Dr. David Dargatz - USDA Initiatives: Antimicrobial Drug Use/Resistance on Livestock Facilities Data

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use

9


Feedlot In-Feed Antimicrobial Use

10

Days


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

Percent Cattle

Feedlot Capacity (number head)

1,000–7,999 8,000 or more All feedlots

Antimicrobial class Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

New long-acting (label specifies

effect of greater than 24 hours,

e.g., Excenel®, Micotil®, Nuflor®,

Baytril®

9.6 (1.1) 14.3 (1.7) 13.6 (1.4)

Conventional long-acting (label

specifies effect of greater than 24

hours,

e.g., LA 200®)

2.9 (0.4) 4.8 (1.3) 4.5 (1.1)

New short-acting (label specifies

effect of less than 24 hours, e.g.,

Naxcel®)

1.5 (0.3) 4.4 (1.5) 3.9 (1.3)

Conventional short-acting (label

specifies effect of less than 24

hours, e.g., Tylan®, penicillin, Oxy-

Tet100™)

4.3 (1.3) 3.4 (0.7) 3.5 (0.6)

Any antimicrobial 16.1 (1.7) 19.5 (1.6) 19.0 (1.4)

11


Feedlot Injectable Antimicrobial Use

12


Results for Swine Operations (2006)

• Inference population = 73% operations and

94% pigs



• Antimicrobial selection/decision making


13

Safeguarding Animal Health 14




Results for Dairy Operations (2007)

• Inference population = 80% operations and

83% of dairy cows


• Intramammary use of antimicrobials



17








Use of Antimicrobials in Milk

Replacers

• 57.5% of dairy operations used medicated milk replacersLess common in larger operations (43.6%)

• Most common medicantsOxytetracycline with or without neomycin (71.4%)

Decoquinate (18.8%)

Chlortetracycline (12.1%)


Use of Antimicrobials in Heifer

Growing Rations

• 18.2% of dairy operations used antimicrobials in

weaned heifer rations

• Most common antimicrobials

Chlortetracycline products (14.4%)

Sulfa (5.7%)

Tetracycline (10.9%)


Feedlot 2011 Study

• More detailed injectable

use data

Disease condition

Feedlot demographics

Animal demographics

Drug class

• Feed/water use data

Feedlot demographics

Animal demographics

Drug class

26


Feedlot 2011 Study

• Antimicrobial selection

criteria/influences

• Training

• Records

27


Augmentation of NAHMS Studies

28


Salmonella and Antimicrobial

Resistance from NAHMS Studies

29



Additional Isolates Evaluated

• E. coli (generic)

• Campylobacter spp.

• Enterococcus spp.

• Clostridium difficile

31


Other USDA Actions Related to

Antimicrobial Use and Resistance

• Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

NARMS

Microbiology/microbial ecology

• Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

NARMS

Residue programs

• National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)

Extra-mural research funding

Extension/outreach

32


Other USDA Actions Related to

Antimicrobial Resistance

• Economic Research Service (ERS)

Agricultural resource management surveys

Economic impacts

• National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)

Agricultural chemical use surveys

33


Stakeholder Workshop to Identify

Gaps - Representation

• Outside government

Public health, consumers, producers,

veterinarians, pharmaceutical industry

• Federal partners

FDA, CDC, NIH

• USDA partners

34


Stakeholder Identified Gaps

• Measures of antimicrobial drug use and

resistance

• Management practices and impacts on

antimicrobial resistance

• Alternative medical interventions

• Education, training and extension/outreach

35


A USDA Plan to Address

Antimicrobial Resistance

• Prioritize actions based on stakeholder input

• Leverage resources across USDA agencies

• Collaborate across USDA agencies

• Status – under development within the

department

Actions are already occurring

36


Summary

• Antimicrobials are widely used in livestock

and poultry

• Use patterns vary widely by commodity/class

of animal

Products used

Level of use

Purpose of use

37


Summary

• Some data are available to characterize use

and resistance

• Limitations in data

Discontinuous estimates

Lacking quantitative data

• Challenging to understand the ecology of

resistance

• On-going efforts (USDA and others) should

help to fill some information gaps

38


More NAHMS Information

Available

USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000

E-mail: [email protected]

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

39


Questions/Discussion

Technology

Dr. David Dargatz - USDA Initiatives: Antimicrobial Drug Use/Resistance on Livestock Facilities Data