Evaluating the OH-EpiCap tool using the Danish integrated surveillance program for AMU and AMR as a case study.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is considered a One Health (OH) challenge, ideally demanding concerted efforts from the animal, human and environmental side. DANMAP, the Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Program, is monitoring AMR and antimicrobial use in animals and humans. OH-EpiCap is an evaluation tool, developed to address essential elements in OH surveillance systems, such as the dimensions of the organization, operational activities and the impact of the surveillance activities. We aimed to evaluate DANMAP using OH-EpiCap and hereby assessed the suitability of OH-EpiCap to evaluate integrated AMR surveillance systems. During the evaluation, the strengths and weaknesses of DANMAP concerning the "OH-ness" of the program were discussed. Furthermore, possible adaptations of the standard operating procedures and governance structure were addressed. Attention was paid to the ability and easiness of DANMAP to cope with current and future challenges connected to integrated AMR surveillance. It was concluded that DANMAP has a strong OH approach covering relevant aspects for humans and animals, whereas environmental aspects are missing. OH-EpiCap proved to be straightforward to use and provided valuable insights. The authors recommend OH-EpiCap to be used by health authorities and stakeholders. It is not suitable for the technical evaluation of a surveillance program.

Monitoring of Farm-Level Antimicrobial Use to Guide Stewardship: Overview of Existing Systems and Analysis of Key Components and Processes.

The acknowledgment of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a major health challenge in humans, animals and plants, has led to increased efforts to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU). To better understand factors influencing AMR and implement and evaluate stewardship measures for reducing AMU, it is important to have sufficiently detailed information on the quantity of AMU, preferably at the level of the user (farmer, veterinarian) and/or prescriber or provider (veterinarian, feed mill). Recently, several countries have established or are developing systems for monitoring AMU in animals. The aim of this publication is to provide an overview of known systems for monitoring AMU at farm-level, with a descriptive analysis of their key components and processes. As of March 2020, 38 active farm-level AMU monitoring systems from 16 countries were identified. These systems differ in many ways, including which data are collected, the type of analyses conducted and their respective output. At the same time, they share key components (data collection, analysis, benchmarking, and reporting), resulting in similar challenges to be faced with similar decisions to be made. Suggestions are provided with respect to the different components and important aspects of various data types and methods are discussed. This overview should provide support for establishing or working with such a system and could lead to a better implementation of stewardship actions and a more uniform communication about and understanding of AMU data at farm-level. Harmonization of methods and processes could lead to an improved comparability of outcomes and less confusion when interpreting results across systems. However, it is important to note that the development of systems also depends on specific local needs, resources and aims.