Knowledge and practices related to antibiotics among poultry producers and veterinarians in two Indian states.

Background: Antibiotics are frequently utilized in livestock, particularly poultry, for therapy and growth promotion, resulting in antimicrobial resistance. Multidrug-resistant bacteria are frequent in poultry samples from India. The purpose of this study was to better understand main antibiotic consumption patterns in poultry value chains, as well as antibiotic knowledge and practices among the stakeholders. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Assam and Karnataka, India. The poultry farmers were interviewed on antibiotic usage, antibiotic knowledge, feeding practices, and preventive measures on the farm. Poultry farmers reported their veterinarians, and we also interviewed them on knowledge and practices related to antimicrobial use in poultry and antimicrobial resistance. Item response theory (IRT) was used to assess the association between the answers and demographic factors. Results: This survey interviewed 62 poultry farmers and 11 veterinarians. Small poultry farms with fewer than 4000 birds were owned by 51.6% of farmers. Most poultry farmers had heard about antibiotics, and 62.9% thought they cured all diseases. If one chicken is sick, 72.6% said others should be given antibiotics to prevent the disease. All veterinarians utilized tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and cephalexin on the poultry farms. Over half (54.5%) stated antibiotics prevent diseases, and 72.7% said they treat and prevent diseases. Some (45.5%) said antibiotics boost growth. IRT analysis showed that 8 questions assessed a knowledge scale well. Univariable analysis showed that Assam farmers and women were likely to have have more knowledge. Conclusion: The poultry farmers were mostly unaware of the relation between antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance. Despite being aware, the veterinarians agreed with use antibiotics as a prophylactic measure. It is vital that these stakeholders understand the repercussions of such widespread antibiotic use. In order to increase knowledge, frequent trainings and antimicrobial stewardship programmes with effective communication and incentives for behaviour change should be conducted.

Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines BBV152 (COVAXIN®) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) in seronegative and seropositive individuals in India: a multicentre, nonrandomised observational study.

Background: There are limited global data on head-to-head comparisons of vaccine platforms assessing both humoral and cellular immune responses, stratified by pre-vaccination serostatus. The COVID-19 vaccination drive for the Indian population in the age group 18-45 years began in April 2021 when seropositivity rates in the general population were rising due to the delta wave of COVID-19 pandemic during April-May 2021. Methods: Between June 30, 2021, and Jan 28, 2022, we enrolled 691 participants in the age group 18-45 years across four clinical sites in India. In this non-randomised and laboratory blinded study, participants received either two doses of Covaxin® (4 weeks apart) or two doses of Covishield™ (12 weeks apart) as per the national vaccination policy. The primary outcome was the seroconversion rate and the geometric mean titre (GMT) of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins post two doses. The secondary outcome was the frequency of cellular immune responses pre- and post-vaccination. Findings: When compared to pre-vaccination baseline, both vaccines elicited statistically significant seroconversion and binding antibody levels in both seronegative and seropositive individuals. In the per-protocol cohort, Covishield™ elicited higher antibody responses than Covaxin® as measured by seroconversion rate (98.3% vs 74.4%, p < 0.0001 in seronegative individuals; 91.7% vs 66.9%, p < 0.0001 in seropositive individuals) as well as by anti-spike antibody levels against the ancestral strain (GMT 1272.1 vs 75.4 binding antibody units/ml [BAU/ml], p < 0.0001 in seronegative individuals; 2089.07 vs 585.7 BAU/ml, p < 0.0001 in seropositive individuals). As participants at all clinical sites were not recruited at the same time, site-specific immunogenicity was impacted by the timing of vaccination relative to the delta and omicron waves. Surrogate neutralising antibody responses against variants-of-concern including delta and omicron was higher in Covishield™ recipients than in Covaxin® recipients; and in seropositive than in seronegative individuals after both vaccination and asymptomatic infection (omicron variant). T cell responses are reported from only one of the four site cohorts where the vaccination schedule preceded the omicron wave. In seronegative individuals, Covishield™ elicited both CD4+ and CD8+ spike-specific cytokine-producing T cells whereas Covaxin® elicited mainly CD4+ spike-specific T cells. Neither vaccine showed significant post-vaccination expansion of spike-specific T cells in seropositive individuals. Interpretation: Covishield™ elicited immune responses of higher magnitude and breadth than Covaxin® in both seronegative individuals and seropositive individuals, across cohorts representing the pre-vaccination immune history of most of the vaccinated Indian population. Funding: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding from Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Unilever India Pvt. Ltd. (UIPL).

Comparing the Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Raise Awareness About Antimicrobial Resistance in Farmers and Veterinarians of India.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat. The indiscriminate use of antibiotics in the animal health sector contributes to increasing rates of AMR and studies involving dairy farmers in India have found knowledge levels regarding antibiotics and AMR to be very low. The purpose of this study was to assess different methods to raise awareness and knowledge about AMR and antibiotic use among dairy farmers, paravets (veterinary assistants), and veterinarians. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in September-December of 2018 in some parts of Haryana, Assam, Karnataka, and West Bengal. It had two parts: an intervention meeting (September-October 2018) which consisted of focus group discussions (FGD) with farmers, key informant interviews (KII) with veterinary professionals along with distribution of information packages, and then a follow-up survey (November-December 2018). The villages were randomly allocated to either one of the four intervention approaches (1-FGD/KII and information package on AMR; 2-FGD/KI and information on animal health; 3- FGD/KII and information package on animal health plus information on AMR; or 4- only the FGD/KII). A follow-up survey was done to assess the effect of interventions. Results: In total, 274 dairy farmers and 51 veterinary professionals (21 veterinarians and 30 paravets) participated in the follow-up survey. Many of the farmers and veterinary professionals who participated in the follow-up survey had been part of the intervention meetings. The average knowledge score of farmers was 7.8. It was found that the knowledge score was higher amongst farmers who had participated in the intervention meetings (p < 0.05), had received intervention approach 2 (p = 0.03) or approach 3 (p = 0.01), and amongst female farmers (p = 0.03) compared to male. The veterinary professionals had good knowledge but lacked interest in training the farmers about antimicrobial resistance. Conclusion: Our research demonstrated that a higher percentage of farmers and veterinary professionals who attended the intervention meeting had improved knowledge. Dairy farmers should be regularly educated on antibiotic usage and how to avoid misusing them. Also, veterinary experts should be provided with tools and strategies to educate farmers on the use of antimicrobials.

A qualitative study on antibiotic use and animal health management in smallholder dairy farms of four regions of India.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global public health issue. In India, access to medicines is poorly regulated and therefore antibiotics in dairy cattle are commonly used by farmers without consulting with veterinarians. This study was conducted to understand practices and knowledge related to antibiotic use and AMR among dairy farmers and veterinary professionals in selected urban and peri-urban areas of India. METHODS: A total of 28 focus group discussions with farmers and 53 interviews with veterinary professionals were carried out. RESULTS: Mastitiswas identified as the main animal health challenge. Antibiotic consultation behavior of farmers depended on the availability of veterinarians. Except in Bangalore, farmers were found to often treat animals on their own. They were found unaware of the concept of AMR, but knew the importance of vaccination. Veterinarians included in the study had a good understanding of antibiotics, AMR, and zoonotic diseases. CONCLUSION: The knowledge level and practices observed in the study related to the use/abuse of antibiotics can potentially increase the risk of development of AMR and its transfer in the community. Our findings can help support AMR - mitigation efforts in the country, including the design of better policies on antibiotic use in dairy.