ArticlePorcine health management2025
Antimicrobial use in pig herds in Ireland: analysis of a national database (2019-2023).
Article in Porcine health management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) in human and animal pathogens remains a global One-Health threat. The associations between antimicrobial use (AMU) and the evolution and dissemination of AMR bacteria, and their resistance genes, highlight the importance of monitoring and regulating AMU. Here, we present an analysis of national monitoring data of AMU in pig facilities in Ireland from 2019 to 2023 via the recently established National AMU Database. AMU was measured using two metrics (mg per corrected population units (mg/PCU) and defined daily dose (DDDvet/PCU)). Temporal trend models were fit using regression models with population average effects given there were multiple observations per herd, while controlling for herd type and size.
resultsLinear spline models revealed no significant change in overall usage from Q1-2019 until mid-2020, followed by a significant decrease in usage until mid-2022. There was evidence of increases in usage from mid-2022 until the end of the time series; the exact timing of the changes in trends varied by the AMU metric. A multinomial logit regression model suggested that there was a significantly decreased probability of premix use relative to oral administration from Q3-2021 through Q4-2023 (OR: 0.70 - 0.58; P < 0.03). The predicted probability that a high priority critically important antimicrobial (HPCIA) was used in a herd during a year-quarter declined by an average of 9% per quarter (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.90-0.92; p < 0.001) over the study period. The mean decline in use of cephalosporin (3rd /4th generation), fluoroquinolone and macrolide (a former HPCIA) per quarter were estimated to be -12% (95% CI: -8- -15%), -9% (95% CI: -8- -10%) and - 4% (95% CI: -2- -4%), respectively.
conclusionsThis exploration of AMU in pigs in Ireland revealed significant changes in overall usage, with both decreases and increases. There were declines in usage of HPCIA agents. Additionally, there was evidence of a significant decline in the use of oral premixes, coinciding with policy change. Further monitoring of AMU is essential to understand how the pig farming sector is responding to policy changes (e.g., increasing AMU in response to zinc oxide bans).
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.