Antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial use animal monitoring policies in Europe: Where are we ?

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance has been recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as one of the top three threats to human health. Any use of antibiotics in animals will ultimately also affect humans, and vice-versa. The importance of the appropriate monitoring of its usage and resistance has been repeatedly emphasized, as well as the need for global policies in this respect. Under the auspices of the EU research project EFFORT, the mapping of antimicrobial usage and resistance monitoring programs in ten European countries was performed, with a critical comparison with international and European guidelines/policies. Regarding the monitoring of resistance, we did not find important differences between countries. However, the current resistance monitoring systems are focused on food animal species (and fecal samples), ignoring, for example, companion animals. The scenario is different considering the monitoring of antibiotics use. In the recent years, there has been a significant effort to harmonize methodologies. Despite this, the reporting of antimicrobials use is still voluntary. A need for stronger policies was identified.

Antimicrobial Usage and Resistance in Companion Animals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Three European Countries

“…Yet, this will become mandatory for all member states of the European Union by 2030 at the latest [41]. Concerning AMR monitoring, European legislation provides specific guidelines for food-producing animals; however, companion animals are not included in this monitoring [42].…”

Phenotypic antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli strains isolated from swine husbandries in North Western Germany – temporal patterns in samples from laboratory practice from 2006 to 2017

“…Since the start of antibiotic usage records which have been required 2014, the median treatment frequency for weaners has been reduced from 4.79 to 3.02 and for fatteners from 1.19 to 0.3 [23,43,44]. Efforts to reduce antibiotic usage in livestock at working levels were accompanied by a radical strengthening of the veterinary control stipulated in the German Pharmaceutical Act in 2014 [25]. Treatment frequencies with respect to particular antibiotic substances reported in VetCab [22], but also continuously in the German Quality assurance database (www.…”

“…Due to the general nature of these data, so far, linking AMU to frequencies of AMR is not possible [24], and much more specialised livestock information is needed [25]. For assessing antibacterial resistance data from the field, the various resistance mechanisms in different bacterial species must be taken into account [26][27][28].…”

Why Antibiotic Use Data in Animals Needs to Be Collected and How This Can Be Facilitated

“…Considering the usefulness of AMU data, the availability of technology, and the higher educational levels of the younger livestock producers, it seems that at least some of the major requirements for increased availability of digital AMU are available in more economically developed countries. However, at the moment, very few countries actually have automated digital data collection for AMU ( 29 ). Therefore, most current analyses on AMU are based on sales data which have significant limitations as described previously, to which it can be added the fact that the sale of an antibiotic does not provide any information about its actual use (i.e.…”

“…Yet at the European level, for example, the animal species for which AMU data is currently collected are quite diverse, with some countries collecting information for all species, while others only collecting it just for the major livestock species (such as pigs or cattle). Furthermore, the technical unit used to measure AMU at the European level can be the Animal Daily Dose (ADD), the Defined Daily Dose (DDD), or simply mg, while the indicators can be, among others, mg/Population Correction Unit (PCU), mg/kg, “Treatment frequency,” or “Therapy index” ( 29 ).…”