J Mevius3,4, Jaap A Wagenaar3,4, Dick J J Heederik2, Jeroen Dewulf1. 1. Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke, Belgium. 2. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, CM Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, CL Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Wageningen Bioveterinary Research, Houribweg 39, RA Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Farm-level quantification of antimicrobial usage (AMU) in pig farms. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, AMU data on group treatments administered to a single batch of fattening pigs from birth to slaughter (group treatment data) and antimicrobials purchased during 1 year (purchase data) were collected at 180 pig farms in nine European countries. AMU was quantified using treatment incidence (TI) based on defined (DDDvet) and used (UDDvet) daily doses and defined (DCDvet) and used (UCDvet) course doses. RESULTS: The majority of antimicrobial group treatments were administered to weaners (69.5% of total TIDDDvet) followed by sucklers (22.5% of total TIDDDvet). AMU varied considerably between farms with a median TIDDDvet of 9.2 and 7.1 for a standardized rearing period of 200 days based on group treatment and purchase data, respectively. In general, UDDvet and UCDvet were higher than DDDvet and DCDvet, respectively, suggesting that either the defined doses were set too low or that group treatments were often dosed too high and/or administered for too long. Extended-spectrum penicillins (31.2%) and polymyxins (24.7%) were the active substances most often used in group treatments, with the majority administered through feed or water (82%). Higher AMU at a young age was associated with higher use in older pigs. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting farm-level AMU data of good quality is challenging and results differ based on how data are collected (group treatment data versus purchase data) and reported (defined versus used daily and course doses).
OBJECTIVES: Farm-level quantification of antimicrobial usage (AMU) in pig farms. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, AMU data on group treatments administered to a single batch of fattening pigs from birth to slaughter (group treatment data) and antimicrobials purchased during 1 year (purchase data) were collected at 180 pig farms in nine European countries. AMU was quantified using treatment incidence (TI) based on defined (DDDvet) and used (UDDvet) daily doses and defined (DCDvet) and used (UCDvet) course doses. RESULTS: The majority of antimicrobial group treatments were administered to weaners (69.5% of total TIDDDvet) followed by sucklers (22.5% of total TIDDDvet). AMU varied considerably between farms with a median TIDDDvet of 9.2 and 7.1 for a standardized rearing period of 200 days based on group treatment and purchase data, respectively. In general, UDDvet and UCDvet were higher than DDDvet and DCDvet, respectively, suggesting that either the defined doses were set too low or that group treatments were often dosed too high and/or administered for too long. Extended-spectrum penicillins (31.2%) and polymyxins (24.7%) were the active substances most often used in group treatments, with the majority administered through feed or water (82%). Higher AMU at a young age was associated with higher use in older pigs. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting farm-level AMU data of good quality is challenging and results differ based on how data are collected (group treatment data versus purchase data) and reported (defined versus used daily and course doses).
Authors: Lorcan O'Neill; Maria Rodrigues da Costa; Finola C Leonard; James Gibbons; Julia Adriana Calderón Díaz; Gerard McCutcheon; Edgar García Manzanilla Journal: Porcine Health Manag Date: 2020-10-12
Authors: Philip Joosten; Daniela Ceccarelli; Evelien Odent; Steven Sarrazin; Haitske Graveland; Liese Van Gompel; Antonio Battisti; Andrea Caprioli; Alessia Franco; Jaap A Wagenaar; Dik Mevius; Jeroen Dewulf Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2020-02-16
Authors: Nele Caekebeke; Franca J Jonquiere; Moniek Ringenier; Tijs J Tobias; Merel Postma; Angelique van den Hoogen; Manon A M Houben; Francisca C Velkers; Nathalie Sleeckx; J Arjan Stegeman; Jeroen Dewulf Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2020-10-30
Authors: C Moennighoff; N Thomas; F Nienhaus; M Hartmann; A Menrath; J Merkel; H Detlefsen; L Kreienbrock; I Hennig-Pauka Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Mashkoor Mohsin; Thomas P Van Boeckel; Muhammad Kashif Saleemi; Muhammad Umair; Muhammad Noman Naseem; Cheng He; Ahrar Khan; Ramanan Laxminarayan Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2019 Impact factor: 2.640
Authors: Pim Sanders; Wannes Vanderhaeghen; Mette Fertner; Klemens Fuchs; Walter Obritzhauser; Agnes Agunos; Carolee Carson; Birgitte Borck Høg; Vibe Dalhoff Andersen; Claire Chauvin; Anne Hémonic; Annemarie Käsbohrer; Roswitha Merle; Giovanni L Alborali; Federico Scali; Katharina D C Stärk; Cedric Muentener; Ingeborg van Geijlswijk; Fraser Broadfoot; Lucie Pokludová; Clair L Firth; Luís P Carmo; Edgar Garcia Manzanilla; Laura Jensen; Marie Sjölund; Jorge Pinto Ferreira; Stacey Brown; Dick Heederik; Jeroen Dewulf Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2020-08-21
Authors: Lorcan O'Neill; Maria Rodrigues da Costa; Finola Leonard; James Gibbons; Julia Adriana Calderón Díaz; Gerard McCutcheon; Edgar García Manzanilla Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2020-10-13