Een Horizon 2020 project getiteld: “Data-driven control and prioritisation of non-EU-regulated contagious animal diseases (DECIDE)” met 19 partners uit 11 landen gecoördineerd door Gerdien van Schaik. Het doel van het DECIDE project is om data-gebaseerde beslissingsondersteunende hulpmiddelen te ontwikkelen waarmee veehouders en/of dierenartsen onderbouwde keuzes kunnen maken voor de bestrijding van endemische infectieziekten in kalveren, vleeskuikens, biggen en zalm. In die keuze wordt rekening gehouden met de mate van voorkomen van de infectie, de directe productieschade, de welzijnsimpact en de kosten en baten van een eventuele behandeling. Het DECIDE consortium bestaat uit experts uit verschillende disciplines en sectoren, namelijk veterinaire epidemiologie en diagnostiek, sociale wetenschappen, economie,  dierenwelzijn, informatie technologie, artificiële intelligentie, data wetenschappen, en mechanistische en voorspellende modellering.

• prof. dr. M. (Mirjam) Nielen
• prof. dr. J.J. (Sjaak) de Wit
• dr. ir. W. (Wilma) Steeneveld
• prof. dr. ir. G. (Gerdien) van Schaik
• Y. (Yara) Slegers

https://www.uu.nl/organisatie/faculteit-diergeneeskunde/ons-onderzoek/samenwerkingsverbanden/netherlands-centre-for-one-health-ncoh/fighting-covid-19-in-animals-and-humans

• prof. dr. H.S. (Hans) Kooistra
• prof. dr. J.A. (Jaap) Wagenaar
• drs. W.J.R. (Ruth) van der Leij
• drs. M.M. (Marleen) Kannekens-Jager
• dr. H.F. (Herman) Egberink
• dr. E.M. (Els) Broens
• prof. dr. Merel Langelaar

• NCOH
• WUR
• Erasmus MC
• WBVR

Vroege detectie in de veehouderij is essentieel wanneer het gaat om resistentie (ABR) tegen antimicrobiële middelen die essentieel zijn voor de behandeling van bacteriële infecties bij mensen.

Als ten tijde van de eerste detectie een nieuw type ABR maar op een klein aantal bedrijven voorkomt, dan is het goed mogelijk om het risico op blootstelling van mensen te minimaliseren. Echter, wanneer een groot aantal bedrijven positief zijn bevonden is dat niet meer haalbaar. Het doel van BEWARE is de ontwikkeling van een blauwdruk voor detectie van nieuwe typen ABR in de veehouderij als het aantal positieve bedrijven nog laag is. Hoewel de methode toepasbaar is voor alle typen ABR en alle diersoorten, zal BEWARE zich richten op carbapenemase-producerende Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in vleeskalveren, varkens en vleeskuikens. Dit zijn de meest relevante diersectoren voor ABR en CPE is een zeer belangrijk middel voor behandeling van humane Intensive Care patiënten.

• N. (Natcha) Dankittipong
• prof. dr. J.A. (Jaap) Wagenaar
• dr. A.L. (Aldert) Zomer

• Jantien Backer (RIVM)
• Alex Bossers (WUR)
• Clazien de Vos (WUR)
• Manon Swanenburg (WUR)

Since the 1950s, antimicrobials have been increasingly used in modern intensive livestock production systems. Besides preventive and therapeutic use, antimicrobials were used as growth promoters in the European Union (EU) until their ban in 2006. This was preceded by decades of growing evidence and concerns about the public health impact of widespread veterinary antimicrobial use (AMU) and associated increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). As AMU in livestock favors AMR development in bacterial populations as it does in humans, the public health risks of veterinary AMU are threefold: 1) resistant bacteria can pass onto humans via direct contact with animals; 2) these bacteria can pass on via food of either animal origin or cross-contaminated during production; 3) these bacteria can spread into the environment via farm runoff or unprocessed manure used as fertilizer. Moreover, large volumes of antimicrobial residues in manure cause further environmental exposure and potential selective pressure. In 2007, the Netherlands was the largest veterinary antimicrobial consumer per biomass unit of animal production among 10 EU countries. Together with the discovery of large reservoirs of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL)-producing bacteria in Dutch livestock, this led to considerable socio-political pressure, with the government imposing 20%, 50% and 70% AMU reductions in livestock in 2011, 2013 and 2015, respectively. After an initial rapid AMU reduction (56% in 2013), mostly attributable to replacing group treatments, adopting herd health and treatment plans, guidelines, benchmarking systems and transparency in prescriptions, a 58% AMU reduction was reported in 2015, indicating that a 70% of higher AMU reduction would require more fundamental changes in the livestock production systems rather than in prescribing procedures alone. Indeed some structural differences in AMU still exist between Dutch livestock farms and overall AMU remains high in a subset of them, mainly because of the highly intensive nature of the Dutch farming industry. Moreover, in recent years AMU reduction has levelled off despite further reduction is sought after, particularly in broilers, weaned piglets and veal calves, whose groups now account for most AMU in Dutch livestock. An important counter argument is the increased economic burden placed on the farmers and eventually on the consumers through further restriction to veterinary AMU when this is needed for therapeutic purposes. A rise in livestock production costs would be unbearable in the highly competitive international agricultural market wherein the Dutch livestock industry relies heavily on exports. Providing the right conditions for incentivizing further AMU reduction in Dutch livestock requires an assessment of the potential impact on AMU and associated (negative or positive) financial effects of the available interventions aiming at keeping livestock healthy, on the principle that every infection prevented is an opportunity for no treatment. Policy makers and livestock producers would then be able to consider supporting the implementation of a specific intervention instead of another based their cost-effectiveness. These interventions include: (i) infection control (i.e. enhanced farm biosecurity and hygiene standards), (ii) animal husbandry practices (i.e. enhanced farm management, e.g. low-stock density farming, all-in/all-out production systems, rearing of slow-growing breeds, etc.), (iii) vaccination (for bacterial diseases, but also viral diseases often complicated by secondary bacterial infections). Indeed, there is still no quantitative evidence for the impact of these interventions on AMU, and even less evidence for their sustainability. Consequently, comprehensive recommendations to farmers about which interventions are most cost-effective and would best suit their specific situations in relation to the public health needs remain rather vague (e.g. as general statements like ‘increased vaccination’ or ‘improved biosecurity’) or are based on individual veterinarians’ personal experience and opinion. As a collaboration of two leading institutions in animal and public health in the Netherlands (Veterinary Medicine Faculty of Utrecht University and the RIVM) and using both existing and newly collected data, we will quantify in a scenario-based modelling framework the impact of different biosecurity/hygiene standards, vaccination schemes and husbandry practices on AMU reduction (overall and for specific antimicrobials) in broilers, weaned piglets and veal calves, including their cost-effectiveness. Determining the impact and feasibility of these interventions will provide livestock producers and policy makers with a management tool to set targets and draw plans for the implementation of those interventions with the highest potential for AMU reduction, and so decreasing AMR in a rational and sustainable way.

• prof. dr. J.A. (Jaap) Wagenaar
• prof. dr. ir. D.J.J. (Dick) Heederik
• P. (Panagiotis) Mallioris
• dr. L. (Lapo) Mughini Gras