Dr. David Dargatz - USDA Initiatives: Antimicrobial Drug Use/Resistance on Livestock Facilities Data

775 views
564 views

Published on

USDA Initiatives: Antimicrobial Drug Use/Resistance on Livestock Facilities Data - Dr. David Dargatz, Epidemiologist, USDA: APHIS Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, from the 2013 NIAA Symposium Bridging the Gap Between Animal Health and Human Health, November 12-14, 2013, Kansas City, MO, USA.

More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2013-niaa-antibiotics-bridging-the-gap-animal-health-human-health

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
775
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dr. David Dargatz - USDA Initiatives: Antimicrobial Drug Use/Resistance on Livestock Facilities Data

  1. 1. Bridging the Gap Between Animal Health and Human Health USDA Initiatives and Data on Antimicrobial Drug Use and Resistance on Livestock Facilities David A. Dargatz DVM, PhD U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary Services November 13, 2013 Safeguarding Animal Health 1
  2. 2. Outline • Overview of the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) • NAHMS studies collecting antimicrobial use and resistance data • Example results from recent NAHMS studies • Ongoing USDA efforts to provide stakeholders with information on antimicrobial drug use and resistance in livestock production Safeguarding Animal Health 2
  3. 3. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) Overview • Program of USDA:APHIS • Stakeholder driven • Mission – to provide information to decision makers • Voluntary participation of livestock producers • Focus on issues of animal health, production, public health and the environment Safeguarding Animal Health 3
  4. 4. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) Overview • Methods  Various study designs Cross-sectional national studies Cross-sectional targeted studies Prospective monitoring studies  Sample collection Types as appropriate for stakeholder questions  Analyses Population estimates Inferential analyses (risk factors or associations) Safeguarding Animal Health 4
  5. 5. NAHMS National Studies • Addressing antimicrobial use/resistance issues  Increased amounts of data collected COFE(1994) = 29 Feedlot’99 = 109 Feedlot 2011 = 144  Increased number of organisms evaluated for prevalence and antimicrobial resistance Safeguarding Animal Health
  6. 6. Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts Bacterial Isolation/Testing Study Productio n setting Year States Operations Sal Campy Entero DHEP Dairy 1992 28 1811 Y* Y** COFE Beef feedlot 1994 13 1411 Y Y** Swine95 Swine 1995 16 1477 Y Dairy96 Dairy 20 2542 Y Beef97 Beef cowcalf 1994 23 2713 Y Feedlot99 Beef feedlot 1999 12 520 Y Y *Prevalence only **E. coli O157 prevalence Safeguarding Animal Health Y E. coli Y C. diff MRSA
  7. 7. Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts Bacterial Isolation/Testing Study Production setting Year States Operations Sal Campy Entero E. coli Swine2000 Swine 2000 17 2499 Y Y Y Y Dairy2002 Dairy 2002 21 2461 Y Y Y Y Swine2006 Swine 2006 17 2230 Y Y Y Y Y Dairy 2007 Dairy 2007 21 2194 Y Y Y Y Beef 2007-08 Beef Cow/calf Sheep 2008 24 2872 Y Y Y Y Y 2011 22 887 Y Y Y Y 2011 12 995 Y Y Y Y Swine 2012 Beef Feedlot Swine 2012 13 Y Y Y Dairy 2014 Dairy 2014 17 Y Y Y Sheep 2011 Feedlot 2011 Y Safeguarding Animal Health C. diff MRSA Y
  8. 8. Results for Cattle Feedlots (1999) • Study inference = 96% feedlot cattle inventory • • • • • Feed/water use of antimicrobials Injectable use of antimicrobials Selection of antimicrobials Training Pathogen prevalence and resistance Safeguarding Animal Health 8
  9. 9. Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use Safeguarding Animal Health 9
  10. 10. Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use Days Safeguarding Animal Health 10
  11. 11. Feedlot Injectable Antimicrobial Use B.1.b. Percentage of all cattle placed that received the following classes of injectable antimicrobial administered as a disease treatment or preventative, by feedlot capacity Percent Cattle Feedlot Capacity (number head) 1,000–7,999 Antimicrobial class New long-acting (label specifies effect of greater than 24 hours, e.g., Excenel®, Micotil®, Nuflor®, Baytril® Conventional long-acting (label specifies effect of greater than 24 hours, e.g., LA 200®) New short-acting (label specifies effect of less than 24 hours, e.g., Naxcel®) Conventional short-acting (label specifies effect of less than 24 hours, e.g., Tylan®, penicillin, OxyTet100™) Any antimicrobial Pct. Std. error 8,000 or more Pct. Std. error All feedlots Pct. Std. error 9.6 (1.1) 14.3 (1.7) 13.6 (1.4) 2.9 (0.4) 4.8 (1.3) 4.5 (1.1) 1.5 (0.3) 4.4 (1.5) 3.9 (1.3) 4.3 (1.3) 3.4 (0.7) 3.5 (0.6) 16.1 (1.7) 19.5 (1.6) 19.0 (1.4) Safeguarding Animal Health 11
  12. 12. Feedlot Injectable Antimicrobial Use Safeguarding Animal Health 12
  13. 13. Results for Swine Operations (2006) • Inference population = 73% operations and 94% pigs • • • • Feed/water use of antimicrobials Injectable use of antimicrobials Antimicrobial selection/decision making Pathogen prevalence and resistance Safeguarding Animal Health 13
  14. 14. Safeguarding Animal Health 14
  15. 15. Safeguarding Animal Health 15
  16. 16. Safeguarding Animal Health 16
  17. 17. Results for Dairy Operations (2007) • Inference population = 80% operations and 83% of dairy cows • • • • Injectable use of antimicrobials Intramammary use of antimicrobials Feed/water use of antimicrobials Pathogen prevalence and resistance Safeguarding Animal Health 17
  18. 18. Safeguarding Animal Health 18
  19. 19. Safeguarding Animal Health 19
  20. 20. Safeguarding Animal Health 20
  21. 21. Safeguarding Animal Health 21
  22. 22. Safeguarding Animal Health 22
  23. 23. Safeguarding Animal Health 23
  24. 24. Use of Antimicrobials in Milk Replacers • 57.5% of dairy operations used medicated milk replacers  Less common in larger operations (43.6%) • Most common medicants  Oxytetracycline with or without neomycin (71.4%)  Decoquinate (18.8%)  Chlortetracycline (12.1%) Safeguarding Animal Health
  25. 25. Use of Antimicrobials in Heifer Growing Rations • 18.2% of dairy operations used antimicrobials in weaned heifer rations • Most common antimicrobials  Chlortetracycline products (14.4%)  Sulfa (5.7%)  Tetracycline (10.9%) Safeguarding Animal Health
  26. 26. Feedlot 2011 Study • More detailed injectable use data     Disease condition Feedlot demographics Animal demographics Drug class • Feed/water use data  Feedlot demographics  Animal demographics  Drug class Safeguarding Animal Health 26
  27. 27. Feedlot 2011 Study • Antimicrobial selection criteria/influences • Training • Records Safeguarding Animal Health 27
  28. 28. Augmentation of NAHMS Studies Safeguarding Animal Health 28
  29. 29. Salmonella and Antimicrobial Resistance from NAHMS Studies Safeguarding Animal Health 29
  30. 30. Safeguarding Animal Health 30
  31. 31. Additional Isolates Evaluated • • • • E. coli (generic) Campylobacter spp. Enterococcus spp. Clostridium difficile Safeguarding Animal Health 31
  32. 32. Other USDA Actions Related to Antimicrobial Use and Resistance • Agricultural Research Service (ARS)  NARMS  Microbiology/microbial ecology • Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)  NARMS  Residue programs • National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)  Extra-mural research funding  Extension/outreach Safeguarding Animal Health 32
  33. 33. Other USDA Actions Related to Antimicrobial Resistance • Economic Research Service (ERS)  Agricultural resource management surveys  Economic impacts • National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)  Agricultural chemical use surveys Safeguarding Animal Health 33
  34. 34. Stakeholder Workshop to Identify Gaps - Representation • Outside government  Public health, consumers, producers, veterinarians, pharmaceutical industry • Federal partners  FDA, CDC, NIH • USDA partners Safeguarding Animal Health 34
  35. 35. Stakeholder Identified Gaps • Measures of antimicrobial drug use and resistance • Management practices and impacts on antimicrobial resistance • Alternative medical interventions • Education, training and extension/outreach Safeguarding Animal Health 35
  36. 36. A USDA Plan to Address Antimicrobial Resistance • Prioritize actions based on stakeholder input • Leverage resources across USDA agencies • Collaborate across USDA agencies • Status – under development within the department  Actions are already occurring Safeguarding Animal Health 36
  37. 37. Summary • Antimicrobials are widely used in livestock and poultry • Use patterns vary widely by commodity/class of animal  Products used  Level of use  Purpose of use Safeguarding Animal Health 37
  38. 38. Summary • Some data are available to characterize use and resistance • Limitations in data  Discontinuous estimates  Lacking quantitative data • Challenging to understand the ecology of resistance • On-going efforts (USDA and others) should help to fill some information gaps Safeguarding Animal Health 38
  39. 39. More NAHMS Information Available USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7 2150 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117 970.494.7000 E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov Safeguarding Animal Health 39
  40. 40. Questions/Discussion Safeguarding Animal Health

×