Comparison of antimicrobial use and resistance data on clinical and non clinical isolates from livestock in four countries

Surveillance and monitoring systems on antimicrobial use (AMU) and resistance (AMR) are essential pillars for global, regional and national strategies against AMR to control and assess the trends. However, there is a lack of harmonization in the monitoring of AMU and AMR within and between sectors and countries. That makes comparison between and within sectors and countries a challenge that cannot always be overcome.
Different approaches have been proposed to overcome this lack of harmonization on AMU and AMR. In our study we wanted to compare clinical and non-clinical isolates from livestock from 2014 – 2017 regarding their AMR. Statistical analyses were performed to harmonize evaluation criteria to compare clinical and non-clinical isolated tested with a variety of methods.
A higher resistance risk was found in clinical isolates from E. coli from calves and in non-clinical isolates from broilers and turkeys across countries. It seems that differences in resistance between isolates type (i.e. clinical or non-clinical isolates) are associated with the relationship between the animal species and antibiotic. So far, the reason for these differences are not clear.
The One Health approach is not straightforwardly achievable because of the lack of harmonization of AMU and AMR surveillance among the human and livestock sectors. This work provides workarounds to overcome some issues. However, willingness to
tackle all these issues is required on the national and international level.