Martin Hannah, Garcia Manzanilla Edgar, More Simon J, Hyde Robert, McAloon Conor
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland; Pig Development Department, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork P61 C996, Ireland.
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland; Pig Development Department, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork P61 C996, Ireland.
J Dairy Sci. 2025 Feb;108(2):1790-1806. doi: 10.3168/jds.2024-24688. Epub 2024 Jul 14.
Antimicrobial use (AMU) data are essential for monitoring usage over time, facilitating reduction strategies to combat the threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to both human and animal health. The objective of this study was to measure and describe AMU over a 12-mo period in Irish dairy herds and compare 3 different recording methods to a reference method. A sample of 33 Irish dairy herds were randomly selected from 6 private veterinary practices across Ireland. The herds were followed for a 12-mo period, and their AMU was monitored using 3 recording methods: (1) veterinary prescription data (VET), (2) the inventory of medicine bins on the farms (MB), and (3) farmer treatment records from herd recording software (APP). Each recording method was compared with a previously developed reference method for AMU. The reference method used was based on pre- and poststudy medicine stock on the farms combined with VET. Antimicrobial use was analyzed using both mass- and dosed-based metrics, including mass (mg) of antimicrobial active ingredient per population correction unit (PCU), defined daily doses for animals (DDD) and defined course doses for animals (DCD). Median AMU was 16.24, 10.47, 8.87 and 15.55 mg/PCU by mass, and 2.43, 1.55, 1.19 and 2.26 DDD by dose for VET, MB, APP, and reference method data, respectively. Reliability of the agreement between each pair of methods was quantified using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). When compared with the reference method, VET data had excellent reliability (95% CI of CCC: 0.992-0.998). The MB data had good to excellent reliability (95% CI of CCC: 0.776-0.936). The APP data had poor reliability when compared with the reference method (95% CI of CCC: -0.167 to 0.156). Our results highlight that a small number of herds were contributing most to overall use and farmers showed varying levels of consistency in recording AMU. Veterinary data were the most reliable approach for assessing AMU when compared with a reference method of AMU. This is an important finding for the future monitoring of AMU at a national level.
抗菌药物使用(AMU)数据对于长期监测使用情况、推动减少抗菌药物耐药性(AMR)对人类和动物健康威胁的策略至关重要。本研究的目的是测量和描述爱尔兰奶牛群12个月期间的抗菌药物使用情况,并将三种不同的记录方法与一种参考方法进行比较。从爱尔兰各地6家私人兽医诊所中随机选取了33个爱尔兰奶牛群样本。对这些牛群进行了为期12个月的跟踪,并使用三种记录方法监测其抗菌药物使用情况:(1)兽医处方数据(VET),(2)农场药箱库存(MB),以及(3)来自牛群记录软件的农户治疗记录(APP)。将每种记录方法与先前开发的抗菌药物使用参考方法进行比较。所使用的参考方法基于农场研究前和研究后的药品库存以及兽医处方数据。使用基于质量和剂量的指标分析抗菌药物使用情况,包括每群体校正单位(PCU)的抗菌活性成分质量(mg)、动物的规定日剂量(DDD)和动物的规定疗程剂量(DCD)。按质量计算,VET、MB、APP和参考方法数据的中位数抗菌药物使用量分别为16.24、10.47、8.87和15.55 mg/PCU,按剂量计算分别为2.43、1.55、1.19和2.26 DDD。使用一致性相关系数(CCC)对每对方法之间一致性的可靠性进行量化。与参考方法相比,VET数据具有出色的可靠性(CCC的95%置信区间:0.992 - 0.998)。MB数据具有良好到出色的可靠性(CCC的95%置信区间:0.776 - 0.936)。与参考方法相比,APP数据的可靠性较差(CCC的95%置信区间:-0.167至0.156)。我们的结果表明,少数牛群对总体使用贡献最大,且农户在记录抗菌药物使用情况时表现出不同程度的一致性。与抗菌药物使用参考方法相比,兽医数据是评估抗菌药物使用的最可靠方法。这对于未来国家层面抗菌药物使用监测而言是一项重要发现。