Cargando…

Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review

Antimicrobial resistance is considered one of the greatest threats to global and public health today. The World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Organisation for Animal Health, known as the Tripartite Collaboration, have called for urgent action. We have prev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tang, Karen L., Caffrey, Niamh P., Nóbrega, Diego B., Cork, Susan C., Ronksley, Paul E., Barkema, Herman W., Polachek, Alicia J., Ganshorn, Heather, Sharma, Nishan, Kellner, James D., Checkley, Sylvia L., Ghali, William A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6538949/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31193679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2019.100095
_version_ 1783422268686204928
author Tang, Karen L.
Caffrey, Niamh P.
Nóbrega, Diego B.
Cork, Susan C.
Ronksley, Paul E.
Barkema, Herman W.
Polachek, Alicia J.
Ganshorn, Heather
Sharma, Nishan
Kellner, James D.
Checkley, Sylvia L.
Ghali, William A.
author_facet Tang, Karen L.
Caffrey, Niamh P.
Nóbrega, Diego B.
Cork, Susan C.
Ronksley, Paul E.
Barkema, Herman W.
Polachek, Alicia J.
Ganshorn, Heather
Sharma, Nishan
Kellner, James D.
Checkley, Sylvia L.
Ghali, William A.
author_sort Tang, Karen L.
collection PubMed
description Antimicrobial resistance is considered one of the greatest threats to global and public health today. The World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Organisation for Animal Health, known as the Tripartite Collaboration, have called for urgent action. We have previously published a systematic review of 181 studies, demonstrating that interventions that restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals are associated with a reduction in antibiotic resistant bacterial isolates in both animals and humans. What remains unknown, however, are whether (and what) unintended consequences may arise from such interventions. We therefore undertook a sub-analysis of the original review to address this research question. A total of 47 studies described potential consequences of antibiotic restrictions. There were no consistent trends to suggest clear harm. There may be increased bacterial contamination of food products, the clinical significance of which remains unclear. There is a need for rigorous evaluation of the unintended consequences of antibiotic restrictions in human health, food availability, and economics, given their possible widespread implications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6538949
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65389492019-06-03 Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review Tang, Karen L. Caffrey, Niamh P. Nóbrega, Diego B. Cork, Susan C. Ronksley, Paul E. Barkema, Herman W. Polachek, Alicia J. Ganshorn, Heather Sharma, Nishan Kellner, James D. Checkley, Sylvia L. Ghali, William A. One Health Short Communication Antimicrobial resistance is considered one of the greatest threats to global and public health today. The World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Organisation for Animal Health, known as the Tripartite Collaboration, have called for urgent action. We have previously published a systematic review of 181 studies, demonstrating that interventions that restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals are associated with a reduction in antibiotic resistant bacterial isolates in both animals and humans. What remains unknown, however, are whether (and what) unintended consequences may arise from such interventions. We therefore undertook a sub-analysis of the original review to address this research question. A total of 47 studies described potential consequences of antibiotic restrictions. There were no consistent trends to suggest clear harm. There may be increased bacterial contamination of food products, the clinical significance of which remains unclear. There is a need for rigorous evaluation of the unintended consequences of antibiotic restrictions in human health, food availability, and economics, given their possible widespread implications. Elsevier 2019-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6538949/ /pubmed/31193679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2019.100095 Text en © 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Short Communication
Tang, Karen L.
Caffrey, Niamh P.
Nóbrega, Diego B.
Cork, Susan C.
Ronksley, Paul E.
Barkema, Herman W.
Polachek, Alicia J.
Ganshorn, Heather
Sharma, Nishan
Kellner, James D.
Checkley, Sylvia L.
Ghali, William A.
Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review
title Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review
title_full Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review
title_fullStr Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review
title_short Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review
title_sort examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: sub-analysis of a systematic review
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6538949/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31193679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2019.100095
work_keys_str_mv AT tangkarenl examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT caffreyniamhp examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT nobregadiegob examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT corksusanc examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT ronksleypaule examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT barkemahermanw examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT polachekaliciaj examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT ganshornheather examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT sharmanishan examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT kellnerjamesd examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT checkleysylvial examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview
AT ghaliwilliama examinationofunintendedconsequencesofantibioticuserestrictionsinfoodproducinganimalssubanalysisofasystematicreview