Sanders Pim, van Geijlswijk Ingeborg, Bonten Marc, Mughini-Gras Lapo, van Hout Jobke, Heederik Dick
The Netherlands Veterinary Medicines Institute (SDa), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2024 Jan 24;6(1):dlae005. doi: 10.1093/jacamr/dlae005. eCollection 2024 Feb.
Comparisons between antimicrobial usage (AMU) in humans and food-producing animals are regularly made. The accuracy of such comparisons depends on the indicators used to quantify AMU. Indicators for AMU quantitatively relate use data (the numerator) to population data (the denominator). The denominator should be a proxy for the population at risk in a certain period when comparing the exposure of different populations to antimicrobials. Denominators based on numbers of animals slaughtered, such as the commonly used population correction unit, do not consider the time at risk of antimicrobial treatment. Production-based indicators underestimate animal AMU. Additionally, production-based indicators are fundamentally different from indicators used to quantify human AMU. Using such indicators to compare human and animal AMU therefore leads to biased results. More caution should be taken in selecting the indicator to quantify AMU when comparing AMU in food-producing animals and humans.
人们经常对人类和食用动物的抗菌药物使用情况(AMU)进行比较。此类比较的准确性取决于用于量化AMU的指标。AMU指标将使用数据(分子)与种群数据(分母)进行定量关联。在比较不同人群对抗菌药物的暴露情况时,分母应是某一时期处于风险中的种群的替代指标。基于屠宰动物数量的分母,如常用的种群校正单位,未考虑抗菌治疗的风险时间。基于产量的指标会低估动物的AMU。此外,基于产量的指标与用于量化人类AMU的指标有根本区别。因此,使用此类指标比较人类和动物的AMU会导致有偏差的结果。在比较食用动物和人类的AMU时,选择量化AMU的指标时应更加谨慎。