Antimicrobial Use Indices—The Value of Reporting Antimicrobial Use in Multiple Ways Using Data From Canadian Broiler Chicken and Turkey Farms

Abstract

We have previously described the importance of using multiple indicators for reporting national farm-level antimicrobial use (AMU) information, but the distribution of flock-level AMU and how these indicators relate to each other has not yet been fully explored. Using farm-level surveillance data (2013-2019), for broiler chickens (n = 947 flocks) and turkeys (n = 427), this study aims to (1) characterize flock-level AMU and identify high users, (2) identify appropriate AMU indicators and biomass denominator [population correction unit (PCU) vs. kg weight at pre-slaughter], and (3) make recommendations on the application to veterinarian-producer and national-level reporting. Diverse AMU patterns were identified in broiler chickens (156 patterns) and turkeys (68 patterns); of these, bacitracin, reported by 25% of broiler chicken and 19% of turkey producers, was the most frequently occurring pattern. Depending on the indicator chosen, variations in reported quantity of use, temporal trends and relative ranking of the antimicrobials changed. Quantitative AMU analysis yielded the following results for broiler chickens: mean 134 mg/PCU; 507 number (n) of Canadian (CA) defined daily doses (DDDvet) per 1,000 chicken-days and 18 nDDDvetCA/PCU. Analysis in turkey flocks yielded the following: mean 64 mg/PCU, 99 nDDDvetCA/1,000 turkey-days at risk and 9 nDDDvetCA/PCU. Flocks were categorized based on the percentiles of the mg/PCU distribution: "medium" to "low" users (≤75th percentile) and "high" users (>75th percentile). The odds of being a high user in both broiler chickens and turkeys were significantly increased: if water medications were used, and if trimethoprim-sulfonamides, bacitracins, and tetracyclines were used. Pairwise correlation analysis showed moderate correlation between mg/PCU and the nDDDvetCA/1,000 animal days at risk and between mg/PCU and nDDDvetCA/PCU. Significantly high correlation between nDDDvetCA/1,000 animal days at risk and nDDDvetCA/PCU was observed, suggestive that either of these could be used for routine monitoring of trends in AMU. One source of discrepancy between the indicators was the antimicrobial. Understanding the Agunos et al. Flock-Level Distribution of AMU in Canadian Broiler Chickens and Turkeys choice of parameter input and effects on reporting trends in AMU will inform surveillance reporting best practices to help industry understand the impacts of their AMU reduction strategies and to best communicate the information to veterinarians, their producers, and other stakeholders.

Quantification and Trends of Antimicrobial Use in Commercial Broiler Chicken Production in Pakistan

“…Our results demonstrate a very high AMU in commercial broiler chicken farms (462.5 mg/PCU) compared to two previous farm-level studies from Canada of 134 [ 14 ] and 98–104 mg/PCU [ 15 ]. This figure is also excessively high when compared to the sales-data based global AMU of 148 mg/PCU [ 6 ].…”

Informing Stewardship Measures in Canadian Food Animal Species through Integrated Reporting of Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Data—Part II, Application

“…The following key findings were synthesized using a structured approach for AMU-AMR species level and multispecies integration. For the first time, the exploratory AMU indicator (nD-DDvetCA/kg animal biomass) (described in reference [28]) for total and class-specific AMU and the corresponding "composite" AMR outcomes (susceptible and multiclass resistance and homologous resistances) were utilized. Animal health data (syndromic and preventive health) were used as contextual information to understand the potential implications of the changes in AMU trends.…”

“…The CIPARS farm surveillance component provides AMU and AMR data to describe trends over time, differences between provinces/regions and variations between species. CIPARS previous work has highlighted the importance of using multiple AMU indicators for describing AMU exposure parameters [26,27], for understanding trends in both AMU and AMR in one CIPARS/FoodNet Canada Sentinel Site (descriptive only) [27], for characterizing flock distribution of AMU to identify high and low users of antimicrobials [28], and for using mg/kg animal biomass to study AMU and AMR associations [29]. To adapt to the rapidly evolving development of AMU metrics and indicators, CIPARS also explored how the current AMU indicators utilized in CIPARS reports relate to each other (i.e., weight based vs. dose-based) and how changes in denominator parameters affect levels of AMU (i.e., population correction unit based on animal population and average weight at treatment vs. kg animal biomass based on population and actual pre-slaughter live weights) [28].…”

“…The purpose of this paper is to apply a proposed structured methodology for routine species-specific synthesis, integration and reporting of AMU and AMR, to utilize summarized AMU and AMR indicators for multispecies integration and for international comparisons, and to utilize the animal health component of the surveillance questionnaire for context to assess flock and herd health implications due to changes in AMU. This approach was built on our previous work [26][27][28][29][30] and is envisaged to be incorporated into CIPARS farm-level data analysis annually to track the progress and impact of AMU interventions (e.g., Steps 1 to 3 of the poultry AMU reduction strategies [19,20]) and stewardship actions [18]. As with other surveillance systems, this integrated AMU-AMR reporting approach could be progressively improved to adapt as integrated surveillance best practices evolve and to address stakeholder/data user feedback.…”

Reduction in Antimicrobial Use and Resistance to Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli in Broiler Chickens, Canada, 2013–2019

“…We collected detailed AMU information, including the quantity of antimicrobial active ingredients administered, routes of administration (in ovo or subcutaneous injections at the hatchery, feed, and water) and primary reasons for use of antimicrobial (prophylaxis, growth promotion, or disease treatment). We also collected information on biosecurity, health status, and vaccination history (questionnaires were published elsewhere [16] as supplemental material).…”