爱尔兰奶牛场抗菌剂使用的量化:三种记录方法的比较。

IF 3.7 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Journal of Dairy Science Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI:10.3168/jds.2024-24688
Hannah Martin, Edgar Garcia Manzanilla, Simon J More, Robert Hyde, Conor McAloon
{"title":"爱尔兰奶牛场抗菌剂使用的量化:三种记录方法的比较。","authors":"Hannah Martin, Edgar Garcia Manzanilla, Simon J More, Robert Hyde, Conor McAloon","doi":"10.3168/jds.2024-24688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Antimicrobial use (AMU) data are essential for monitoring usage over time, facilitating reduction strategies to combat the threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to both human and animal health. The objective of this study was to measure and describe AMU over a 12-mo period in Irish dairy herds and compare 3 different recording methods to a reference method. A sample of 33 Irish dairy herds were randomly selected from 6 private veterinary practices across Ireland. The herds were followed for a 12-mo period and their AMU was monitored using 3 recording methods: 1. Veterinary prescription data (VET), 2. The inventory of medicine bins on the farms (BIN), and 3. Farmer treatment records from herd recording software (APP). Each recording method was compared with a previously developed reference method for AMU. The reference method used was based on pre- and poststudy medicine stock on the farms combined with veterinary prescription data. Antimicrobial use was analyzed using both mass- and dosed-based metrics, including mass (mg) of antimicrobial active ingredient per population correction unit (mg/PCU), defined daily doses for animals (DDD<sub>VET</sub>) and defined course doses for animals (DCD<sub>VET</sub>). Median AMU was 16.24, 10.47, 8.87 and 15.55 mg/PCU by mass, and 2.43, 1.55, 1.19 and 2.26 DDD<sub>VET</sub> by dose for VET, BIN, APP, and reference method data, respectively. Reliability of the agreement between each pair of methods was quantified using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). When compared with the reference method, VET data had excellent reliability [95% confidence interval (CI) of CCC: 0.992-0.998]. The BIN data had good to excellent reliability [95% CI of CCC: 0.776-0.936]. The APP data had poor reliability when compared with the reference method [95% CI of CCC: -0.167-0.156]. Our results highlight that a small number of herds were contributing most to overall use and farmers showed varying levels of consistency in recording AMU. Veterinary data were the most reliable approach for assessing AMU when compared with a reference method of AMU. This is an important finding for the future monitoring of AMU at a national level.</p>","PeriodicalId":354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dairy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantification of antimicrobial use on Irish dairy farms: A comparison of three recording methods.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Martin, Edgar Garcia Manzanilla, Simon J More, Robert Hyde, Conor McAloon\",\"doi\":\"10.3168/jds.2024-24688\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Antimicrobial use (AMU) data are essential for monitoring usage over time, facilitating reduction strategies to combat the threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to both human and animal health. The objective of this study was to measure and describe AMU over a 12-mo period in Irish dairy herds and compare 3 different recording methods to a reference method. A sample of 33 Irish dairy herds were randomly selected from 6 private veterinary practices across Ireland. The herds were followed for a 12-mo period and their AMU was monitored using 3 recording methods: 1. Veterinary prescription data (VET), 2. The inventory of medicine bins on the farms (BIN), and 3. Farmer treatment records from herd recording software (APP). Each recording method was compared with a previously developed reference method for AMU. The reference method used was based on pre- and poststudy medicine stock on the farms combined with veterinary prescription data. Antimicrobial use was analyzed using both mass- and dosed-based metrics, including mass (mg) of antimicrobial active ingredient per population correction unit (mg/PCU), defined daily doses for animals (DDD<sub>VET</sub>) and defined course doses for animals (DCD<sub>VET</sub>). Median AMU was 16.24, 10.47, 8.87 and 15.55 mg/PCU by mass, and 2.43, 1.55, 1.19 and 2.26 DDD<sub>VET</sub> by dose for VET, BIN, APP, and reference method data, respectively. Reliability of the agreement between each pair of methods was quantified using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). When compared with the reference method, VET data had excellent reliability [95% confidence interval (CI) of CCC: 0.992-0.998]. The BIN data had good to excellent reliability [95% CI of CCC: 0.776-0.936]. The APP data had poor reliability when compared with the reference method [95% CI of CCC: -0.167-0.156]. Our results highlight that a small number of herds were contributing most to overall use and farmers showed varying levels of consistency in recording AMU. Veterinary data were the most reliable approach for assessing AMU when compared with a reference method of AMU. This is an important finding for the future monitoring of AMU at a national level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dairy Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dairy Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-24688\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dairy Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-24688","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

抗菌药使用量(AMU)数据对于监测一段时间内的使用情况至关重要,有助于制定减少抗菌药使用量的策略,以应对抗菌药耐药性(AMR)对人类和动物健康造成的威胁。这项研究的目的是测量和描述爱尔兰奶牛场在 12 个月内的抗菌药物使用情况,并将 3 种不同的记录方法与参考方法进行比较。研究人员从爱尔兰的 6 家私人兽医诊所随机抽取了 33 个爱尔兰奶牛牧场。对这些牛群进行了为期 12 个月的跟踪调查,并使用 3 种记录方法监测它们的 AMU:1.兽医处方数据 (VET);2.牧场药箱清单 (BIN);3.牛群记录软件中的牧场主治疗记录。牛群记录软件(APP)中的牧场主治疗记录。每种记录方法都与之前开发的 AMU 参考方法进行了比较。所使用的参考方法基于研究前后牧场的药品库存和兽医处方数据。抗菌药使用量的分析采用了质量和剂量两种指标,包括每个种群校正单位(mg/PCU)的抗菌药有效成分质量(mg)、规定的动物日剂量(DDDVET)和规定的动物疗程剂量(DCDVET)。按质量计算,VET、BIN、APP 和参考方法数据的 AMU 中位数分别为 16.24、10.47、8.87 和 15.55 mg/PCU,按剂量计算,AMU 中位数分别为 2.43、1.55、1.19 和 2.26 DDDVET。使用一致性相关系数(CCC)对每对方法之间的一致性可靠性进行了量化。与参考方法相比,VET 数据的可靠性极佳[CCC 的 95% 置信区间 (CI):0.992-0.998]。BIN 数据的可靠性为良至优[CCC 的 95% 置信区间:0.776-0.936]。与参考方法相比,APP 数据的可靠性较差[95% CI of CCC:-0.167-0.156]。我们的研究结果表明,少数畜群对AMU的总体使用率贡献最大,养殖户在记录AMU时表现出不同程度的一致性。与AMU参考方法相比,兽医数据是评估AMU最可靠的方法。这一发现对今后在全国范围内监测AMU具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Quantification of antimicrobial use on Irish dairy farms: A comparison of three recording methods.

Antimicrobial use (AMU) data are essential for monitoring usage over time, facilitating reduction strategies to combat the threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to both human and animal health. The objective of this study was to measure and describe AMU over a 12-mo period in Irish dairy herds and compare 3 different recording methods to a reference method. A sample of 33 Irish dairy herds were randomly selected from 6 private veterinary practices across Ireland. The herds were followed for a 12-mo period and their AMU was monitored using 3 recording methods: 1. Veterinary prescription data (VET), 2. The inventory of medicine bins on the farms (BIN), and 3. Farmer treatment records from herd recording software (APP). Each recording method was compared with a previously developed reference method for AMU. The reference method used was based on pre- and poststudy medicine stock on the farms combined with veterinary prescription data. Antimicrobial use was analyzed using both mass- and dosed-based metrics, including mass (mg) of antimicrobial active ingredient per population correction unit (mg/PCU), defined daily doses for animals (DDDVET) and defined course doses for animals (DCDVET). Median AMU was 16.24, 10.47, 8.87 and 15.55 mg/PCU by mass, and 2.43, 1.55, 1.19 and 2.26 DDDVET by dose for VET, BIN, APP, and reference method data, respectively. Reliability of the agreement between each pair of methods was quantified using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). When compared with the reference method, VET data had excellent reliability [95% confidence interval (CI) of CCC: 0.992-0.998]. The BIN data had good to excellent reliability [95% CI of CCC: 0.776-0.936]. The APP data had poor reliability when compared with the reference method [95% CI of CCC: -0.167-0.156]. Our results highlight that a small number of herds were contributing most to overall use and farmers showed varying levels of consistency in recording AMU. Veterinary data were the most reliable approach for assessing AMU when compared with a reference method of AMU. This is an important finding for the future monitoring of AMU at a national level.

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
Journal of Dairy Science
Journal of Dairy Science 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
17.10%
发文量
784
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the American Dairy Science Association®, Journal of Dairy Science® (JDS) is the leading peer-reviewed general dairy research journal in the world. JDS readers represent education, industry, and government agencies in more than 70 countries with interests in biochemistry, breeding, economics, engineering, environment, food science, genetics, microbiology, nutrition, pathology, physiology, processing, public health, quality assurance, and sanitation.
期刊最新文献
Development and evaluation of predictive models for pregnancy risk in UK dairy cows. Effect of thermal and non-thermal processing methods on the Structural and Functional Properties of Whey Protein from Donkey Milk. Genetic and environmental factors shaping goat milk oligosaccharide composition. Identification of nonsense variants in the genomes of 15 Murciano-Granadina bucks and analysis of their segregation in parent-offspring trios. Identifying strategies to enhance the milking and operator efficiency of herringbone and rotary parlor systems in Ireland.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1