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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Glass-Kaastra, Shiona K, Pearl, David L, Reid-Smith, Richard J, McEwen, Beverly, McEwen, Scott A, Amezcua, Rocio, Friendship, Robert M
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