Search

Introduction: Quantification of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is beneficial to inform policies and direct prudent antimicrobial use., Aim: This study aimed to assess the current published evidence of AMR from passive and active ad hoc surveillance activities within the Australian dairy cattle industry., Methods: Following a scoping review framework 373 articles published before January 2023 were retrieved using the keyword search function from two online databases (PubMed® and Web of Science™ Core Collection). The duplicate articles were removed and the title, abstract, and full text of the remaining articles were reviewed following the study objectives and inclusion criteria (location, subject/theme, and data). Data from the remaining articles were extracted, summarised, interpreted and the study quality assessed using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines., Results: A total of 29 articles dating from the 1960 s until 2022 were identified to meet the study criteria (passive: n = 15; active: n = 14). Study characteristics such as sampling type, sampling method, and AMR assessment were all common characteristics from both passive and active surveillance articles, being milk samples, individual sampling, and phenotypic assessment respectively. Passive surveillance articles had a wider range in both the type of bacteria and the number of antimicrobials investigated, while active surveillance articles included a higher number of bacterial isolates and sampling from healthy populations. There was an overall low level of clinical AMR across all articles. Higher prevalence of non-wildtype Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Staphylococcus spp., although limited in data, was suggested for commonly used Australian veterinary antimicrobials for these bacteria. The prevalence of phenotypic AMR varied due to the health and age status of the sampled animals. The articles reviewed in this study suggest the prevalence of AMR genes was higher for commonly used antimicrobials, although genes were not always related to the phenotypic AMR profile., Conclusions: Published evidence of AMR in the Australian dairy cattle industry is limited as demonstrated by only 29 articles included in this review following selection criteria screening. However, collectively these articles provide insight on industry AMR prevalence. For example, the suggestion of non-wildtype bacteria within the Australian dairy cattle indicating a risk of emerging or increasing industry AMR. Therefore, further surveillance is required to monitor the development of future AMR risk within the industry. Additionally, evidence suggesting that animals varying in health and age differ in prevalence of AMR imply a requirement for further research into animal population demographics to reduce potential bias in data collated in both national and global surveillance activities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest, (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aims of this study were to determine antimicrobial prescription patterns and the factors affecting antimicrobial selection amongst Australian dairy veterinarians., Methods: A structured questionnaire was administered to Australian dairy cattle veterinarians using the Qualtrics online survey platform. Questions focused on their (1) demographics; (2) opinions surrounding antimicrobial use, resistance, and stewardship; (3) decision-making drivers of both prescription and selection of commonly prescribed antimicrobials; (4) awareness on the guidelines for antimicrobial usage and sources of information concerning antimicrobials., Key Results: A total of 135 responses (14.1% response rate) from all eight dairying regions in Australia were received. The attitudes, perceptions, and concerns of dairy veterinarians towards antimicrobials indicated a high agreement regarding label indications (96%), consequences of off-label prescription (95%), and the presence of an antimicrobial resistance (AMR) risk (73%), when prescribing antibiotics. A four-dimensional categorical principal components analysis (CATPCA) model indicated most of the variation in opinion was due to AMR risk, trade-offs, prescription concerns and active substance concerns. The first active substance most dairy veterinarians chose for a scenario involving mastitis and dry cow therapy (DCT) treatment was cloxacillin. Decision-making drivers for antimicrobial choice when providing advice regarding the supply of antimicrobials for mastitis and DCT treatment were predominately clinical factors; however, diagnostics were rarely used in determining antimicrobial choice due to cost of implementation, diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity), and benefit issues. Non-clinical decision-making drivers included the perception of practicality for Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) prescription guidelines, opinions surrounding AMR risk and prescription concerns, consideration of Expert Advisory Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (EAGAR) scores, number of years worked with dairy farms, and the number of dairy farms they regularly consult for. When available at the practice, prescription policies were considered to impact on animal welfare outcomes and on the probability of AMR emergence. The major information sources influencing decision making on antimicrobial prescription for the Australian dairy veterinarians were clinical experience (93%) and product labels (81%)., Conclusions: Australian dairy veterinarians are generally aware of the risk of resistance to antimicrobials and the need for stewardship, with clinical factors having the most impact on antimicrobial prescription. However, non-clinical factors incorporating awareness of guidelines and their attitudes on antimicrobial resistance risk and prescription concerns impact on the choice and prescription of antimicrobials., Implications: The development of prescription policy and guidelines, alongside effective communicative extension programs to increase veterinarian uptake, provides an avenue to mitigate AMR risk in Australian dairy cattle., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)