基于登记册的丹麦奶牛场成年牛抗生素使用报告比较分析。

IF 1.9 2区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Maj Beldring Henningsen, Jeanette Kristensen, Carsten Thure Kirkeby, Søren Saxmose Nielsen
{"title":"基于登记册的丹麦奶牛场成年牛抗生素使用报告比较分析。","authors":"Maj Beldring Henningsen, Jeanette Kristensen, Carsten Thure Kirkeby, Søren Saxmose Nielsen","doi":"10.1186/s13028-024-00763-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant global health concern, necessitating the monitoring of antimicrobial usage (AMU). However, there is a lack of consensus on the standardized collection and reporting of AMU data in the veterinary field. In Denmark, the Danish Cattle Database (DCDB) contains treatment information on animal level, which allows counting of number of treatments carried out, used daily doses (UDD). The Danish VetStat database (VetStat) contains information on veterinary medicinal prescriptions at farm level and uses fixed standard doses of each product to calculate number of daily treatments, animal daily doses (ADD). This study aimed to compare two different numerators, UDD and ADD, used to describe AMU on Danish cattle farms, and estimate their correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Routinely collected registry data from conventional dairy farms in Denmark for 2019 were used, including a total of 2,197 conventional dairy farms. The data from VetStat and the DCDB were aggregated and analysed, and treatment frequencies (TF) were calculated for both UDD and ADD, adjusting for farm size. Spearman correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plots were employed to assess the relationship and agreement between TF for ADD and UDD, respectively. The results showed a high correlation between TF for ADD and UDD for most prescription groups, i.e., groups used to categorise antibiotics based on target organs. An exception is found for the Udder prescription group, where a systematic underreporting of UDD compared to ADD was observed. This discrepancy may be due to combination treatments, and potential missing or grouped registrations in the DCDB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our UDD and ADD comparison yields valuable insights on farm-level AMU. We observe strong correlations between UDD and ADD, except for udder treatments, where some farms report only 1/3 UDD compared to ADD, indicating potential underreporting. Further investigations are needed to understand the factors contributing to these patterns and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of recorded information. Standardizing AMU data collection and reporting remains crucial to tackle the global challenge of AMR effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":7181,"journal":{"name":"Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica","volume":"66 1","pages":"40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11361197/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A registry-based comparative analysis of antibiotic usage reporting for adult cattle on Danish dairy farms.\",\"authors\":\"Maj Beldring Henningsen, Jeanette Kristensen, Carsten Thure Kirkeby, Søren Saxmose Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13028-024-00763-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant global health concern, necessitating the monitoring of antimicrobial usage (AMU). However, there is a lack of consensus on the standardized collection and reporting of AMU data in the veterinary field. In Denmark, the Danish Cattle Database (DCDB) contains treatment information on animal level, which allows counting of number of treatments carried out, used daily doses (UDD). The Danish VetStat database (VetStat) contains information on veterinary medicinal prescriptions at farm level and uses fixed standard doses of each product to calculate number of daily treatments, animal daily doses (ADD). This study aimed to compare two different numerators, UDD and ADD, used to describe AMU on Danish cattle farms, and estimate their correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Routinely collected registry data from conventional dairy farms in Denmark for 2019 were used, including a total of 2,197 conventional dairy farms. The data from VetStat and the DCDB were aggregated and analysed, and treatment frequencies (TF) were calculated for both UDD and ADD, adjusting for farm size. Spearman correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plots were employed to assess the relationship and agreement between TF for ADD and UDD, respectively. The results showed a high correlation between TF for ADD and UDD for most prescription groups, i.e., groups used to categorise antibiotics based on target organs. An exception is found for the Udder prescription group, where a systematic underreporting of UDD compared to ADD was observed. This discrepancy may be due to combination treatments, and potential missing or grouped registrations in the DCDB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our UDD and ADD comparison yields valuable insights on farm-level AMU. We observe strong correlations between UDD and ADD, except for udder treatments, where some farms report only 1/3 UDD compared to ADD, indicating potential underreporting. Further investigations are needed to understand the factors contributing to these patterns and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of recorded information. Standardizing AMU data collection and reporting remains crucial to tackle the global challenge of AMR effectively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11361197/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-024-00763-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-024-00763-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:抗菌药耐药性(AMR)是一个重大的全球健康问题,因此有必要对抗菌药使用情况(AMU)进行监测。然而,兽医领域对 AMU 数据的标准化收集和报告缺乏共识。在丹麦,丹麦牛数据库(DCDB)包含动物治疗信息,可统计治疗次数和日使用剂量(UDD)。丹麦兽医统计数据库(VetStat)包含农场一级的兽药处方信息,并使用每种产品的固定标准剂量来计算每日治疗次数,即动物日剂量(ADD)。本研究旨在比较用于描述丹麦养牛场 AMU 的两个不同数值 UDD 和 ADD,并估算它们之间的相关性:研究采用了丹麦常规奶牛场在 2019 年的例行收集登记数据,共包括 2,197 个常规奶牛场。对来自 VetStat 和 DCDB 的数据进行了汇总和分析,计算了 UDD 和 ADD 的处理频率 (TF),并对牧场规模进行了调整。斯皮尔曼相关分析和布兰德-阿尔特曼图分别用于评估 ADD 和 UDD 的处理频率之间的关系和一致性。结果显示,大多数处方组(即用于根据目标器官对抗生素进行分类的组别)的 ADD TF 与 UDD TF 之间具有高度相关性。但乳房处方组例外,与 ADD 相比,UDD 存在系统性低报。这种差异可能是由于联合治疗以及 DCDB 中潜在的登记遗漏或分组造成的:我们对 UDD 和 ADD 的比较为农场级 AMU 提供了有价值的见解。我们观察到 UDD 和 ADD 之间存在很强的相关性,但乳房处理除外,一些牧场报告的 UDD 仅为 ADD 的 1/3,表明可能存在漏报。需要进一步调查,以了解造成这些模式的因素,并确保记录信息的准确性和完整性。实现 AMU 数据收集和报告的标准化对于有效应对 AMR 这一全球性挑战仍然至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A registry-based comparative analysis of antibiotic usage reporting for adult cattle on Danish dairy farms.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant global health concern, necessitating the monitoring of antimicrobial usage (AMU). However, there is a lack of consensus on the standardized collection and reporting of AMU data in the veterinary field. In Denmark, the Danish Cattle Database (DCDB) contains treatment information on animal level, which allows counting of number of treatments carried out, used daily doses (UDD). The Danish VetStat database (VetStat) contains information on veterinary medicinal prescriptions at farm level and uses fixed standard doses of each product to calculate number of daily treatments, animal daily doses (ADD). This study aimed to compare two different numerators, UDD and ADD, used to describe AMU on Danish cattle farms, and estimate their correlation.

Results: Routinely collected registry data from conventional dairy farms in Denmark for 2019 were used, including a total of 2,197 conventional dairy farms. The data from VetStat and the DCDB were aggregated and analysed, and treatment frequencies (TF) were calculated for both UDD and ADD, adjusting for farm size. Spearman correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plots were employed to assess the relationship and agreement between TF for ADD and UDD, respectively. The results showed a high correlation between TF for ADD and UDD for most prescription groups, i.e., groups used to categorise antibiotics based on target organs. An exception is found for the Udder prescription group, where a systematic underreporting of UDD compared to ADD was observed. This discrepancy may be due to combination treatments, and potential missing or grouped registrations in the DCDB.

Conclusions: Our UDD and ADD comparison yields valuable insights on farm-level AMU. We observe strong correlations between UDD and ADD, except for udder treatments, where some farms report only 1/3 UDD compared to ADD, indicating potential underreporting. Further investigations are needed to understand the factors contributing to these patterns and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of recorded information. Standardizing AMU data collection and reporting remains crucial to tackle the global challenge of AMR effectively.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica is an open access journal encompassing all aspects of veterinary research and medicine of domestic and wild animals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信