TY - JOUR
T1 - Monitoring of Farm-Level Antimicrobial Use to Guide Stewardship
T2 - Overview of Existing Systems and Analysis of Key Components and Processes
AU - Sanders, Pim
AU - Vanderhaeghen, Wannes
AU - Fertner, Mette Ely
AU - Fuchs, Klemens
AU - Obritzhauser, Walter
AU - Agunos, Agnes
AU - Carson, Carolee
AU - Borck Høg, Birgitte
AU - Dalhoff Andersen, Vibe
AU - Chauvin, Claire
AU - Hémonic, Anne
AU - Käsbohrer, Annemarie
AU - Merle, Roswitha
AU - Alborali, Giovanni L.
AU - Scali, Federico
AU - Stärk, Katharina D.C.
AU - Muentener, Cedric
AU - van Geijlswijk, Ingeborg
AU - Broadfoot, Fraser
AU - Pokludová, Lucie
AU - Firth, Clair L.
AU - Carmo, Luís P.
AU - Manzanilla, Edgar Garcia
AU - Jensen, Laura Mark
AU - Sjölund, Marie
AU - Pinto Ferreira, Jorge
AU - Brown, Stacey
AU - Heederik, Dick
AU - Dewulf, Jeroen
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - The acknowledgment of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a major health challenge in humans, animals and plants, has led to increased efforts to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU). To better understand factors influencing AMR and implement and evaluate stewardship measures for reducing AMU, it is important to have sufficiently detailed information on the quantity of AMU, preferably at the level of the user (farmer, veterinarian) and/or prescriber or provider (veterinarian, feed mill). Recently, several countries have established or are developing systems for monitoring AMU in animals. The aim of this publication is to provide an overview of known systems for monitoring AMU at farm-level, with a descriptive analysis of their key components and processes. As of March 2020, 38 active farm-level AMU monitoring systems from 16 countries were identified. These systems differ in many ways, including which data are collected, the type of analyses conducted and their respective output. At the same time, they share key components (data collection, analysis, benchmarking, and reporting), resulting in similar challenges to be faced with similar decisions to be made. Suggestions are provided with respect to the different components and important aspects of various data types and methods are discussed. This overview should provide support for establishing or working with such a system and could lead to a better implementation of stewardship actions and a more uniform communication about and understanding of AMU data at farm-level. Harmonization of methods and processes could lead to an improved comparability of outcomes and less confusion when interpreting results across systems. However, it is important to note that the development of systems also depends on specific local needs, resources and aims.
AB - The acknowledgment of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a major health challenge in humans, animals and plants, has led to increased efforts to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU). To better understand factors influencing AMR and implement and evaluate stewardship measures for reducing AMU, it is important to have sufficiently detailed information on the quantity of AMU, preferably at the level of the user (farmer, veterinarian) and/or prescriber or provider (veterinarian, feed mill). Recently, several countries have established or are developing systems for monitoring AMU in animals. The aim of this publication is to provide an overview of known systems for monitoring AMU at farm-level, with a descriptive analysis of their key components and processes. As of March 2020, 38 active farm-level AMU monitoring systems from 16 countries were identified. These systems differ in many ways, including which data are collected, the type of analyses conducted and their respective output. At the same time, they share key components (data collection, analysis, benchmarking, and reporting), resulting in similar challenges to be faced with similar decisions to be made. Suggestions are provided with respect to the different components and important aspects of various data types and methods are discussed. This overview should provide support for establishing or working with such a system and could lead to a better implementation of stewardship actions and a more uniform communication about and understanding of AMU data at farm-level. Harmonization of methods and processes could lead to an improved comparability of outcomes and less confusion when interpreting results across systems. However, it is important to note that the development of systems also depends on specific local needs, resources and aims.
KW - antimicrobial resistance
KW - antimicrobial stewardship
KW - antimicrobial use
KW - benchmarking
KW - indicator
KW - livestock
KW - monitoring
KW - overview
U2 - 10.3389/fvets.2020.00540
DO - 10.3389/fvets.2020.00540
M3 - Review
C2 - 33195490
AN - SCOPUS:85090385193
SN - 2297-1769
VL - 7
JO - Frontiers in Veterinary Science
JF - Frontiers in Veterinary Science
M1 - 540
ER -