A registry-based comparative analysis of antibiotic usage reporting for adult cattle on Danish dairy farms

Abstract

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant global health concern, necessitating the monitoring of antimicrobial usage (AMU). However, there is a lack of consensus on the standardized collection and reporting of AMU data in the veterinary field. In Denmark, the Danish Cattle Database (DCDB) contains treatment information on animal level, which allows counting of number of treatments carried out, used daily doses (UDD). The Danish VetStat database (VetStat) contains information on veterinary medicinal prescriptions at farm level and uses fixed standard doses of each product to calculate number of daily treatments, animal daily doses (ADD). This study aimed to compare two different numerators, UDD and ADD, used to describe AMU on Danish cattle farms, and estimate their correlation. Results Routinely collected registry data from conventional dairy farms in Denmark for 2019 were used, including a total of 2,197 conventional dairy farms. The data from VetStat and the DCDB were aggregated and analysed, and treatment frequencies (TF) were calculated for both UDD and ADD, adjusting for farm size. Spearman correlation analysis and Bland–Altman plots were employed to assess the relationship and agreement between TF for ADD and UDD, respectively. The results showed a high correlation between TF for ADD and UDD for most prescription groups, i.e., groups used to categorise antibiotics based on target organs. An exception is found for the Udder prescription group, where a systematic underreporting of UDD compared to ADD was observed. This discrepancy may be due to combination treatments, and potential missing or grouped registrations in the DCDB. Conclusions Our UDD and ADD comparison yields valuable insights on farm-level AMU. We observe strong correlations between UDD and ADD, except for udder treatments, where some farms report only 1/3 UDD compared to ADD, indicating potential underreporting. Further investigations are needed to understand the factors contributing to these patterns and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of recorded information. Standardizing AMU data collection and reporting remains crucial to tackle the global challenge of AMR effectively.