Abstract
Comparisons between antimicrobial usage (AMU) in humans and food-producing animals are regularly made. The accuracy of such comparisons depends on the indicators used to quantify AMU. Indicators for AMU quantitatively relate use data (the numerator) to population data (the denominator). The denominator should be a proxy for the population at risk in a certain period when comparing the exposure of different populations to antimicrobials. Denominators based on numbers of animals slaughtered, such as the commonly used population correction unit, do not consider the time at risk of antimicrobial treatment. Production-based indicators underestimate animal AMU. Additionally, production-based indicators are fundamentally different from indicators used to quantify human AMU. Using such indicators to compare human and animal AMU therefore leads to biased results. More caution should be taken in selecting the indicator to quantify AMU when comparing AMU in food-producing animals and humans.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | dlae005 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2024 |
Bibliographical note
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- PCU
- antimicrobial resistance
- antimicrobial usage
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing human and animal antimicrobial usage: a critical appraisal of the indicators used is needed'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver