Antimicrobial susceptibility testing by Australian veterinary diagnostic laboratories. Issue 4 (25th March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hardefeldt, LY; Marenda, M; Crabb, H; Stevenson, MA; Gilkerson, JR; Billman‐Jacobe, H; Browning, GF
• Is Part Of: Australian veterinary journal. Volume 96:Issue 4(2018)
• Page Start: 142
• Page End: 146
• Publication Date: 2018-03-25
• Subjects: antimicrobial resistance -- antimicrobial stewardship, diagnostic laboratories -- microbiology -- susceptibility testing; Veterinary medicine -- Australia -- Periodicals; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; Veterinary Medicine -- Periodicals; 636.089
• DOI: 10.1111/avj.12685
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0005-0423

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The national strategy for tackling antimicrobial resistance highlights the need for antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary practice and for surveillance of antimicrobial susceptibility in veterinary pathogens. Diagnostic laboratories have an important role in facilitating both of these processes, but it is unclear whether data from veterinary diagnostic laboratories are similar enough to allow for compilation and if there is consistent promotion of appropriate antimicrobial use embedded in the approaches of different laboratories to susceptibility testing. Methods: A cross‐sectional study of antimicrobial susceptibility testing and reporting procedures by Australian veterinary diagnostic laboratories was conducted in 2017 using an online questionnaire. All 18 veterinary diagnostic laboratories in Australia completed the questionnaire. Results: Kirby‐Bauer disc diffusion was the method predominantly used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and was used to evaluate 86% of all isolates, although two different protocols were used across the 18 laboratories (CLSI 15/18, CDS 3/18). Minimum inhibitory concentrations were never reported by 61% of laboratories. Common isolates were consistently reported on across all species, except for gram‐negative isolates in pigs, for which there was some variation in the approach to reporting. There was considerable diversity in the panels of antimicrobials used for susceptibility testing on common isolates and no consistency was apparent between laboratories for any bacterial species. Conclusion: We recommend that nationally agreed and consistent antimicrobial panels for routine susceptibility testing should be developed and a uniform set of guidelines should be adopted by veterinary diagnostic laboratories in Australia.