Comparison of antimicrobial prescription patterns in calves in Switzerland before and after the launch of online guidelines for prudent antimicrobial use.
Animals
Anti-Infective Agents
/ administration & dosage
Cattle
Cattle Diseases
/ drug therapy
Diarrhea
/ drug therapy
Drug Prescriptions
/ statistics & numerical data
Drug Utilization Review
Female
Guideline Adherence
Guidelines as Topic
Humans
Male
Otitis
/ drug therapy
Pneumonia
/ drug therapy
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
Switzerland
Calf scours
Cattle
Crowding disease
Food-producing animals
Prescription patterns
Prudent use guidelines
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jan 2021
05 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
26
04
2020
accepted:
02
12
2020
entrez:
6
1
2021
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
2
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The increasing threat of bacterial resistance promotes the need for antibiotic stewardship programs to foster responsible antimicrobial use. Therefore, guidelines for prudent use supported by an online stewardship tool (AntibioticScout.ch) were introduced in Switzerland in December 2016. They recommend (with decreasing preference) a first, second or third line antimicrobial for treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate antimicrobial prescriptions for Swiss calves before (2016) and after (2018) the launch of these guidelines. Cases of calves with pneumonia, diarrhea and otitis from a university hospital and eight private practices in Switzerland were included. Data on anamnesis, clinical findings, diagnostic work-up and treatment were collected. Type and percentages [95% confidence interval] of antimicrobial prescriptions were compared between 2016 and 2018. Of the total number of calves, 88.2% [85.4-90.6] in 2016 (n = 625) and 88.4% [85.7-90.7] in 2018 (n = 655) were treated with antibiotics. The use of highest priority critically important antimicrobials (HPCIAs) decreased from 52.7% [48.6-56.9] in 2016 to 38.0% [34.2-41.9] in 2018; this decrease was found at the university hospital and in private practice and in cases with pneumonia and diarrhea. Particularly the use of fluoroquinolones decreased (2016: 43.1% [39.2-47.2]; 2018: 31.1% [27.6-34.8]). Overall, the number of first line treatments increased from 12.8% [10.4-15.6] in 2016 to 20.2% [17.3-23.4] in 2018. In cases of pneumonia, first line treatments increased (2016: 15.3% [11.6-19.9]; 2018: 26.5% [21.8-31.9]) and third line treatments decreased (2016: 43.5% [38.0-49.3]; 2018: 27.9% [23.1-33.3]); this was seen at the university hospital, whereas in private practice only a decrease of third line treatments was observed. In cases of diarrhea, more second line at the expense of unlisted antimicrobials were prescribed at the university hospital in 2018. Antimicrobial treatment of calves with otitis did not change from 2016 to 2018. After the introduction of AntibioticScout.ch, more prudent use was observed in the treatment of calves with pneumonia and diarrhea as less HPCIAs, particularly fluoroquinolones, and more first line antimicrobials were prescribed. However, the overall frequency of antimicrobial treatment did not change and the use of HPCIAs was still common in 2018, especially in private practices. Therefore, further antimicrobial stewardship activities are necessary.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The increasing threat of bacterial resistance promotes the need for antibiotic stewardship programs to foster responsible antimicrobial use. Therefore, guidelines for prudent use supported by an online stewardship tool (AntibioticScout.ch) were introduced in Switzerland in December 2016. They recommend (with decreasing preference) a first, second or third line antimicrobial for treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate antimicrobial prescriptions for Swiss calves before (2016) and after (2018) the launch of these guidelines. Cases of calves with pneumonia, diarrhea and otitis from a university hospital and eight private practices in Switzerland were included. Data on anamnesis, clinical findings, diagnostic work-up and treatment were collected. Type and percentages [95% confidence interval] of antimicrobial prescriptions were compared between 2016 and 2018.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the total number of calves, 88.2% [85.4-90.6] in 2016 (n = 625) and 88.4% [85.7-90.7] in 2018 (n = 655) were treated with antibiotics. The use of highest priority critically important antimicrobials (HPCIAs) decreased from 52.7% [48.6-56.9] in 2016 to 38.0% [34.2-41.9] in 2018; this decrease was found at the university hospital and in private practice and in cases with pneumonia and diarrhea. Particularly the use of fluoroquinolones decreased (2016: 43.1% [39.2-47.2]; 2018: 31.1% [27.6-34.8]). Overall, the number of first line treatments increased from 12.8% [10.4-15.6] in 2016 to 20.2% [17.3-23.4] in 2018. In cases of pneumonia, first line treatments increased (2016: 15.3% [11.6-19.9]; 2018: 26.5% [21.8-31.9]) and third line treatments decreased (2016: 43.5% [38.0-49.3]; 2018: 27.9% [23.1-33.3]); this was seen at the university hospital, whereas in private practice only a decrease of third line treatments was observed. In cases of diarrhea, more second line at the expense of unlisted antimicrobials were prescribed at the university hospital in 2018. Antimicrobial treatment of calves with otitis did not change from 2016 to 2018.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
After the introduction of AntibioticScout.ch, more prudent use was observed in the treatment of calves with pneumonia and diarrhea as less HPCIAs, particularly fluoroquinolones, and more first line antimicrobials were prescribed. However, the overall frequency of antimicrobial treatment did not change and the use of HPCIAs was still common in 2018, especially in private practices. Therefore, further antimicrobial stewardship activities are necessary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33402182
doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02704-w
pii: 10.1186/s12917-020-02704-w
pmc: PMC7786965
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Infective Agents
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2Subventions
Organisme : Swiss National Science Foundation
ID : NRP72 grant 407240_167054
Pays : Switzerland
Références
Res Vet Sci. 2014 Apr;96(2):229-33
pubmed: 24508188
Can Vet J. 2015 Jul;56(7):723-9
pubmed: 26130834
Vet Rec. 2014 Oct 4;175(13):325
pubmed: 24899065
Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2016 Jun;158(6):389-96
pubmed: 27504834
J Vet Intern Med. 2011 Jul-Aug;25(4):772-83
pubmed: 21745245
BMC Vet Res. 2016 Jun 06;12:89
pubmed: 27268043
Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2016 Dec;158(12):805-810
pubmed: 27934622
Zoonoses Public Health. 2007;54(9-10):344-52
pubmed: 18035972
J Dairy Sci. 2009 Sep;92(9):4707-14
pubmed: 19700735
J Dairy Sci. 2019 Jan;102(1):607-618
pubmed: 30415845
Eur J Epidemiol. 2016 Apr;31(4):337-50
pubmed: 27209009
Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2016 Jun;158(6):397-403
pubmed: 27504835
Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2018 Apr;160(4):219-226
pubmed: 29615380
Acta Vet Hung. 2008 Dec;56(4):485-93
pubmed: 19149103
Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2015 Jan;157(1):55-7
pubmed: 26753320
Med Care. 2008 Aug;46(8):847-62
pubmed: 18665065
Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2012 Jul;154(7):277-85
pubmed: 22753251
Microbiol Spectr. 2018 May;6(3):
pubmed: 29916349
Vet Rec. 2004 Dec 4;155(23):733-8
pubmed: 15623086
Lancet Planet Health. 2017 Nov;1(8):e316-e327
pubmed: 29387833
Vet Rec. 2017 Jul 7;181(2):45
pubmed: 28432193
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011 Jun;66(6):1223-30
pubmed: 21460369
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006 Feb 15;228(4):553-8
pubmed: 16478430
Med Care. 2006 Jul;44(7):617-28
pubmed: 16799356
Can Vet J. 2012 Sep;53(9):957-62
pubmed: 23450859
Vet Microbiol. 2019 Sep;236:108363
pubmed: 31500731
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010 Feb;35(1):71-8
pubmed: 20175814
Res Vet Sci. 2012 Aug;93(1):250-8
pubmed: 21620428
Prev Vet Med. 2015 Dec 1;122(3):273-9
pubmed: 26558514
J Vet Intern Med. 2004 Jan-Feb;18(1):8-17
pubmed: 14765726
Lancet. 2016 Jan 9;387(10014):176-87
pubmed: 26603922
Ir Vet J. 2011 Oct 21;64(1):14
pubmed: 22018053
Int J Med Microbiol. 2006 Jun;296 Suppl 41:33-8
pubmed: 16520092
Prev Vet Med. 2018 Dec 1;161:115-126
pubmed: 30466652
Ir Vet J. 2011 Sep 14;64(1):9
pubmed: 21917151
Vet J. 2017 Aug;226:15-25
pubmed: 28911836
Prev Vet Med. 2016 Apr 1;126:121-30
pubmed: 26897245
Vet Rec. 2013 Nov 16;173(19):475
pubmed: 24068699
Prev Vet Med. 2016 Sep 1;131:41-47
pubmed: 27544250
BMC Public Health. 2014 Dec 15;14:1276
pubmed: 25511932
Vaccine. 2002 Oct 4;20(29-30):3569-75
pubmed: 12297403
Front Microbiol. 2016 Mar 02;7:237
pubmed: 26973615
Res Vet Sci. 2012 Feb;92(1):162-8
pubmed: 21094507
Front Microbiol. 2017 Jan 06;7:2114
pubmed: 28111568
Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2001 Jul;143(7):341-50
pubmed: 11476040
BMC Vet Res. 2015 Dec 03;11:297
pubmed: 26634824
Vet Microbiol. 2014 Jul 16;171(3-4):269-72
pubmed: 24852141