Cargando…
Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario swine veterinary-based Surveillance program
BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to retrospectively assess records received through the Ontario Swine Veterinary-based Surveillance program July 2007 – July 2009 to describe and assess relationships between reported treatment failure, antimicrobial use, diagnosis and body system affected....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4220827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24289212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-238 |
_version_ | 1782342791285702656 |
---|---|
author | Glass-Kaastra, Shiona K Pearl, David L Reid-Smith, Richard J McEwen, Beverly McEwen, Scott A Amezcua, Rocio Friendship, Robert M |
author_facet | Glass-Kaastra, Shiona K Pearl, David L Reid-Smith, Richard J McEwen, Beverly McEwen, Scott A Amezcua, Rocio Friendship, Robert M |
author_sort | Glass-Kaastra, Shiona K |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to retrospectively assess records received through the Ontario Swine Veterinary-based Surveillance program July 2007 – July 2009 to describe and assess relationships between reported treatment failure, antimicrobial use, diagnosis and body system affected. RESULTS: Antimicrobial use occurred in 676 records, 80.4% of all records recording treatment (840). The most commonly used antimicrobials were penicillin (34.9%), tetracyclines (10.7%) and ceftiofur (7.8%), and the use of multiple antimicrobials occurred in 141/676 records (20.9%). A multi-level logistic regression model was built to describe the probability of reported treatment failure. The odds of reported treatment failure were significantly reduced if the record indicated that the gastro-intestinal (GI) system was affected, as compared to all other body systems (p < 0.05). In contrast, the odds of reported treatment failure increased by 1.98 times if two antimicrobials were used as compared to one antimicrobial (p = 0.009) and by 6.52 times if three or more antimicrobials were used as compared to one antimicrobial (p = 0.005). No significant increase in reported treatment failure was seen between the use of two antimicrobials and three or more antimicrobials. No other antimicrobials were significantly associated with reported treatment failure after controlling for body system and the number of antimicrobials used. CONCLUSIONS: Failure of antimicrobial treatment is more likely to occur in non-GI conditions, as compared to GI conditions and the use of multiple antimicrobial products is also associated with an increased probability of antimicrobial treatment failure. The authors suggest that a more preventative approach to herd health should be taken in order to reduce antimicrobial inputs on-farm, including improved immunity via vaccination, management and biosecurity strategies. Furthermore, improved immunity may be viewed as a form of antimicrobial stewardship to the industry by reducing required antimicrobial inputs and consequently, reduced selection pressure for AMR. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4220827 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42208272014-11-06 Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario swine veterinary-based Surveillance program Glass-Kaastra, Shiona K Pearl, David L Reid-Smith, Richard J McEwen, Beverly McEwen, Scott A Amezcua, Rocio Friendship, Robert M BMC Vet Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to retrospectively assess records received through the Ontario Swine Veterinary-based Surveillance program July 2007 – July 2009 to describe and assess relationships between reported treatment failure, antimicrobial use, diagnosis and body system affected. RESULTS: Antimicrobial use occurred in 676 records, 80.4% of all records recording treatment (840). The most commonly used antimicrobials were penicillin (34.9%), tetracyclines (10.7%) and ceftiofur (7.8%), and the use of multiple antimicrobials occurred in 141/676 records (20.9%). A multi-level logistic regression model was built to describe the probability of reported treatment failure. The odds of reported treatment failure were significantly reduced if the record indicated that the gastro-intestinal (GI) system was affected, as compared to all other body systems (p < 0.05). In contrast, the odds of reported treatment failure increased by 1.98 times if two antimicrobials were used as compared to one antimicrobial (p = 0.009) and by 6.52 times if three or more antimicrobials were used as compared to one antimicrobial (p = 0.005). No significant increase in reported treatment failure was seen between the use of two antimicrobials and three or more antimicrobials. No other antimicrobials were significantly associated with reported treatment failure after controlling for body system and the number of antimicrobials used. CONCLUSIONS: Failure of antimicrobial treatment is more likely to occur in non-GI conditions, as compared to GI conditions and the use of multiple antimicrobial products is also associated with an increased probability of antimicrobial treatment failure. The authors suggest that a more preventative approach to herd health should be taken in order to reduce antimicrobial inputs on-farm, including improved immunity via vaccination, management and biosecurity strategies. Furthermore, improved immunity may be viewed as a form of antimicrobial stewardship to the industry by reducing required antimicrobial inputs and consequently, reduced selection pressure for AMR. BioMed Central 2013-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4220827/ /pubmed/24289212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-238 Text en Copyright © 2013 Glass-Kaastra et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Glass-Kaastra, Shiona K Pearl, David L Reid-Smith, Richard J McEwen, Beverly McEwen, Scott A Amezcua, Rocio Friendship, Robert M Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario swine veterinary-based Surveillance program |
title | Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario swine veterinary-based Surveillance program |
title_full | Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario swine veterinary-based Surveillance program |
title_fullStr | Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario swine veterinary-based Surveillance program |
title_full_unstemmed | Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario swine veterinary-based Surveillance program |
title_short | Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario swine veterinary-based Surveillance program |
title_sort | describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in ontario swine using the ontario swine veterinary-based surveillance program |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4220827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24289212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-238 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT glasskaastrashionak describingantimicrobialuseandreportedtreatmentefficacyinontarioswineusingtheontarioswineveterinarybasedsurveillanceprogram AT pearldavidl describingantimicrobialuseandreportedtreatmentefficacyinontarioswineusingtheontarioswineveterinarybasedsurveillanceprogram AT reidsmithrichardj describingantimicrobialuseandreportedtreatmentefficacyinontarioswineusingtheontarioswineveterinarybasedsurveillanceprogram AT mcewenbeverly describingantimicrobialuseandreportedtreatmentefficacyinontarioswineusingtheontarioswineveterinarybasedsurveillanceprogram AT mcewenscotta describingantimicrobialuseandreportedtreatmentefficacyinontarioswineusingtheontarioswineveterinarybasedsurveillanceprogram AT amezcuarocio describingantimicrobialuseandreportedtreatmentefficacyinontarioswineusingtheontarioswineveterinarybasedsurveillanceprogram AT friendshiprobertm describingantimicrobialuseandreportedtreatmentefficacyinontarioswineusingtheontarioswineveterinarybasedsurveillanceprogram |