USDA Initiates on Animal Antimicrobial Use and Resistance

Bridging the Gap Between Animal
Health and Human Health

USDA Initiatives and Data on Antimicrobial
Drug Use and Resistance on Livestock
Facilities
David A. Dargatz DVM, PhD
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Veterinary Services
November 13, 2013

Safeguarding Animal Health

1

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

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

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

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


Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts
Bacterial Isolation/Testing
Study

Productio
n setting

Year

States

Operations

Sal

Campy

Entero

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 cowcalf

1994

23

2713

Y

Feedlot99

Beef
feedlot

1999

12

520

Y

Y

*Prevalence only
**E. coli O157 prevalence


Y

E.
coli

Y

C.
diff

MRSA

Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts
Bacterial Isolation/Testing
Study

Production
setting

Year

States

Operations

Sal

Campy

Entero

E.
coli

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

Beef 2007-08

Beef
Cow/calf
Sheep

2008

24

2872

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

2011

22

887

Y

Y

Y

Y

2011

12

995

Y

Y

Y

Y

Swine 2012

Beef
Feedlot
Swine

2012

13

Y

Y

Y

Dairy 2014

Dairy

2014

17

Y

Y

Y

Sheep 2011
Feedlot 2011

Y


C.
diff

MRSA

Y

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

Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use


9

Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use

Days


10

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
Antimicrobial class
New long-acting (label specifies
effect of greater than 24 hours,
e.g., Excenel®, Micotil®, Nuflor®,
Baytril®
Conventional long-acting (label
specifies effect of greater than 24
hours,
e.g., LA 200®)
New short-acting (label specifies
effect of less than 24 hours, e.g.,
Naxcel®)
Conventional short-acting (label
specifies effect of less than 24
hours, e.g., Tylan®, penicillin, OxyTet100™)
Any antimicrobial

Pct.

Std. error

8,000 or more
Pct.

Std. error

All feedlots
Pct.

Std. error

9.6

(1.1)

14.3

(1.7)

13.6

(1.4)

2.9

(0.4)

4.8

(1.3)

4.5

(1.1)

1.5

(0.3)

4.4

(1.5)

3.9

(1.3)

4.3

(1.3)

3.4

(0.7)

3.5

(0.6)

16.1

(1.7)

19.5

(1.6)

19.0

(1.4)


11

Feedlot Injectable Antimicrobial Use


12

Results for Swine Operations (2006)
• Inference population = 73% operations and
94% pigs
•
•
•
•

Antimicrobial selection/decision making


13


14


15


16

Results for Dairy Operations (2007)
• Inference population = 80% operations and
83% of dairy cows
•
•
•
•

Intramammary use of antimicrobials


17


18


19


20


21


22


23

Use of Antimicrobials in Milk
Replacers
• 57.5% of dairy operations used medicated milk
replacers
 Less common in larger operations (43.6%)

• Most common medicants
 Oxytetracycline with or without neomycin (71.4%)
 Decoquinate (18.8%)
 Chlortetracycline (12.1%)


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%)


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

Feedlot 2011 Study
• Antimicrobial selection
criteria/influences
• Training
• Records


27

Augmentation of NAHMS Studies


28

Salmonella and Antimicrobial
Resistance from NAHMS Studies


29


30

Additional Isolates Evaluated
•
•
•
•

E. coli (generic)
Campylobacter spp.
Enterococcus spp.
Clostridium difficile


31

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

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

Stakeholder Workshop to Identify
Gaps - Representation
• Outside government
 Public health, consumers, producers,
veterinarians, pharmaceutical industry

• Federal partners
 FDA, CDC, NIH

• USDA partners


34

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

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

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

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

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: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

39

Questions/Discussion


USDA Initiates on Animal Antimicrobial Use and Resistance

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a USDA Initiates on Animal Antimicrobial Use and Resistance

Semelhante a USDA Initiates on Animal Antimicrobial Use and Resistance (20)

Mais de John Blue

Mais de John Blue (20)

Último

Último (20)

USDA Initiates on Animal Antimicrobial Use and Resistance