Date post: | 03-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | john-blue |
View: | 472 times |
Download: | 4 times |
Safeguarding Animal Health
Bridging the Gap Between Animal
Health and Human Health
David A. Dargatz DVM, PhD
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Veterinary Services
November 13, 2013
1
USDA Initiatives and Data on Antimicrobial
Drug Use and Resistance on Livestock
Facilities
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
2
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
3
Safeguarding Animal Health
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)
4
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts
Bacterial Isolation/Testing
Study Productio
n setting
Year States Operations Sal Campy Entero E.
coli
C.
diff
MRSA
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 cow-
calf
1994 23 2713 Y
Feedlot99 Beef
feedlot
1999 12 520 Y Y Y Y
*Prevalence only
**E. coli O157 prevalence
Safeguarding Animal Health
Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts
Bacterial Isolation/Testing
Study Production
setting
Year States Operations Sal Campy Entero E.
coli
C.
diff
MRSA
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 Y
Beef 2007-08 Beef
Cow/calf
2008 24 2872 Y Y Y Y Y
Sheep 2011 Sheep 2011 22 887 Y Y Y Y
Feedlot 2011 Beef
Feedlot
2011 12 995 Y Y Y Y
Swine 2012 Swine 2012 13 Y Y Y
Dairy 2014 Dairy 2014 17 Y Y Y Y
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
8
Safeguarding Animal Health
Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use
9
Safeguarding Animal Health
Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use
10
Days
Safeguarding Animal Health
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 8,000 or more All feedlots
Antimicrobial class Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error
New long-acting (label specifies
effect of greater than 24 hours,
e.g., Excenel®, Micotil®, Nuflor®,
Baytril®
9.6 (1.1) 14.3 (1.7) 13.6 (1.4)
Conventional long-acting (label
specifies effect of greater than 24
hours,
e.g., LA 200®)
2.9 (0.4) 4.8 (1.3) 4.5 (1.1)
New short-acting (label specifies
effect of less than 24 hours, e.g.,
Naxcel®)
1.5 (0.3) 4.4 (1.5) 3.9 (1.3)
Conventional short-acting (label
specifies effect of less than 24
hours, e.g., Tylan®, penicillin, Oxy-
Tet100™)
4.3 (1.3) 3.4 (0.7) 3.5 (0.6)
Any antimicrobial 16.1 (1.7) 19.5 (1.6) 19.0 (1.4)
11
Safeguarding Animal Health
Feedlot Injectable Antimicrobial Use
12
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
13
Safeguarding Animal Health 14
Safeguarding Animal Health 15
Safeguarding Animal Health 16
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
17
Safeguarding Animal Health 18
Safeguarding Animal Health 19
Safeguarding Animal Health 20
Safeguarding Animal Health 21
Safeguarding Animal Health 22
Safeguarding Animal Health 23
Safeguarding Animal Health
Use of Antimicrobials in Milk
Replacers
• 57.5% of dairy operations used medicated milk replacersLess common in larger operations (43.6%)
• Most common medicantsOxytetracycline with or without neomycin (71.4%)
Decoquinate (18.8%)
Chlortetracycline (12.1%)
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
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
26
Safeguarding Animal Health
Feedlot 2011 Study
• Antimicrobial selection
criteria/influences
• Training
• Records
27
Safeguarding Animal Health
Augmentation of NAHMS Studies
28
Safeguarding Animal Health
Salmonella and Antimicrobial
Resistance from NAHMS Studies
29
Safeguarding Animal Health 30
Safeguarding Animal Health
Additional Isolates Evaluated
• E. coli (generic)
• Campylobacter spp.
• Enterococcus spp.
• Clostridium difficile
31
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
32
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
33
Safeguarding Animal Health
Stakeholder Workshop to Identify
Gaps - Representation
• Outside government
Public health, consumers, producers,
veterinarians, pharmaceutical industry
• Federal partners
FDA, CDC, NIH
• USDA partners
34
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
35
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
36
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
37
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
38
Safeguarding Animal Health
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: [email protected]
http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov
39
Safeguarding Animal Health
Questions/Discussion