Philip Joosten1, Steven Sarrazin1, 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 Obstetrics, Reproduction and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke, Belgium. 2. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, 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, Houtribweg 39, RA, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To control the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance, international policy appeals for appropriate monitoring of antimicrobial usage (AMU) at supranational, species and farm level. The aim of this study was to quantify AMU in broilers at farm and flock level in nine European countries. METHODS: Antimicrobial treatment data of one flock and purchased antimicrobials over one year were collected at 181 European broiler farms. Afterwards AMU was quantified using treatment incidence (TI) per 100 days based on Defined Daily Dose (DDDvet), Defined Course Dose (DCDvet) or Used Daily Dose (UDDvet) values. Total AMU at flock level was obtained by summing the TIDDDvet of all treatments in the sampled flock (TIDDDvetFl*). RESULTS: The median TIDDDvetFl* was 9.0 (95% CI 5.5-10.8), meaning that broilers were treated with antimicrobials during 9% of their rearing period. TIDDDvetFl* varied considerably within and between countries. However, in every country at least one untreated flock was present. Average TIDDDvetFl* at country level ranged from 3.3 to 36.7. Polymyxins, extended-spectrum aminopenicillins and fluoroquinolones were the most used antimicrobials, accounting for 26%, 26% and 18% of total AMU, respectively. Twenty-six percent of the farms started a treatment on day 1 of production, and 49% of overall AMU was administered within the first week. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that rearing broilers without AMU is feasible. However, a huge variation in AMU in terms of amount, moment of administration and antimicrobial classes was observed. This shows that there is still ground to be covered when it comes to AMU on broiler farms.
OBJECTIVES: To control the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance, international policy appeals for appropriate monitoring of antimicrobial usage (AMU) at supranational, species and farm level. The aim of this study was to quantify AMU in broilers at farm and flock level in nine European countries. METHODS: Antimicrobial treatment data of one flock and purchased antimicrobials over one year were collected at 181 European broiler farms. Afterwards AMU was quantified using treatment incidence (TI) per 100 days based on Defined Daily Dose (DDDvet), Defined Course Dose (DCDvet) or Used Daily Dose (UDDvet) values. Total AMU at flock level was obtained by summing the TIDDDvet of all treatments in the sampled flock (TIDDDvetFl*). RESULTS: The median TIDDDvetFl* was 9.0 (95% CI 5.5-10.8), meaning that broilers were treated with antimicrobials during 9% of their rearing period. TIDDDvetFl* varied considerably within and between countries. However, in every country at least one untreated flock was present. Average TIDDDvetFl* at country level ranged from 3.3 to 36.7. Polymyxins, extended-spectrum aminopenicillins and fluoroquinolones were the most used antimicrobials, accounting for 26%, 26% and 18% of total AMU, respectively. Twenty-six percent of the farms started a treatment on day 1 of production, and 49% of overall AMU was administered within the first week. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that rearing broilers without AMU is feasible. However, a huge variation in AMU in terms of amount, moment of administration and antimicrobial classes was observed. This shows that there is still ground to be covered when it comes to AMU on broiler farms.
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: Roosmarijn E C Luiken; Liese Van Gompel; Patrick Munk; Steven Sarrazin; Philip Joosten; Alejandro Dorado-García; Rasmus Borup Hansen; Berith E Knudsen; Alex Bossers; Jaap A Wagenaar; Frank M Aarestrup; Jeroen Dewulf; Dik J Mevius; Dick J J Heederik; Lidwien A M Smit; Heike Schmitt Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 5.790
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: Julia Jerab; Wiebke Jansen; John Blackwell; Jobke van Hout; Andreas Palzer; Stephen Lister; Ilias Chantziaras; Jeroen Dewulf; Nancy De Briyne Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2022-08-03
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