Antimicrobial Use in 44 Dutch Companion Animal Clinics
27th ECVIM-CA Congress, 2017
N.E.M. Hopman1; I.M. van Geijlswijk2; D.J.J. Heederik3; J.A. Wagenaar4; E.M. Broens4
1Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands; 2Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands; 3Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, IRAS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands; 4Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Antimicrobial use (AMU) in veterinary medicine is considered a potential threat for public health and animal health, as it selects for antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, a combination of compulsory and voluntary actions was implemented in the last 5 years to reduce AMU in animals in the Netherlands. In food-producing animals, a considerable reduction in AMU has been accomplished over the last years. Previous research in companion animals showed that total AMU in companion animals is relatively low, but large differences between clinics exist, and especially in the choice of antimicrobial agents there is room for improvement. Therefore, from the end of 2014 onward, an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) was developed and implemented stepwise in 44 Dutch companion animal clinics.

Aims of the present study are to calculate defined daily dosages (DDDs) from these 44 clinics before start of the ASP implementation and to identify clinic-related factors influencing AMU in these Dutch companion animal clinics.

At the beginning of the ASP implementation, clinics filled in a questionnaire and provided data on AMU from July 2012 until July 2015. Questionnaires were used to study clinic-related factors which might influence AMU by companion animal veterinarians. Antimicrobial usage data were converted to the number of DDDs with a standardized Dutch database built for this purpose. A number of DDDs during a specified period (mostly a year) represents the number of days during that period that an average dog, cat or rabbit in a clinic is treated with AMs. DDDs were differentiated in first- (not selecting for ESBLs), second- (might select for ESBLs) and third-choice AMs (critically important to public health; i.e., third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones).

Results show that AMU decreased over the last years. There is a significant decrease in the use of third-choice antimicrobials. Further statistical analyses will be performed to explore associations between DDDs and clinic characteristics (e.g., number of veterinarians working in a clinic; rural versus urban clinics; and number of dogs, cats and rabbits being treated in a clinic).

Disclosures

Disclosures to report
This study was funded by ZonMW (Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development), project number: 205300003.

  

Speaker Information
(click the speaker's name to view other papers and abstracts submitted by this speaker)

N.E.M. Hopman
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Utrecht University
Utrecht, Netherlands


MAIN : ISCAID : Antimicrobial Use in Companion Animal Clinics
Powered By VIN
SAID=27