ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Trends in Antimicrobial Usage on Swiss Pig Farms from 2018 to 2021: Based on an Electronic Treatment Journal.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial use in pig herds in Ireland: analysis of a national database (2019-2023).Porcine health management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The aim of this retrospective observational study was to observe the trends in antimicrobial usage (AMU) from 2018 to 2021 in Swiss pigs based on an electronic treatment journal used nationwide by farmers. Thus, for the first time, standardized, longitudinal comparisons of AMU between the years could be analyzed, as well as the influence of targeted interventions, on farms with higher consumption. (2) Methods: The data was evaluated by different indicators, such as the amount of active ingredient in kilograms, treatment days per farm (ATI) and treatment incidence (TI) based either on animal-defined daily doses (TIADD) or used daily doses (TIUDD). Calculations were performed across the following five age categories: suckling piglets, weaners, fattening pigs, and gestating and lactating sows, and the proportions of antimicrobial classes were evaluated for each age category. (3) Results: The highest amount of the active ingredient was administered to the group of fattening pigs, while the suckling piglets received the lowest amount of the active ingredient. In 2021, there was a significant decrease in active ingredient consumption per pig, but a significant increase in ATI, TIADD and TIUDD compared to 2018. The largest proportion of AMU was attributed to penicillins each year, followed by sulfonamides and tetracyclines. The "Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials" represented a proportion of overall usage, declining from 5.2% in 2018 to 3.1% in 2021, while polypeptides were the most used class of critical antimicrobials. Interventions on high-usage farms showed that some farms decreased their AMU in the following year while others did not. (4) Conclusions: This study reveals a decrease in the overall usage measured in kilograms per pig of antimicrobials in Swiss pigs between 2019 and 2021 through the monitoring of AMU, but, at the same time, there was an increase in treatment days or incidence per farm. Critical antimicrobials can be reduced regardless of the indicator. The significance and quality of interventions should be investigated in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.