Current limitations in the understanding and control of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Canada are described through a comprehensive review focusing on: (1) treatment optimization; (2) surveillance of antimicrobial use and AMR; and (3) prevention of transmission of AMR. Without addressing gaps in identified areas, sustained progress in AMR mitigation is unlikely. Expert opinions and perspectives contributed to prioritizing identified gaps. Using Canada as an example, this review emphasizes the importance and necessity of a One Health approach for understanding and mitigating AMR. Specifically, antimicrobial use in human, animal, crop, and environmental sectors cannot be regarded as independent; therefore, a One Health approach is needed in AMR research and understanding, current surveillance efforts, and policy. Discussions regarding addressing described knowledge gaps are separated into four categories: (1) further research; (2) increased capacity/resources; (3) increased prescriber/end-user knowledge; and (4) policy development/enforcement. This review highlights the research and increased capacity and resources to generate new knowledge and implement recommendations needed to address all identified gaps, including economic, social, and environmental considerations. More prescriber/end-user knowledge and policy development/enforcement are needed, but must be informed by realistic recommendations, with input from all relevant stakeholders. For most knowledge gaps, important next steps are uncertain. In conclusion, identified knowledge gaps underlined the need for AMR policy decisions to be considered in a One Health framework, while highlighting critical needs to achieve realistic and meaningful progress.

Administering intramammary antimicrobials to all mammary quarters of dairy cows at drying-off [i.e., blanket dry cow therapy (BDCT)] has been a mainstay of mastitis prevention and control. However, as udder health has considerably improved over recent decades with reductions in intramammary infection prevalence at drying-off and the introduction of teat sealants, BDCT may no longer be necessary on all dairy farms, thereby supporting antimicrobial stewardship efforts. This narrative review summarizes available literature regarding current dry cow therapy practices and associated impacts of selective dry cow therapy (SDCT) on udder health, milk production, economics, antimicrobial use, and antimicrobial resistance. Various methods to identify infections at drying-off that could benefit from antimicrobial treatment are described for selecting cows or mammary quarters for treatment, including utilizing somatic cell count thresholds, pathogen identification, previous clinical mastitis history, or a combination of criteria. Selection methods may be enacted at the herd, cow, or quarter levels. Producers' and veterinarians' motivations for antimicrobial use are discussed. Based on review findings, SDCT can be adopted without negative consequences for udder health and milk production, and concurrent teat sealant use is recommended, especially in udder quarters receiving no intramammary antimicrobials. Furthermore, herd selection should be considered for SDCT implementation in addition to cow or quarter selection, as BDCT may still be temporarily necessary in some herds for optimal mastitis control. Costs and benefits of SDCT vary among herds, whereas impacts on antimicrobial resistance remain unclear. In summary, SDCT is a viable management option for maintaining udder health and milk production while improving antimicrobial stewardship in the dairy industry.

Since the introduction of antibiotics into mainstream health care, resistance to these drugs has become a widespread issue that continues to increase worldwide. Policy decisions to mitigate the development of antimicrobial resistance are hampered by the current lack of surveillance data on antibiotic product availability and use in low-income countries. This study collected data on the antibiotics stocked in human (42) and veterinary (21) drug shops in five sub-counties in Luwero district of Uganda. Focus group discussions with drug shop vendors were also employed to explore antibiotic use practices in the community. Focus group participants reported that farmers used human-intended antibiotics for their livestock, and community members obtain animal-intended antibiotics for their own personal human use. Specifically, chloramphenicol products licensed for human use were being administered to Ugandan poultry. Human consumption of chloramphenicol residues through local animal products represents a serious public health concern. By limiting the health sector scope of antimicrobial resistance research to either human or animal antibiotic use, results can falsely inform policy and intervention strategies. Therefore, a One Health approach is required to understand the wider impact of community antibiotic use and improve overall effectiveness of intervention policy and regulatory action.

Antibiotic use in animal agriculture contributes significantly to antibiotic use globally and is a key driver of the rising threat of antibiotic resistance. It is becoming increasingly important to better understand antibiotic use in livestock in low-and-middle income countries where antibiotic use is predicted to increase considerably as a consequence of the growing demand for animal-derived products. Antibiotic crossover-use refers to the practice of using antibiotic formulations licensed for humans in animals and vice versa. This practice has the potential to cause adverse drug reactions and contribute to the development and spread of antibiotic resistance between humans and animals. We performed secondary data analysis of in-depth interview and focus-group discussion transcripts from independent studies investigating antibiotic use in agricultural communities in Uganda, Tanzania and India to understand the practice of antibiotic crossover-use by medicine-providers and livestock-keepers in these settings. Thematic analysis was conducted to explore driving factors of reported antibiotic crossover-use in the three countries. Similarities were found between countries regarding both the accounts of antibiotic crossover-use and its drivers. In all three countries, chickens and goats were treated with human antibiotics, and among the total range of human antibiotics reported, amoxicillin, tetracycline and penicillin were stated as used in animals in all three countries. The key themes identified to be driving crossover-use were: 1) medicine-providers’ and livestock-keepers’ perceptions of the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics, 2) livestock-keepers’ sources of information, 3) differences in availability of human and veterinary services and antibiotics, 4) economic incentives and pressures. Antibiotic crossover-use occurs in low-intensity production agricultural settings in geographically distinct low-and-middle income countries, influenced by a similar set of interconnected contextual drivers. Improving accessibility and affordability of veterinary medicines to both livestock-keepers and medicine-providers is required alongside interventions to address understanding of the differences between human and animal antibiotics, and potential dangers of antibiotic crossover-use in order to reduce the practice. A One Health approach to studying antibiotic use is necessary to understand the implications of antibiotic accessibility and use in one sector upon antibiotic use in other sectors.

Highlights• More than half of producers used multiple signs when treating calf pneumonia.• More than half of producers included systemic signs when treating calf diarrhea.• Farmers with a treatment protocol used multiple signs for antimicrobial use (bovine respiratory disease).• Farmers with a treatment protocol used systemic signs for antimicrobial use (scours).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract