4.7 Article

A comparison of antimicrobial usage in human and veterinary medicine in France from 1999 to 2005

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 617-625

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkn213

关键词

anti-infectives; drug use surveillance; data collection; measurement unit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The antimicrobials allowed and amounts sold in veterinary and human medicine in France were compared to see if the same antimicrobial drugs are used in veterinary and human medicine, and to the same extent. Methods: Registers of all approved antimicrobial commercial products, kept by the French Agency for Veterinary Medicinal Products (AFSSA ANMV) for animals and the French Health Products Safety Agency (AFSSAPS) for humans, were compared to determine whether the same antimicrobials were approved in 2007 for use in both human and animal populations. Sales data were collected from pharmaceutical companies between 1999 and 2005 by the AFSSA ANMV and AFSSAPS. Usage of the different antimicrobial anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classes in human and veterinary medicines was recorded. Data were expressed in tonnes of active ingredients and were then related to the animal and human biomasses to compare usages expressed in mg/kg. Results: All antimicrobial ATC classes were used in both human and veterinary medicine. Tetracyclines accounted for the most sales in veterinary medicine. beta-Lactams predominated in human medicine. A decrease in the amounts consumed by both human and animal populations was observed during the study. In 2005, 760 tonnes were used in human medicine and 1320 tonnes in veterinary medicine, corresponding to 199 and 84 mg/kg of live weight in human and animal populations, respectively. Conclusions: The same antimicrobial drugs were used in human and veterinary medicines but the quantitative patterns of use were different. Expression of antimicrobial usage is a key point to address when comparing usage trends.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据