Cargando…

Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018–2019

The objective of this study was to report antimicrobial use in a convenience sample of U.S. beef feedyards for the years 2018 and 2019. In addition to antimicrobial use metrics, also reported are the indications for antimicrobial use and outcomes related to these indications. Antimicrobial use is ch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Apley, Michael D., Schrag, Nora F. D., Amrine, David E., Lubbers, Brian V., Singer, Randall S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10083271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37051510
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1056362
_version_ 1785021471279546368
author Apley, Michael D.
Schrag, Nora F. D.
Amrine, David E.
Lubbers, Brian V.
Singer, Randall S.
author_facet Apley, Michael D.
Schrag, Nora F. D.
Amrine, David E.
Lubbers, Brian V.
Singer, Randall S.
author_sort Apley, Michael D.
collection PubMed
description The objective of this study was to report antimicrobial use in a convenience sample of U.S. beef feedyards for the years 2018 and 2019. In addition to antimicrobial use metrics, also reported are the indications for antimicrobial use and outcomes related to these indications. Antimicrobial use is characterized at the study and feedyard levels for a total of 1,141,846 head of cattle in 20 U.S. feedyards. Antimicrobial use is reported as milligrams of active antimicrobial ingredient per kilogram of liveweight sold (mg/kg-LW) and regimens of antimicrobials per animal year (Reg/AY). Regimens are described by antimicrobial class within use category as characterized by mg of active antimicrobial product per regimen (mg/Reg) and calendar days of administration per regimen (CDoA/Reg). A total of 1,128,515 regimens of medically important antimicrobials were captured from records. The number of regimens/100 head-in (Reg/100 head-in) are described in a subset of 10 feedyards with adequate data granularity to directly determine indications for antimicrobial administration. For the indications of bovine respiratory disease (BRD), Lameness (Lame), Liver Abscess Control (LAC), and Other (e.g., central nervous system disease, cellulitis) the Reg/100 head-in study-level values are 37.1, 0.8, 98.4, and 0.7, respectively, for 2018, with similar values for 2019. The regimens for BRD are further categorized in these 10 feedyards by the use categories in-feed, control of BRD, and individual animal therapy, yielding study level values of 4.6, 19.6, and 12.9 Reg/100 head-in, respectively, for 2018, with similar values for 2019. Outcomes of therapy for individual animal treatment of BRD, Lame, and Other are reported as treatment success, retreatment, or mortality by 30 days after the initial therapy of an animal for a disease. Treatment success rates (no treatment or mortality in the next 30 days) for 2018 in the 10 feedyards with sufficient data granularity are 76.5, 86.5, and 83.0% for BRD, Lame, and Other, respectively. The comparison of these results with other reports of antimicrobial use in North American feedyards highlights how differing approaches in calculating metric values may result in substantially different conclusions regarding antimicrobial use, especially in relation to long-duration uses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10083271
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100832712023-04-11 Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018–2019 Apley, Michael D. Schrag, Nora F. D. Amrine, David E. Lubbers, Brian V. Singer, Randall S. Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science The objective of this study was to report antimicrobial use in a convenience sample of U.S. beef feedyards for the years 2018 and 2019. In addition to antimicrobial use metrics, also reported are the indications for antimicrobial use and outcomes related to these indications. Antimicrobial use is characterized at the study and feedyard levels for a total of 1,141,846 head of cattle in 20 U.S. feedyards. Antimicrobial use is reported as milligrams of active antimicrobial ingredient per kilogram of liveweight sold (mg/kg-LW) and regimens of antimicrobials per animal year (Reg/AY). Regimens are described by antimicrobial class within use category as characterized by mg of active antimicrobial product per regimen (mg/Reg) and calendar days of administration per regimen (CDoA/Reg). A total of 1,128,515 regimens of medically important antimicrobials were captured from records. The number of regimens/100 head-in (Reg/100 head-in) are described in a subset of 10 feedyards with adequate data granularity to directly determine indications for antimicrobial administration. For the indications of bovine respiratory disease (BRD), Lameness (Lame), Liver Abscess Control (LAC), and Other (e.g., central nervous system disease, cellulitis) the Reg/100 head-in study-level values are 37.1, 0.8, 98.4, and 0.7, respectively, for 2018, with similar values for 2019. The regimens for BRD are further categorized in these 10 feedyards by the use categories in-feed, control of BRD, and individual animal therapy, yielding study level values of 4.6, 19.6, and 12.9 Reg/100 head-in, respectively, for 2018, with similar values for 2019. Outcomes of therapy for individual animal treatment of BRD, Lame, and Other are reported as treatment success, retreatment, or mortality by 30 days after the initial therapy of an animal for a disease. Treatment success rates (no treatment or mortality in the next 30 days) for 2018 in the 10 feedyards with sufficient data granularity are 76.5, 86.5, and 83.0% for BRD, Lame, and Other, respectively. The comparison of these results with other reports of antimicrobial use in North American feedyards highlights how differing approaches in calculating metric values may result in substantially different conclusions regarding antimicrobial use, especially in relation to long-duration uses. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10083271/ /pubmed/37051510 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1056362 Text en Copyright © 2023 Apley, Schrag, Amrine, Lubbers and Singer. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Apley, Michael D.
Schrag, Nora F. D.
Amrine, David E.
Lubbers, Brian V.
Singer, Randall S.
Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018–2019
title Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018–2019
title_full Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018–2019
title_fullStr Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018–2019
title_full_unstemmed Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018–2019
title_short Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018–2019
title_sort antimicrobial use in 20 u.s. beef feedyards: 2018–2019
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10083271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37051510
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1056362
work_keys_str_mv AT apleymichaeld antimicrobialusein20usbeeffeedyards20182019
AT schragnorafd antimicrobialusein20usbeeffeedyards20182019
AT amrinedavide antimicrobialusein20usbeeffeedyards20182019
AT lubbersbrianv antimicrobialusein20usbeeffeedyards20182019
AT singerrandalls antimicrobialusein20usbeeffeedyards20182019