BMC Veterinary Research

, 10:7 | Cite as

Feasibility study of veterinary antibiotic consumption in Germany - comparison of ADDs and UDDs by animal production type, antimicrobial class and indication

  • Roswitha Merle
  • Matthias Robanus
  • Christine Hegger-Gravenhorst
  • Yvonne Mollenhauer
  • Peter Hajek
  • Annemarie Käsbohrer
  • Walther Honscha
  • Lothar Kreienbrock
Open Access
Research article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Epidemiology, public health and modelling

Abstract

Background

Within a feasibility study the use of antibiotics in pigs and cattle was determined in 24 veterinary practices in Lower Saxony and on 66 farms in North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany. Focus was laid on the comparison of the Used Daily Doses (UDD) (dose per animal and day prescribed by the veterinarians) with the Defined Animal Daily Doses (ADD) (dose per animal and day calculated by means of recommended dosages and estimated live weights).

Results

For piglets and calves most of the UDD (50% and 46% of nUDD, respectively) were above the ADD (i.e. UDD/ADD-ratio above 1.25). Regarding sows, fattening pigs, dairy and beef cattle, most of the UDDs (49% to 65% of nUDD) were lower than the respective ADD (i.e. UDD/ADD-ratio below 0.8). In pigs, the UDDs of beta-lactams, fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins, and in cattle, those of macrolides and beta-lactams were often below the ADDs. Tetracyclines were frequently used above the recommended dose.

Enteric diseases were more often treated below the recommended dose than respiratory diseases, possibly due to overestimation of the live weight (diarrhea in young animals, respiratory diseases in elder animals) and consequently overestimation of the recommended dose.

Conclusion

Comparisons between UDD and ADD can be used to observe differences between antimicrobials and trends in the usage of antibiotics. But individual treatment comparisons of UDD and ADD must be interpreted carefully, because they may be due to lower live weights than estimated. Correlating such data with data on the occurrence of resistant bacteria in future may help to improve resistance prevention and control.

Keywords

VetCAb Livestock Tetracyclines Fluoroquinolones Macrolides Cephalosporins 

Background

Use of antibiotics causes the risk of selecting for resistant bacteria [1, 2]. In order to avoid resistances and to ensure therapeutic efficacy prudent use of antimicrobials is necessary [3]. In Germany, the respective guidelines were published by the working group “veterinary drugs” of the Federal Veterinary Chamber [4].

According to the EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards, resistance monitoring has to be supplemented by the collection of data on the antibiotic use in humans as well as in the veterinary sector [5]. The German Antibiotic Resistance Strategy DART released by the German ministries in 2008 identified the collection of sales and consumption data as one of the measures which should be taken to control antibiotic resistances in human and veterinary medicine [6]. The European Medicines Agency EMA initiated the European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption ESVAC, a project which collects sales data from EU member states in a harmonized protocol [7, 8, 9]. While this project started in 2005 with 10 countries, participation increased in 2010 to 19 countries [10] and in 2011 to 25 countries [11]. In this project, a decrease in the consumption of antibiotics by 8.2% between 2005 and 2009 was observed, between 2010 and 2011 the decline varied from 0 to 28% in the regularly participating countries. However, the authors stated that this decrease may be due to antimicrobials with high dosages (e.g. tetracyclines) having been replaced by antimicrobials with lower dosages, e.g., fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins, and pleuromutilins. The animal population per country was expressed as population correction units (PCU) which relates the numbers of animals per animal species to the respective live weights. The calculated results in mg per PCU differed widely between the countries in nearly all antimicrobial classes, accounted for in part by different distributions of animal species. Countries with a high percentage of pigs seem to use more mg active ingredients per PCU than others. The impact of tetracyclines (mg/PCU) ranged from 4 to 59% of all mg/PCU (average 39%), while cephalosporins reached an average of 0.5% of all mg/PCU.

Currently, some Scandinavian countries like Denmark [12], Sweden [13], and Norway [14] collect data from pharmacies, distributors and the pharmaceutical industry, which reflect the amount of antimicrobials used in the individual animal populations. In contrast to this, in Germany, within a scientific study [15] data were collected on the amount used by veterinarians as well as the number of treatments. This was possible, as veterinarians sell antimicrobials directly to the farmer, and detailed records are kept on this. In other European countries veterinarians distribute drugs directly as well, e.g., in France, Austria, the United Kingdom and in Switzerland [16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. In Austria, sales data are collected on a mandatory basis, but data on antibiotic use are evaluated completely only for poultry, and on study basis for cattle and pigs [9, 20]. In the Netherlands, the situation is similar to that in Austria with complete sales data, complete consumption data in poultry and study data for pigs and cattle [21]. In Switzerland, complete data on sales and study data on consumption are available as well [10, 11, 16, 20].

Denmark has very strict regulations regarding the documentation of antibiotic use in livestock. Veterinarians have to enter all cases of application of antibiotics into a database. The degree to which prescription data are currently used for quantification of antimicrobial usage is varying between these countries.

Detailed data on the use of antibiotics in farm animals – e.g., by species, age and number of animals, indication of treatment and treatment duration – can only be collected and evaluated when respective farm characteristics as well as prescription details are known.

Three general concepts are available for analyzing the data and quantifying the antibiotic use. First, the amount of active ingredients per se can be used. This variable is precise, but must be regarded separately for each antimicrobial [22] and depends very much on the population size and type of production considered. Secondly, the frequency of applications, e.g., the number of Used Daily Doses (nUDD), can be calculated, if detailed application data are available [23]. The third option is to estimate an application frequency by sales or usage data, if application details are not available. Several concepts from different countries exist for calculating this third option, e.g., Defined Animal Daily Doses (ADD) in Denmark [12, 22] and in the Netherlands [21].

Usually, this type of data is used for estimating the number of Defined Animal Daily Doses (nADD) by dividing the amount per antimicrobial used by the previously fixed Animal Daily Dose (ADD), which is the product of expected dosage and the average animal weight. If more detailed data are collected, the number of Used Daily Doses (nUDD = number of animals treated multiplied by the treatment days and the number of active ingredients in the product) or the number of Prescribed Daily Dose (nPDD) per livestock unit and per ATCVetCode can be calculated [24].

One study from Belgium compared nUDD and nADD regarding treatment incidences and showed only slight differences [25]. Other studies also use UDD and ADD for dosage comparisons. Regula et al. investigated prescription patterns of antimicrobials in veterinary practices in Switzerland and observed that most of the prescriptions were dosed within the recommended range in cattle and calves as well as in fattening pigs [26]. Overdosing was seen in adult pigs and dogs. Dosage patterns differ between antimicrobial classes with common dosage above the recommended range for tetracyclines, and underdosing for sulfonamides, aminoglycosides and quinolones. González et al. [27] found similar results on Swiss dairy farms with 30 – 55% underdosing depending on antimicrobial classes and overdosing of cephalosporins, sulfonamides & trimethoprim and macrolides. Pardon et al. [28] reported underdosing in 43.7% of treatments in veal calves. In a study of 50 pig herds in Belgium, the authors stated that parenteral treatment was generally overdosed, while oral applications were often underdosed [29].

In order to evaluate the preconditions for a German monitoring system of veterinary antibiotic use, a feasibility study “VetCAb” (Veterinary consumption of antibiotics) was carried out that collected consumption data in a bottom-up approach [15]. Parts of the study that concern the UDD per animal and year as well as the administration routes have already been published [15].

The aim of the analysis presented here focuses on comparing the number of UDDs with the number of ADDs by the UDD/ADD-ratio per antimicrobial class and to discuss the impact of the type of indicator calculated on the interpretation of the usage patterns by animal groups. For this purpose, also UDD/ADD-ratios for administration routes and indications were calculated separately. As on EU level only data on nADDs might be available in the future [30], it is discussed whether the calculating nADD has major pitfalls for assessing of the antibiotic use in livestock.

Methods

Data from the feasibility study in Germany, already previously described [15] were used for this additional analysis. Briefly, in the study were 24 veterinary surgeries as well as 66 livestock farms involved. All applications of antibiotics of a one-year-period (September 1, 2006 – August 31, 2007) were assessed [15]. The data sources were the veterinarians’ official application records following article 13 of the Regulation of Veterinary Pharmacies [31]. These documents contain information on animal species, age and number of animals, the trade name of the pharmaceutical drug and the amount (ml, g or injectors) as well as the indication, pharmaceutical form, and duration of the treatment for every drug administered separately.

In order to validate the identity and amount of the administered drugs relevant data from the system of the Veterinary Information Service for Drug Use, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Legislation VETIDATA (http://www.vetidata.de) were made available to the study database for background information on the drugs.

All analyses were carried out for the individual antimicrobials and antimicrobial classes. For each record the administered or prescribed amount of active ingredient was calculated. The number of used daily doses nUDD was defined as the number of animals treated multiplied by the treatment days (both noted in the record) and by the number of active ingredients in the product. The Used Daily Dose UDD was calculated as g active ingredients per animal and day for each antimicrobial per record (amount active ingredients per antimicrobial divided by number of animals treated and treatment days). The number of Defined Animal Daily Doses nADD was calculated according to Merle et al. [15] and Jensen et al. [22]. In short, the Defined Animal Daily Dose ADD for each antimicrobial and production type was calculated by multiplying the recommended dosage for this antimicrobial and the standard weight for the species, weight group/production type for the respective animal production type. Dividing the amount of active ingredients per record by this ADD resulted in the nADD. The standard weight for the animal species, weight group/production type was derived from estimated live weights at treatment of livestock as defined according to Merle et al. [15] and MARAN 2007 [32] as follows: sows 220 kg, suckling piglets 12.5 kg, weaners 25 kg, finishers 70.2 kg, cows and bulls 600 kg, calves 80 kg. The recommended dosage (mg active substance/kg live weight and day) was defined for both parenteral and oral application separately for the species cattle and pigs on the basis of the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) and in some cases are based on information from the scientific literature and expert opinions as laid down in the VETIDATA system.

In order to compare usage patterns for different animal groups, antimicrobials, administration routes and indications, for each record the UDD was divided by the ADD to obtain the UDD/ADD-ratio per record. Ratios between 0.8 and 1.25 were regarded as appropriate. Ratios under 0.8 were regarded as “below recommended dose” and those ratios above 1.25 were denoted as “above recommended dose”. In the tables, results are displayed as percentages of records and of nUDDs that were below, within or above the respective recommended dose.

46,201 complete records from pigs and cattle were considered for analysis. Locally administered antibiotics as well as incomplete records were excluded. For analyses per antimicrobial, the antimicrobials of preparations with two or three active ingredients were regarded separately, leading to 58,923 antimicrobial-related data set entries.

Descriptive statistical analyses, analyses of variance as well as chi-square-statistics were carried out using SAS®, Version 9.2 TS Level 1 M3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). In order to compare the differences between the percentage of records and the respective percentage of nUDD per dose category, analyses of variance were carried out.

Results

In total, 57% of all records were related to pigs, resulting in 96% of all nUDD and 94% of all nADD. Data for piglets, sows and fattening pigs are summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Table 1

Percentages of records and nUDDs with doses below, within and above the recommended doses in piglets in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Records

%

 

Below

Within

Above

   

nUDD

%

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

Macrolides

984

7.7

1599436

12.2

24.7

51.2

23.0

18.2

52.3

30.6

Beta-Lactams

4879

38.3

2942528

22.4

38.6

32.1

15.9

15.6

45.5

52.2

Aminoglycosides

725

5.7

308031

2.3

55.6

26.1

7.6

3.6

36.8

70.3

Fenicoles

158

1.2

18798

0.1

1.9

14.0

26.6

30.9

71.5

55.1

Tetracyclines

1841

14.4

2943293

22.4

25.1

26.0

21.2

27.5

53.7

46.4

Lincosamides

542

4.2

478013

3.6

40.8

56.8

38.9

15.7

20.3

27.5

Polypeptides

1285

10.1

1942674

14.8

24.6

20.2

20.2

19.1

55.3

60.7

Sulfonamides

707

5.5

2222599

16.9

27.6

15.6

25.2

21.5

47.2

62.9

Fluoroquinolones

882

6.9

144637

1.1

26.0

41.0

18.5

23.2

55.6

35.8

Cephalosporins

497

3.9

143417

1.1

23.5

39.4

5.4

4.8

71.0

55.8

Pleuromutilines

255

2.0

384482

2.9

46.3

57.6

29.4

26.7

24.3

15.7

All

12755

100.0

13127908

100.0

32.9

30.2

18.8

20.2

48.3

49.7

Table 2

Percentages of records and nUDDs with doses below, within and above the recommended doses in sows in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Records

%

 

Below

Within

Above

   

nUDD

%

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

Macrolides

163

2.8

24581

3.4

43.6

82.7

33.7

14.5

22.7

2.8

Beta-Lactams

1832

31.4

159867

22.3

36.7

82.2

26.3

10.4

37.0

7.3

Aminoglycosides

359

6.2

7658

1.1

55.7

83.4

8.9

4.3

35.4

12.3

Fenicoles

78

1.3

1074

0.1

17.9

39.9

46.2

45.3

35.9

14.9

Tetracyclines

617

10.6

340661

47.5

32.4

56.9

21.9

17.3

45.7

25.9

Lincosamides

180

3.1

17671

2.5

71.1

94.8

15.6

2.4

13.3

2.8

Polypeptides

162

2.8

39314

5.5

84.6

75.5

10.5

12.8

4.9

11.8

Sulfonamides

738

12.7

86593

12.1

80.1

52.3

7.6

21.0

12.3

26.7

Fluoroquinolones

1131

19.4

21185

3.0

34.5

60.0

20.7

16.0

44.8

24.0

Cephalosporins

555

9.5

11257

1.6

35.9

78.1

16.8

9.3

47.4

12.7

Pleuromutilines

17

0.3

7314

1.0

35.3

3.0

58.8

97.0

5.9

0.0

All

5832

100.0

717175

100.0

44.7

64.9

20.2

16.0

35.1

19.0

Table 3

Percentages of records and nUDDs with doses below, within and above the recommended doses in fattening pigs in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Records

%

 

Below

Within

Above

   

nUDD

%

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

Macrolides

1447

9.7

2107065

16.3

46.1

75.9

27.5

18.3

26.4

5.8

Beta-Lactams

4862

32.6

2906106

22.5

37.1

41.3

19.9

29.2

43.0

29.6

Aminoglycosides

626

4.2

157925

1.2

88.2

55.0

8.8

34.1

3.0

10.9

Fenicoles

491

3.3

22549

0.2

7.1

18.9

38.5

43.5

54.4

37.5

Tetracyclines

2814

18.9

3823986

29.6

33.9

44.3

25.3

31.0

40.7

24.7

Lincosamides

1032

6.9

564908

4.4

46.0

57.9

28.2

28.4

25.8

13.7

Polypeptides

593

4.0

1116686

8.6

34.9

34.3

26.1

29.6

39.0

36.1

Sulfonamides

749

5.0

1663887

12.9

54.6

38.2

18.3

29.8

27.1

32.0

Fluoroquinolones

1414

9.5

93777

0.7

14.9

41.4

28.3

19.6

56.8

39.0

Cephalosporins

466

3.1

42230

0.3

36.5

74.1

25.5

15.4

38.0

10.6

Pleuromutilines

424

2.8

428155

3.3

71.7

78.3

21.7

17.8

6.6

3.9

All

14918

100.0

12927274

100.0

38.8

49.0

23.6

27.6

37.6

23.4

In piglets, 22% of all records accounted for 47% of all nUDD and 58% of all nADD. Beta-lactams and tetracyclines were used most often (nUDD) followed by sulfonamides & trimethoprim (Table 1). 48% of the records and 50% of nUDD were above the recommended dose (i.e. UDD/ADD-ratio above 1.25), and only 19% of the records (20% of nUDD) were within the recommended dose (i.e. UDD/ADD-ratio between 0.8 and 1.25). Tetracyclines and polypeptides were more often above the recommended dose than within or below the recommended dose.

10% of all records, but only 2.6% of all nUDD and 1.7% of nADD were linked to sows (Table 2). All antimicrobial classes were used to some extent below the recommended dose, but 35% of the records showed doses above the recommended dose. Differences between the percentage of records and the percentage of nUDD were statistically significant (analysis of variance, p-value 0.0038).

Fattening pigs accounted for the highest number of records (25%) and of nUDD (46%) (34% of nADD)(Table 3). Apart from sulfonamides & trimethoprim, fenicoles, and polypeptides, all antimicrobials were used below the recommended dose. 39% of the records were below the recommended dose (49% of nUDD), 38% above (23% of nUDD) (statistically significant differences between% of records and% of nUDD in the analysis of variance, p-value 0.0167).

14% of all records, but only 4% of all nUDD and 6% of nADD related to calves (Table 4). Calves often received higher doses than recommended. The frequently used antimicrobial classes tetracyclines and sulfonamides & trimethoprim had 63% and 46% of nUDD above the recommended dose, respectively.
Table 4

Percentages of records and nUDDs with doses below, within and above the recommended doses in calves in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Records

%

 

Below

Within

Above

nUDD

%

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

Macrolides

811

9.6

30229

2.7

9.4

8.2

38.5

27.9

52.2

63.9

Beta-Lactams

2176

25.7

146041

13.3

47.6

41.4

23.0

22.0

29.4

36.6

Aminoglycosides

1023

12.1

90515

8.2

55.7

61.2

29.2

30.7

15.1

8.1

Fenicoles

636

7.5

10934

1.0

46.9

73.8

27.2

15.8

25.9

10.4

Tetracyclines

892

10.5

333302

30.3

17.7

24.0

15.4

13.5

66.9

62.5

Polypeptides

231

2.7

44368

4.0

45.9

15.4

22.5

52.4

31.6

32.2

Sulfonamides

566

6.7

411779

37.5

28.1

23.6

22.4

30.3

49.5

46.1

Fluoroquinolones

1805

21.3

27814

2.5

31.6

63.7

24.4

13.6

44.0

22.7

Cephalosporins

339

4.0

4536

0.4

12.4

38.0

26.3

12.5

61.4

49.5

All

8479

100.0

1099518

100.0

35.6

30.0

25.1

24.3

39.3

45.7

1.7% of records, 0.1% of nUDD and 0.05% of nADD were linked to dairy cattle. Beta-lactams, cephalosporins and sulfonamides & trimethoprim accounted for the highest numbers of nUDD (Table 5). 44% of the records were below the recommended dose, but 28% above (analysis of variance, p-value 0.0238). Only tetracyclines were often above the recommended dose. Cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones were less frequently below the recommended dose than the other antimicrobials.
Table 5

Percentages of records and nUDDs with doses below, within and above the recommended doses in dairy cattle in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Records

%

 

Below

Within

Above

   

nUDD

%

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

Macrolides

824

5.2

4538

5.3

35.1

60.8

49.4

33.5

15.5

5.7

Beta-Lactams

4737

29.7

22766

26.5

46.7

64.6

26.3

20.2

26.9

15.2

Aminoglycosides

1291

8.1

5300

6.2

68.2

70.4

17.3

20.0

14.6

9.6

Fenicoles

81

0.5

714

0.8

86.4

96.2

12.3

3.6

1.2

0.1

Tetracyclines

555

3.5

6243

7.3

42.7

36.1

9.5

12.2

47.7

51.7

Polypeptides

510

3.2

2366

2.8

58.6

83.8

19.0

10.5

22.4

5.7

Sulfonamides

1209

7.6

15926

18.5

88.5

68.4

3.5

20.1

8.0

11.5

Fluoroquinolones

2713

17.0

11780

13.7

21.9

55.5

36.7

20.7

41.4

23.8

Cephalosporins

4009

25.2

16309

19.0

33.8

36.0

35.9

37.7

30.3

26.3

All

15929

100.0

85942

100.0

44.0

57.5

28.4

23.3

27.6

19.2

Only 2% of all records and 0.1% of all nUDD as well as of all nADD were related to beef cattle (Table 6). For most antimicrobial classes treatments were often below the recommended dose, but treatments with tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins were rarely below the recommended dose.
Table 6

Percentages of records and nUDDs with doses below, within and above the recommended doses in beef cattle in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Records

%

 

Below

Within

Above

   

nUDD

%

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

Macrolides

141

14.0

1132

6.0

57.4

56.9

35.5

37.1

7.1

6.0

Beta-Lactams

465

46.0

4698

25.0

71.6

90.3

18.1

7.2

10.3

2.5

Aminoglycosides

17

1.7

86

0.5

52.9

57.0

23.5

32.6

23.5

10.5

Fenicoles

114

11.3

1184

6.3

92.1

98.4

6.1

1.3

1.8

0.3

Tetracyclines

56

5.5

6233

33.1

50.0

15.6

12.5

6.9

37.5

77.5

Polypeptides

2

0.2

49

0.3

100.0

100.0

.

.

.

.

Sulfonamides

16

1.6

4586

24.4

68.8

85.0

18.8

12.0

12.5

3.1

Fluoroquinolones

111

11.0

479

2.5

27.9

22.1

20.7

22.8

51.4

55.1

Cephalosporins

88

8.7

380

2.0

33.0

28.7

31.8

36.8

35.2

34.5

All

1010

100.0

18827

100.0

62.3

59.7

20.4

10.8

17.3

29.6

The majority of nUDD were administered orally to pigs as well as to cattle (Table 7). In pigs, the distribution of records and nUDD regarding the dose categories differed only slightly between parenteral and oral applications. Only in fattening pigs were oral applications more frequently below the recommended dose than parenteral applications (chi-square-test, p-value < 0.0001).
Table 7

Percentages of records and nUDDs with doses below, within and above the recommended doses per administration route and animal group in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Records

%

 

Below

Within

Above

    

nUDD

%

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

Piglets

Parenteral

7090

55.6

1366875

10.4

34.9

47.8

17.8

16.2

47.3

36.0

Oral

5665

44.4

11761033

89.6

30.3

28.1

20.1

20.6

49.6

51.3

All

12755

100.0

13127908

100.0

32.9

30.2

18.8

20.2

48.3

49.7

Sows

Parenteral

5143

88.2

112166

15.6

44.9

74.9

20.0

11.9

35.1

13.3

Oral

689

11.8

605009

84.4

43.1

63.1

21.6

16.8

35.3

20.1

All

5832

100.0

717175

100.0

44.7

64.9

20.2

16.0

35.1

19.0

Fattening Pigs

Parenteral

8912

59.7

626469

4.8

35.0

62.5

21.4

15.1

43.6

22.4

Oral

6006

40.3

12300805

95.2

44.4

48.3

26.8

28.2

28.8

23.4

All

14918

100.0

12927274

100.0

38.8

49.0

23.6

27.6

37.6

23.4

Calves

Parenteral

6573

77.5

120400

11.0

37.4

69.7

27.1

15.1

35.5

15.2

Oral

1906

22.5

979118

89.0

29.2

25.1

18.2

25.5

52.6

49.4

All

8479

100.0

1099518

100.0

35.6

30.0

25.1

24.3

39.3

45.7

Dairy Cattle

Parenteral

15851

99.5

69855

81.3

44.0

58.5

28.4

23.6

27.6

17.9

Oral

78

0.5

16087

18.7

44.9

53.2

16.7

22.1

38.5

24.7

All

15929

100.0

85942

100.0

44.0

57.5

28.4

23.3

27.6

19.2

Beef Cattle

Parenteral

966

95.6

6657

35.4

63.4

75.6

20.4

15.3

16.3

9.1

Oral

44

4.4

12170

64.6

38.6

51.0

20.5

8.3

40.9

40.7

 

All

1010

100.0

18827

100.0

62.3

59.7

20.4

10.8

17.3

29.6

In cattle, oral applications were more often above the recommended dose, whereas most of the doses of parenteral applications were below the recommended dose. Differences regarding the dose category between oral and parenteral applications (records) were statistically significant (chi-square-test, p-value < 0.0001).

Predominant indications for antimicrobial agents used in this study were respiratory diseases, as intestinal diseases (Table 8). Apart from sows and dairy cattle, the percentage of records below the recommended dose was higher regarding enteric diseases than respiratory diseases (chi-square-test, p-value < 0.0001 for piglets, fattening pigs and calves).
Table 8

Percentages of records and nUDDs with doses below, within and above the recommended doses per indication and animal group in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Records

%

 

Below

Within

Above

    

nUDD

%

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

% Records

% nUDD

Piglets

Respiratory disease

5093

39.9

5904075

45.0

24.1

18.2

23.7

24.1

52.2

57.6

Skin disease

303

2.4

106938

0.8

48.2

30.7

21.5

19.8

30.4

49.5

Enteric disease

2914

22.8

4154307

31.6

33.5

33.8

18.1

18.9

48.4

47.3

Articular disease

688

5.4

113860

0.9

76.0

80.7

6.7

6.3

17.3

13.1

CNS disease

11

0.1

2554

0.0

18.2

78.3

18.2

7.9

63.6

13.8

Reproductive system disease

22

0.2

49900

0.4

40.9

72.9

36.4

16.6

22.7

10.5

Other

3722

29.2

2796054

21.3

35.1

47.1

14.6

14.3

50.3

38.6

All

12753

100.0

13127688

100.0

32.9

30.2

18.8

20.2

48.3

49.7

Sows

Respiratory disease

991

17.0

175959

24.5

57.0

73.6

20.2

18.0

22.8

8.3

Skin disease

34

0.6

526

0.1

47.1

42.8

14.7

35.9

38.2

21.3

Enteric disease

171

2.9

77547

10.8

50.3

67.2

21.6

19.7

28.1

13.0

Articular disease

161

2.8

1907

0.3

32.3

62.6

24.2

15.5

43.5

21.9

CNS disease

1

0.0

3

0.0

.

.

100.0

100.0

.

.

Udder disease

66

1.1

377

0.1

39.4

45.4

21.2

15.1

39.4

39.5

Reproductive system disease

2428

41.6

69830

9.7

47.9

57.8

11.5

12.7

40.6

29.5

Other

1980

34.0

391026

54.5

35.3

61.9

30.5

15.0

34.2

23.1

All

5832

100.0

717175

100.0

44.7

64.9

20.2

16.0

35.1

19.0

Fattening pigs

Respiratory disease

8273

55.5

6138179

47.5

37.3

42.0

23.9

29.0

38.8

29.0

Skin disease

643

4.3

52603

0.4

29.5

66.8

11.8

19.9

58.6

13.2

Enteric disease

2539

17.0

4931365

38.2

50.6

56.2

26.9

27.1

22.4

16.7

Articular disease

511

3.4

15563

0.1

38.4

77.7

15.5

8.6

46.2

13.6

CNS disease

2

0.0

80

0.0

100.0

100.0

.

.

.

.

Reproductive system disease

66

0.4

51465

0.4

43.9

95.1

21.2

3.5

34.8

1.4

Other

2881

19.3

1731489

13.4

34.5

50.9

23.8

25.5

41.7

23.6

All

14915

100.0

12920744

100.0

38.8

49.0

23.6

27.6

37.6

23.4

Calves

Respiratory disease

4624

54.6

794350

72.2

27.2

26.5

26.1

22.6

46.7

50.9

Skin disease

92

1.1

490

0.0

44.6

32.7

12.0

11.8

43.5

55.5

Enteric disease

1586

18.7

175228

15.9

51.5

48.1

21.1

27.6

27.4

24.3

Articular disease

216

2.6

3528

0.3

64.8

83.1

18.5

10.3

16.7

6.5

CNS disease

10

0.1

25

0.0

30.0

12.0

10.0

4.0

60.0

84.0

Reproductive system disease

1

0.0

2

0.0

.

.

.

.

100.0

100.0

Other

1936

22.9

125851

11.4

39.0

25.2

27.7

31.0

33.3

43.8

All

8465

100.0

1099474

100.0

35.6

30.0

25.1

24.3

39.3

45.7

Dairy cattle

Respiratory disease

1497

9.4

20123

23.4

60.8

64.4

18.8

21.3

20.4

14.3

Skin disease

893

5.6

3840

4.5

27.1

30.2

34.9

38.8

38.0

31.0

Enteric disease

202

1.3

2678

3.1

54.5

81.1

26.7

8.4

18.8

10.5

Articular disease

728

4.6

3115

3.6

27.2

32.5

38.2

41.4

34.6

26.0

CNS disease

4

0.0

4

0.0

50.0

50.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

Udder disease

6394

40.1

21296

24.8

38.2

45.8

31.2

31.0

30.6

23.2

Reproductive system disease

1386

8.7

5214

6.1

55.0

60.2

19.4

16.8

25.6

23.0

Other

4825

30.3

29672

34.5

48.5

64.8

27.5

17.6

23.9

17.5

All

15929

100.0

85942

100.0

44.0

57.5

28.4

23.3

27.6

19.2

Beef cattle

Respiratory disease

489

48.4

12270

65.2

64.8

54.3

18.0

10.4

17.2

35.2

Skin disease

55

5.4

201

1.1

41.8

32.8

40.0

46.8

18.2

20.4

Enteric disease

13

1.3

1590

8.4

38.5

93.4

30.8

5.9

30.8

0.7

Articular disease

158

15.6

1333

7.1

74.1

89.3

16.5

8.6

9.5

2.1

Reproductive system disease

4

0.4

4

0.0

75.0

75.0

25.0

25.0

.

.

Other

291

28.8

3429

18.2

56.4

53.2

22.3

12.9

21.3

33.9

 

All

1010

100.0

18827

100.0

100.0

59.7

20.4

10.8

17.3

29.6

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the distribution of the used dosages and the respective recommended dosage per antimicrobial and per administration route for pigs and cattle respectively. For pigs and cattle differently, for a few antimicrobials the used dosages were frequently below the respective recommended dosage. In pigs, only spectinomycin and pleuromutilines showed lower dosages than recommended, whereas oxytetracycline was frequently used above the recommended dosage. In cattle, tetracycline was frequently used above the recommended dosage, while for ampicillin, spectinomycin, and sulfonamides & trimethoprim used dosages were below the recommended dosage.
Table 9

Used and recommended dosages per antimicrobial and administration route in pigs in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Used dosage

Recommended dosage

Records

25%-Quartile

Median

75%-Quartile

Macrolides

Acetylisovaleryltylosin

Oral

2

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.0

Erythromycin

Parenteral

17

11.1

13.3

16.7

22.0

Tilmicosin

Oral

110

7.1

12.3

19.0

20.0

Tulathromycin

Parenteral

547

2.0

4.0

8.0

2.5

Tylosin

Parenteral

749

12.5

17.5

24.0

15.0

Oral

1169

8.5

12.1

19.2

17.0

Beta-Lactames

Amoxicillin

Parenteral

2249

13.9

18.5

30.0

10.0

Oral

2792

20.0

34.8

57.1

30.0

Ampicillin

Parenteral

453

8.0

12.1

20.0

37.0

Oral

11

0.3

11.2

31.6

45.0

Benzylpenicillin-Procaine

Parenteral

4407

12.0

22.9

36.0

20.0

Benzylpenicillin-Benzathine

Parenteral

1661

5.6

7.6

14.5

20.0

Aminoglycosides

Apramycin

Oral

103

3.4

5.6

16.9

15.0

Gentamicin

Parenteral

332

3.3

5.6

10.2

6.0

Kanamycin

Parenteral

2

6.9

13.5

20.0

15.0

Neomycin

Parenteral

209

4.9

11.7

29.2

7.0

Oral

164

8.5

14.0

14.0

7.0

Spectinomycin

Parenteral

900

9.1

13.0

19.6

30.0

Fenicoles

Florfenicol

Parenteral

727

15.0

20.0

30.0

15.0

Tetracyclines

Chlortetracycline

Oral

1062

18.6

33.2

73.7

40.0

Doxycycline

Oral

35

7.9

11.1

20.0

15.0

Oxytetracycline

Parenteral

1365

16.7

25.0

36.0

15.0

Oral

281

22.9

34.3

53.3

80.0

Tetracycline

Oral

2529

38.5

56.6

77.6

50.0

Lincosamides

Lincomycin

Parenteral

1269

5.0

9.8

11.1

10.0

Oral

485

3.8

6.5

12.4

10.0

Polypeptides

Colistin

Parenteral

368

0.8

1.5

2.5

2.5

Oral

1672

3.8

6.9

13.9

5.0

Sulfonamides

Sulfadimidine

Oral

425

15.0

25.0

80.0

75.0

Sulfamethoxpyridazine

Parenteral

5

57.9

57.9

57.9

60.0

Fluoroquinolones

Danofloxacin

Parenteral

846

1.7

2.1

2.5

1.3

Enrofloxacin

Parenteral

1419

2.8

4.0

6.0

3.5

Oral

140

1.0

1.1

1.7

1.7

Marbofloxacin

Parenteral

1022

1.9

2.4

3.7

2.0

Cephalosporins

Cefquinome

Parenteral

1143

1.1

1.7

2.5

1.5

Ceftiofur

Parenteral

375

2.0

4.0

6.7

3.0

Pleuromutilines

Tiamulin

Parenteral

214

8.0

11.1

16.0

15.0

Oral

477

6.8

10.1

13.5

15.0

Valnemulin

Oral

5

0.6

0.7

0.9

9.0

Sulfonamides & trimethoprim

Sulfadiazine

Oral

877

25.6

34.3

47.6

25.0

Sulfadimethoxine

Oral

13

31.6

42.9

150.0

17.0

Sulfadimidine

Parenteral

796

19.2

30.0

44.4

75.0

Oral

5

5.5

9.6

32.7

75.0

Sulfadoxine

Parenteral

70

10.0

17.8

26.7

16.0

  

Oral

3

9.6

12.1

50.7

16.0

Table 10

Used and recommended dosage per antimicrobial and administration route in cattle in a feasibility study of antibiotic use in Germany including 19 veterinary practices and 26 farms

 

Used dosage

Recommended dosage

Records

25%-Quartile

Median

75%-Quartile

Macrolides

Erythromycin

Parenteral

142

10.0

10.0

13.3

11.0

Tilmicosin

Parenteral

171

7.5

10.9

15.0

10.0

Oral

11

28.1

31.6

37.5

20.0

Tulathromycin

Parenteral

878

2.0

2.5

4.0

2.5

Tylosin

Parenteral

561

10.0

13.3

14.2

15.0

Oral

13

19.4

33.9

56.0

17.0

Beta-Lactames

Amoxicillin

Parenteral

1648

7.5

10.0

16.0

10.0

Oral

370

13.5

25.0

44.4

30.0

Ampicillin

Parenteral

452

7.6

10.0

13.6

37.0

Oral

3

18.8

25.0

25.0

45.0

Benzylpenicillin-Procaine

Parenteral

3027

10.0

15.0

24.0

20.0

Benzylpenicillin

Parenteral

7

18.0

18.0

18.0

20.0

Benzylpenicillin-Benzathine

Parenteral

846

4.8

9.1

11.9

20.0

Penethamathydrojodid

Parenteral

1025

9.6

19.1

19.1

10.0

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin

Parenteral

778

3.3

5.1

6.4

6.0

Kanamycin

Parenteral

3

5.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

Neomycin

Parenteral

524

5.3

7.0

13.1

7.0

Oral

52

4.1

5.6

10.5

7.0

Spectinomycin

Parenteral

974

5.9

9.8

12.5

20.0

Fenicoles

Florfenicol

Parenteral

831

15.0

20.4

37.5

30.0

Tetracyclines

Chlortetracycline

Oral

426

35.3

60.3

92.9

40.0

Oxytetracycline

Parenteral

666

10.0

17.3

20.0

15.0

Oral

58

22.1

34.5

41.7

80.0

Tetracycline

Oral

353

41.3

66.0

82.5

20.0

Polypeptides

Colistin

Parenteral

622

1.0

1.3

2.6

2.5

Oral

121

5.1

7.1

14.3

5.0

Sulfonamides

Sulfadimidine

Oral

31

34.7

78.1

110.4

75.0

Sulfamethoxpyridazine

Parenteral

3

60.0

62.5

62.5

60.0

Fluoroquinolones

Danofloxacin

Parenteral

587

1.7

2.3

4.5

1.3

Difloxacin

Parenteral

102

5.2

6.9

10.4

2.5

Enrofloxacin

Parenteral

2600

2.5

3.8

5.2

3.5

Oral

29

1.6

3.1

3.5

3.5

Marbofloxacin

Parenteral

1208

1.3

2.4

3.1

2.0

Oral

103

0.6

0.6

0.6

2.0

Cephalosporins

Cefquinome

Parenteral

2283

1.2

1.3

1.9

1.5

Ceftiofur

Parenteral

2153

1.4

1.7

2.0

1.5

Sulfonamides & Trimethoprim

Sulfadiazine

Oral

405

21.9

33.5

55.8

25.0

Sulfadimethoxine

Oral

52

15.0

37.5

60.9

17.0

Sulfadimidine

Parenteral

988

24.0

28.8

28.8

75.0

Oral

1

45.0

45.0

45.0

75.0

 

Sulfadoxine

Parenteral

311

12.0

12.0

24.0

16.0

Discussion

In the present study, it was possible to determine the nUDD, nADD as well as the UDD and the UDD/ADD-ratio on the basis of an ADD. This complements farm related data, calculated per animal under risk, which are published by Merle et al. [15].

The proportions of the antimicrobial classes applied or prescribed in our study were similar to those reported in other countries and with sales data [33]. Tetracyclines, sulfonamides and beta-lactam-antibiotics are used frequently all over Europe [12, 13, 14].

To analyze the exposure of animals with antimicrobials and the related selection pressure, the number of individual applications of antimicrobials is more useful information than the amount of antimicrobials used. This is especially true for estimating the impact on antimicrobial resistance selection, as this depends very much on the frequency and length of selection pressure [2]. Therefore, the nUDD displays the frequency of use much better and should be utilized when comparing usage of different antimicrobials and antimicrobial classes.

Other European countries that cannot calculate the nUDD due to lack of detailed data, approximate the number of applications by the Defined Animal Daily Doses ADD which is calculated by the amount of active ingredients, estimated standard live weights and recommended dosages [10, 11, 21]. As far as the population at risk and the amount of active ingredients per antimicrobial used in the individual animal population is known, the number of standardized doses per animal or per kg live weight can be calculated. By this means, data from different countries, regions or time periods can be compared directly. Thus, this variable is recommended by EMA for monitoring purposes [8].

Trends over time, between antimicrobial classes or animal species can be observed easily by the nUDD as well as the nADD. While the nUDD is evaluated by the veterinarians’ records and thus pictures the real number of used daily doses, the nADD displays an estimate of the number of daily doses. The major drawback is that the calculation of the nADD depends on how precise the animals treated had the estimated standard live weight and were treated exactly with the recommended dosage. If the nADD and the nUDD differ the presumption that the veterinarian chose the wrong dosage would not be appropriate. Although it can be expected that for a large population, e.g., all animals within a country, the nUDD is similar to the nADD (because the estimated standard live weight should represent the average live weight of the treated animals), this will probably not be the case for results on an individual farm, e.g., because the average live weight of treated animals in this farm may differ from the estimated standard live weight. Furthermore, as production systems may vary considerably between countries, a systematic bias may be introduced by calculating nADDs based on European standard live weights for animal species/production types.

In our study we calculated the nADD according to the Danish procedure [22, 30] and compared them to the nUDD as collected within our study. Regarding the estimated standard live weights we followed the Dutch calculation method [32], because the live weights used seemed to fit better to the German situation (expert opinion).

For piglets and calves most of the UDDs were above the recommended dose, while regarding sows, fattening pigs, dairy and beef cattle, most of the UDDs were lower than the respective ADD. Possibly the young animals treated had higher live weights than the estimated standard weight (underestimation of standard live weights results in underestimation of ADD) or they received higher dosages depending on the health status.

The frequent high percentage of records above the recommended dose concerning tetracyclines in almost all age groups (except sows and fattening pigs) can indicate evidence based adaption of dosages by the veterinarians. For some pharmaceuticals the dosages recommended by the manufacturer are below the dosages recommended in current literature, because they were authorized many years ago and the pathogen’s susceptibility changed since then.

In sows, the percentage of nUDD below the recommended dose was high compared to the other production types. It has to be suggested that the estimated standard live weight of 220 kg for sows is too high, because sows more often receive individual or parenteral treatments with usually precise dosages than other animal groups. Thus it seems to be more likely that the used dose UDD was correct, but the recommended dose ADD was calculated too high basing on the estimated live weight. Likewise fattening pigs that are treated with an antimicrobial are most probably lower in weight than 70.2 kg, and thus the percentage of nUDD below the recommended dose reached 49% in this study. It is noticeable that the percentage of records below the recommended dose was statistically significant lower than the respective nUDD for fattening pigs and sows as well as for dairy cattle. This means that treatments of numerous animals are more likely to be underdosed than records concerning few animals.

In calves, frequent underdosing was only observed for aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones and fenicoles, possibly indicating higher live weights than the estimated 80 kg. The frequently used cephalosporins (often applied for udder diseases) for dairy cattle were applied below the recommended dose only in 36% of nUDD, and thus can be regarded as being within the recommended dose. Fluoroquinolones were used in dairy cattle below the recommended dose only in 22% of records, but in 56% of nUDD. This is a hint that treatment of single animals (e.g. treating udder diseases) are dosed within or above the recommended dose while group treatments (several animals per record) often are dosed below the recommended dose, although all treatments were administered parenterally.

To quote the use of antimicrobials knowledge of the medical indication is crucial. Respiratory and intestinal diseases are very common in livestock husbandry, because they are often caused by rather contagious pathogens which are frequently distributed within and between herds. The fact that the percentage of nUDD below the recommended dose was lower regarding enteric diseases than respiratory diseases may be related to the age of the animals: young animals often suffer from diarrhea, respiratory diseases also occur in older animals, e.g., fattening pigs at the end of their life. Therefore additional data concerning the treated animals are required in order to avoid the uncertainty of calculations of ADDs due to misestimation of live weights.

Respective infections are treated herdwise in order to treat all animals that are likely to be infected (metaphylaxis). In large herds (pigs and poultry), oral treatment via feed or water is the most common form of administration, because animals that still take up feed or water can be easily reached and individual treatment by injection would be stressful for them. The guidelines of antibiotic treatment and those for oral application of drugs to farm animals emphasize the prudent use of antibiotic treatment [4].

It was expected that parenteral treatment was dosed more precisely than oral treatment. This could be shown by comparing used and recommended doses. In cattle, a respective trend could be seen. 28% of records for parenteral treatment vs. 18% for oral treatment were within the recommended dose, although regarding the nUDD the percentage of applications within the recommended dose was higher for oral than for parenteral applications (18% and 25% of nUDD, respectively). 29% of parenteral applications (records) of cattle were above the recommended dose while doses in oral treatments were more often (52%) above the recommended doses. Underdosage of antimicrobials was detected in about 42% of all records from cattle, these results corresponding to the findings of other authors [25, 26]. Ampicillin, spectinomycin and sulfonamides & trimethoprim seemed to be underdosed regularly, while tetracyclines were frequently used above the recommended dosage.

In pigs, the dosages used varied widely compared to the recommended dosage. 38% of records were below, 41% above and only 21% within the recommended dose. Results differed only slightly between age groups and administration routes. Nonetheless, the recommended dosage was within the 25%-quartile and the 75%-quartile of the used dosages for most of the antimicrobials. The fact that tetracyclines were used regularly above the recommended dosage in pigs and in cattle may be reflected in the fact that veterinarians prescribe higher doses due to previous treatment failures. As current practice does not lead to regular update of SPCs, new mechanisms should be established to ensure proper treatment recommendations on the SPCs. The newer antimicrobials: macrolides, fluoroquinolones and pleuromutilines were often applied within the recommended dosage.

Nonetheless, the evaluation of the true implications of these findings on the development of antimicrobial resistance is limited, because the assessment of prudent use requires detailed information that is not fully available from monitoring data. Thus, monitoring data can be used to observe trends in the dosage applied and to initiate a reassessment of the current dosage recommendation.

Conclusions

Proper investigation of antibiotic use is challenging. By calculating and comparing UDDs and the respective ADD it is possible to estimate the impact of treatments regarding the risk for the selection of resistant bacteria. This approach can serve as a general overview of dosage patterns and may be able to reveal differences between countries or time periods. Nevertheless, it cannot be used to assess the dosage patterns of single treatments, because differences between UDD and ADD may be due to the animal live weight or the individual health conditions.

A longitudinal evaluation of antibiotics use in animals plays an important role in controlling resistance. Combining consumption data with those of the spread of resistant bacteria will help to bring resistance prevention and control a step forward.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and has the number 1329–441. We would like to thank the veterinarians and farmers who took part in the study as well as Dr. Sylvia Heesen from the veterinary authority of the district Kleve for her assistance.

Supplementary material

12917_2013_835_MOESM1_ESM.png (87 kb)
Authors’ original file for figure 1
12917_2013_835_MOESM2_ESM.png (93 kb)
Authors’ original file for figure 2

References

  1. 1.
    Schwarz S, Kehrenberg C, Walsh TR: Use of antimicrobial agents in veterinary medicine and food animal production. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001, 17 (6): 431-437. 10.1016/S0924-8579(01)00297-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aarestrup FM: Association between the consumption of antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry and the occurrence of resistant bacteria among food animals. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999, 12 (4): 279-285. 10.1016/S0924-8579(99)90059-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ungemach F-R, Müller-Bahrdt D, Abraham G: Guidelines for prudent use of antimicrobials and their implications on antibiotic usage in veterinary medicine. Int J Med Microb. 2006, 296 (S2): 33-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bundestierärztekammer, Arbeitsgruppe Tierarzneimittel (AGTAM) der Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Verbraucherschutz: [Guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobial effective veterinary drugs including comments – antibiotics guideline]. Dtsch Tierärzteblatt. 2010, 2010 (11): SupplementGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ): Joint Opinion on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) focused on zoonotic infections. EFSA J. 2009, 7 (11): 78.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung: [DART German Antibiotic Resistance Strategy]. Berlin, Germany: Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; 2011:1-112.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Medicines Agency: Trends in the sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in nine European countries. Reporting period: 2005–2009. London, United Kingdom: European Medicines Agency; 2011:1-77.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grave K, Greko C, Kvaale MK, Torren-Edo J, Mackay D, Muller A, Moulin G, on behalf of the ESVAC Group: Sales of veterinary antibacterial agents in nine European countries during 2005–09: trends and patterns. J Antimicrob Chemoth. 2012, 67 (12): 3001-3008. 10.1093/jac/dks298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grave K, Torren-Edo J, Mackay D: Comparison of the sales of veterinary antibacterial agents between 10 European countries. J Antimicrob Chemoth. 2010, 65 (9): 2037-2040. 10.1093/jac/dkq247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Medicines Agency: Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 19 EU/EEA countries in 2010. London, United Kingdom: European Medicines Agency; 2012:1-74.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Medicines Agency: Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 25 EU/EEA countries in 2011. London, United Kingdom: European Medicines Agency; 2013:1-98.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agersø Y, Andersen VD, Helwigh B, Hog BB, Jensen LB, Jensen VF, Korsgaard H, Larsen LS, Pedersen K, Seyfarth AM, et al: DANMAP 2012 - Use of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from food animals, food and humans in Denmark. Edited by: Korsgaard H, Hog BB, Agersø Y. Kopenhagen, Denmark: Statens Serum Institut; 2013:1-120.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hellman J, Olsson-Liljequist B: SWEDRES / SWEDVARM 2012: Swedish Antibiotic Utilisation and Resistance in Human Medicine Swedish Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring. Solna, Uppsala / Sweden: Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control and National Veterinary Institute; 2013:1-108.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simonsen G, Urdahl AM: NORM NORM-VET 2012:Usage of Antimicrobial Agents and Occurrence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Norway. Tromso, Oslo/Norway: Norwegian Veterinary Institute; 2013:1-95.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Merle R, Hajek P, Käsbohrer A, Hegger-Gravenhorst C, Mollenhauer Y, Robanus M, Ungemach F-R, Kreienbrock L: Monitoring of antibiotic consumption in livestock: a German feasibility study. Prev vet med. 2012, 104 (1–2): 34-43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Büttner S, Flechtner O, Müntener C, Overesch G: [ARCH-Vet General report 2011: Antibiotics in veterinary medicine and antibiotic resistance monitoring in farm animals in Switzerland.]. Bern, Switzerland: Bundesamt für Veterinärwesen, Swissmedic Schweizerisches Heilmittelinstitut; 2012:1-81.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheehan R, Walker S, Eckford S: UK veterinary antibiotic resistance and sales surveillance 2012. Edited by: Borellio SP. Surrey, United Kingdom: Veterinary Medicines Directorate; 2013:1-104.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chevance A, Moulin G, French Agency for Food. Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), French Agency for Veterinary Medicinal Products (ANMV): Sales survey of veterinary medicinal products containing antimicrobials in France - 2011. Edited by: French Agency for Food EaOHSA. Cedex, France: French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupation Health & Safety ANSES; 2012:1-73.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bundesversammlung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft: Federal law of drugs and medicinal products. Switzerland: Bundesversammlung der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft; 2000. 81221Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nationalrat Österreich: Federal law of the production and the marketing of drugs. Nationalrat, 185. Wien, Austria: Verlagspostamt; 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mevius DJ, Koene MGJ, Wit B, Van Pelt W, Bondt N: MARAN 2009: Monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic usage in animals in the Netherlands in 2009. Lelystad, NL: Central Veterinary Institute; 2011:70.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jensen VF, Jacobsen E, Bager F: Veterinary antimicrobial-usage statistics based on standardized measures of dosage. Prev vet med. 2004, 64 (2–4): 201-215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blaha T, Meemken D, Dickhaus CP, Klein G: [Proposals for designing the food chain information for the implementation of the risk-oriented ante- and post-mortem meat inspection]. Dtsch Tierärztl Wschr. 2007, 114 (8): 309-316.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology: Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2010. Edited by: Methodology WCCfDS. Oslo, Norway; 2009:1-282.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Persoons D, Dewulf J, Smet A, Herman L, Heyndrickx M, Martel A, Catry B, Butaye P, Haesebrouck F: Antimicrobial use in Belgian broiler production. Prev vet med. 2012, 105: 320-325. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.02.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Regula G, Torriani K, Gassner B, Stucki F, Müntener CR: Prescription patterns of antimicrobials in veterinary practices in Switzerland. J Antimicrob Chemoth. 2009, 63 (4): 805-811. 10.1093/jac/dkp009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Menéndez González S, Steiner A, Gassner B, Regula G: Antimicrobial use in Swiss dairy farms: quantification and evaluation of data quality. Prev vet med. 2010, 95 (1–2): 50-63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pardon B, Catry B, Dewulf J, Persoons D, Hostens M, De Bleecker K, Deprez P: Prospective study on quantitative and qualitative antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory drug use in white veal calves. J Antimicrob Chemoth. 2012, 67 (4): 1027-1038. 10.1093/jac/dkr570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Callens B, Persoons D, Maes D, Laanen M, Postma M, Boyen F, Haesebrouck F, Butaye P, Catry B, Dewulf J: Prophylactic and metaphylactic antimicrobial use in Belgian fattening pig herds. Prev vet med. 2012, 106 (1): 53-62. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.03.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC) group: ESVAC reflection paper on collecting data on consumption of antimicrobial agents per animal species, on technical units of measurement and indicators for reporting consumption of antimicrobial agents in animals. Draft. EMA/286416/2012-CONSULTATION. London, United Kingdom: European Medicines Agency EMA; 2012:1-28.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bundesministerium für Jugend Familie und Gesundheit BVBl. I: Regulation of the veterinary pharmacies as amended on the announcement of July, 8, 2009 (TÄHAV). Berlin, Germany: Bundesministerium für Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit; 2009:1760-1769.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mevius DJ, Wit B, van Pelt W: MARAN-2007 - Monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic usage in animals in The Netherlands in 2006/2007. Lelystand/NL: Central Veterinary Institute of Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands; 2008:104.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wallmann J, Reimer I, Römer A, Bender A, Heberer T: Evaluation of sales data of antimicrobial effective substances in Germany in 2011. Dtsch Tierärzteblatt. 2013, 61 (9): 1230-1234.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Merle et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roswitha Merle
    • 1
  • Matthias Robanus
    • 2
  • Christine Hegger-Gravenhorst
    • 1
  • Yvonne Mollenhauer
    • 1
  • Peter Hajek
    • 2
  • Annemarie Käsbohrer
    • 3
  • Walther Honscha
    • 2
  • Lothar Kreienbrock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biometry, Epidemiology and Information ProcessingUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, WHO-Centre Veterinary Public HealthHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Veterinary Faculty of Universität Leipzig, Institute for PharmacologyPharmacy and ToxicologyLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Department Biological SafetyFederal Institute for Risk AssessmentBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations