Safeguarding Animal Health Bridging the Gap Between Animal Health and Human Health David A. Dargatz DVM, PhD U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary Services November 13, 2013 1 USDA Initiatives and Data on Antimicrobial Drug Use and Resistance on Livestock Facilities
40
Embed
Dr. David Dargatz - USDA Initiatives: Antimicrobial Drug Use/Resistance on Livestock Facilities Data
USDA Initiatives: Antimicrobial Drug Use/Resistance on Livestock Facilities Data - Dr. David Dargatz, Epidemiologist, USDA: APHIS Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, from the 2013 NIAA Symposium Bridging the Gap Between Animal Health and Human Health, November 12-14, 2013, Kansas City, MO, USA.
More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2013-niaa-antibiotics-bridging-the-gap-animal-health-human-health
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Safeguarding Animal Health
Bridging the Gap Between Animal
Health and Human Health
David A. Dargatz DVM, PhD
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Veterinary Services
November 13, 2013
1
USDA Initiatives and Data on Antimicrobial
Drug Use and Resistance on Livestock
Facilities
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
Safeguarding Animal Health
Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts
Bacterial Isolation/Testing
Study Productio
n setting
Year States Operations Sal Campy Entero E.
coli
C.
diff
MRSA
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 cow-
calf
1994 23 2713 Y
Feedlot99 Beef
feedlot
1999 12 520 Y Y Y Y
*Prevalence only
**E. coli O157 prevalence
Safeguarding Animal Health
Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts
Bacterial Isolation/Testing
Study Production
setting
Year States Operations Sal Campy Entero E.
coli
C.
diff
MRSA
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 Y
Beef 2007-08 Beef
Cow/calf
2008 24 2872 Y Y Y Y Y
Sheep 2011 Sheep 2011 22 887 Y Y Y Y
Feedlot 2011 Beef
Feedlot
2011 12 995 Y Y Y Y
Swine 2012 Swine 2012 13 Y Y Y
Dairy 2014 Dairy 2014 17 Y Y Y Y
Safeguarding Animal Health
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
Safeguarding Animal Health
Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use
9
Safeguarding Animal Health
Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use
10
Days
Safeguarding Animal Health
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