Date Published: March 1, 2018
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Author(s): Daniel Schar, Angkana Sommanustweechai, Ramanan Laxminarayan, Viroj Tangcharoensathien
Abstract: In a policy forum, Daniel Schar and colleagues discuss the need for surveillance of antimicrobial consumption in animals in low- and middle-income countries and propose the establishment of antimicrobial consumption monitoring systems.
Partial Text: The measurement of AMU in human health and animal health and production settings is a central goal of the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance  and the complementary plans and strategies developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) [12,13].
Multiple methodologies for quantifying usage have been variously employed, hindering data comparability across countries and production sectors. The OIE terrestrial animal health code, the guiding framework for its 180 member nations, outlines the minimum standard as measuring gross usage by weight of active ingredient per year .
Accurate accounting of antimicrobial consumption in food-producing animals of LMICs must capture both therapeutic and nontherapeutic use, including AGPs and mass administration of antimicrobials delivered in medicated, premixed feed. Antimicrobial consumption monitoring is particularly important in aquaculture, in which mass administration of antimicrobials in medicated feed for disease prevention and control is a standard practice .
Documenting usage—particularly for WHO-classified highest priority critically important antimicrobials—permits trends monitoring and identification of animal production sectors in which targeted interventions hold promise of arresting drivers of resistance. Conceivably, a reversion to susceptibility is achievable, as noted in Salmonella enterica Serovar Heidelberg following elimination of third-generation cephalosporins from poultry hatcheries in Quebec, Canada .
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.