Search

Abstract The European Commission requested scientific and technical assistance in the preparation of a EU‐wide baseline survey of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacteria from aquaculture animals. It is recommended that the survey would aim at estimating the occurrence of AMR in Aeromonas spp. isolated from Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar), European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and trout (Salmo trutta, Salvelinus fontinalis, Oncorhynchus mykiss) intended to consumption, at harvesting (at farm/slaughter), at the EU level and in addition, at estimating the occurrence and diversity of AMR of Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus faecalis, Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio alginolyticus in blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) and Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from production areas and at dispatch centres at the EU level. These technical specifications define the target populations, the sample size for the survey, sample collection requirements, the analytical methods (for isolation, identification, phenotypic susceptibility testing and further genotypic analysis of some of the bacteria targeted) and the data reporting requirements. The data to be reported by the EU Member States to support this baseline survey are presented in three data models. The results of the survey should be reported using the EFSA reporting system.

Abstract The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL) approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). The major change compared to the previous Guidance (EFSA SC, 2017) concerns the Section 2.5, in which a change from the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm is recommended. In the former, uncertainty about the unknown parameters is measured by confidence and significance levels, interpreted and calibrated under hypothetical repetition, while probability distributions are attached to the unknown parameters in the Bayesian approach, and the notion of probability is extended to reflect uncertainty of knowledge. In addition, the Bayesian approach can mimic a learning process and reflects the accumulation of knowledge over time. Model averaging is again recommended as the preferred method for estimating the BMD and calculating its credible interval. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed and amended so that there is now a single set of models for quantal and continuous data. The flow chart guiding the reader step‐by‐step when performing a BMD analysis has also been updated, and a chapter comparing the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm inserted. Also, when using Bayesian BMD modelling, the lower bound (BMDL) is to be considered as potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re‐evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 or 2017 Guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly lower (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health‐based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the wide application of the BMD approach.

Abstract The European Commission requested scientific and technical assistance in the preparation of a EU‐wide baseline survey protocol for a European Union (EU) coordinated monitoring programme on the prevalence of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) in pigs. The objective of the survey is to estimate the MRSA prevalence in batches of fattening pigs at slaughter at both European and national levels, with a 95% level of confidence and a level of precision of 10% considering an expected prevalence of 50%. The survey protocol defines the target population, the sample size for the survey, sample collection requirements, the analytical methods (for isolation, identification, phenotypic susceptibility testing and further genotypic testing of MRSA isolates), the data reporting requirements and the plan of analysis. The samples are to be analysed according to the laboratory protocols available on the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL‐AR) website. Generalised linear models will be used to estimate proportion (with 95% confidence intervals) of batches of slaughter pigs tested positive to MRSA. The necessary data to be reported by the EU Member States to support this baseline survey are presented in three data models. The results of the survey should be reported using the EFSA data collection framework.

Abstract Proposals to update the harmonised monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) from a public health perspective in Salmonella, Campylobacter coli, Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium and methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from food‐producing animals and derived meat in the EU are presented in this report, accounting for recent trends in AMR, data collection needs and new scientific developments. Phenotypic monitoring of AMR in bacterial isolates, using microdilution methods for testing susceptibility and interpreting resistance using epidemiological cut‐off values is reinforced, including further characterisation of those isolates of E. coli and Salmonella showing resistance to extended‐spectrum cephalosporins and carbapenems, as well as the specific monitoring of ESBL/AmpC/carbapenemase‐producing E. coli. Combinations of bacterial species, food‐producing animals and meat, as well as antimicrobial panels have been reviewed and adapted, where deemed necessary. Considering differing sample sizes, numerical simulations have been performed to evaluate the related statistical power available for assessing occurrence and temporal trends in resistance, with a predetermined accuracy, to support the choice of harmonised sample size. Randomised sampling procedures, based on a generic proportionate stratified sampling process, have been reviewed and reinforced. Proposals to improve the harmonisation of monitoring of prevalence, genetic diversity and AMR in MRSA are presented. It is suggested to complement routine monitoring with specific cross‐sectional surveys on MRSA in pigs and on AMR in bacteria from seafood and the environment. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of isolates obtained from the specific monitoring of ESBL/AmpC/carbapenemase‐producing E. coli is strongly advocated to be implemented, on a voluntary basis, over the validity period of the next legislation, with possible mandatory implementation by the end of the period; the gene sequences encoding for ESBL/AmpC/carbapenemases being reported to EFSA. Harmonised protocols for WGS analysis/interpretation and external quality assurance programmes are planned to be provided by the EU‐Reference Laboratory on AMR.

Abstract The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the NOAEL approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). Most of the modifications made to the SC guidance of 2009 concern the section providing guidance on how to apply the BMD approach. Model averaging is recommended as the preferred method for calculating the BMD confidence interval, while acknowledging that the respective tools are still under development and may not be easily accessible to all. Therefore, selecting or rejecting models is still considered as a suboptimal alternative. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) has been introduced instead of the log‐likelihood to characterise the goodness of fit of different mathematical models to a dose–response data set. A flowchart has also been inserted in this update to guide the reader step‐by‐step when performing a BMD analysis, as well as a chapter on the distributional part of dose–response models and a template for reporting a BMD analysis in a complete and transparent manner. Finally, it is recommended to always report the BMD confidence interval rather than the value of the BMD. The lower bound (BMDL) is needed as a potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL per ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re‐evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 SC guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly smaller (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health‐based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the expected wide application of the BMD approach.