Suchergebnisse

In 2001, the Task Force developed an initial Action Plan, outlining specific issues, goals, and actions important for addressing the problem of AR. This document, entitled A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, Part I: Domestic Issues, reflected a broad- based consensus of participating federal agencies, which was reached with individual input from state and local health agencies, universities, professional societies, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare delivery organizations, agricultural producers, consumer groups, and other members of the public. Continued collaboration with these partners has been vital to achieving successful implementation of the Action Plan. The 2011 revision of the Action Plan was based in part on individual input obtained at a consultants' meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia, in December 2007. Present at the public meeting were consultants with wide-ranging expertise in areas such as human and veterinary medicine, pharmaceutical and diagnostics manufacturing, animal husbandry, clinical microbiology, epidemiology, infectious diseases and infection control, and state and local public health officials. The Action Plan includes action items organized into four focus areas: Surveillance, Prevention and Control, Research, and Product Development. ; Executive summary -- Introduction and overview -- The Focus Areas -- Focus Area I: Surveillance -- Focus Area II: Prevention and Control -- Focus Area III: Research -- Focus Area IV: Product Development -- Acronyms and abbreviations ; Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance ; co-chairs: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration. ; Title from caption (viewed on October 1, 2012). ; The Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (hereafter referred to as the Task Force) was created in 1999 to coordinate the activities of federal agencies in addressing antimicrobiala resistance (AR) in recognition of the increasing importance of AR as a public health threat. The Task Force is co-chaired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and also includes the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (HHS/ASPR), and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (HHS/OASH). ; Mode of access: Internet; PDF reader (Acrobat .pdf file: 459 KB, 69 p.). ; Text (electronic publication)

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) imperils health for people across the world. This enormous challenge is being met with the rationalisation of prescription, dispensing and consumption of antimicrobials in clinical settings and in the everyday lives of members of the general population. Individuals need to be reached outside clinical settings to prepare them for the necessary changes to the pharmaceutical management of infections; efforts that depend on media and communications and, therefore, how the AMR message is mediated, received and applied. In 2016, the UK Review on Antimicrobial Resistance called on governments to support intense, worldwide media activity to promote public awareness and to further efforts to rationalise the use of antimicrobial pharmaceuticals. In this article, we consider this communications challenge in light of contemporary currents of thought on media publics, including: the tendency of health communications to cast experts and lay individuals in opposition; the blaming of individuals who appear to 'resist' expert advice; the challenges presented by negative stories of AMR and their circulation in public life, and; the problems of public trust tied to the construction and mediation of expert knowledge on the effective management of AMR.

Despite global awareness of the key factors surrounding antimicrobial resistance (AMR), designing and implementing policies to address the critical issues around the drivers of AMR remains complex to put into practice. We identified prevalent narratives and framing used by epistemological communities involved in the response to AMR in Tanzania, interrogated how this framing may inform policymaking, and identified interventions that could be tailored to the groups believed responsible for AMR. We interviewed 114 key informants from three districts and analysed transcripts line by line. Our results suggest that many different groups help drive the spread of AMR in Tanzania and need to be involved in any effective response. Human health is currently perceived as driving the response, while other domains lag behind in their efforts. For AMR programmes to be successful, all sectors need to be involved, including civil society groups, community representatives, and those working in communities (e.g., primary care physicians). However, current plans and programmes largely fail to include these viewpoints. The perceived presence of political will in Tanzania is a significant step towards such a response. Any strategies to tackle AMR need to be tailored to the context-specific realities, taking into account constraints, beliefs, and power dynamics within countries.

2 p. ; Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has implications for many other health issues, from cancer to the health workforce to laboratory quality. The fight to keep antibiotics working cannot be won by the health sector alone – it will require collaboration from many sectors and sections of government, and from health workers and patients.

Since 2002, the Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance has released an annual report on the progress towards implementation of the 2001 Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance. The Task Force has now revised the 2001 Action Plan and a draft of the revised Action Plan was recently released and published in the Federal Register for public comment. The revised draft is available at (http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/index.html). Although the revised Action Plan is not final, the participating agencies are releasing this annual progress report, to provide information on Federal activities during calendar years 2009 and 2010. The revised Action Plan maintains the same four Focus Areas as the previous plan: Surveillance, Prevention and Control, Research and Product Development. Within these Focus Areas, there are a total of 11 goals: two for Surveillance, two for Prevention and Control, four for Research and three for Product Development. Further, each of the goals lists one or more Action Items that constitute the Federal government's commitment to targeted efforts to address the public health burden of antimicrobial resistance; there are a total of 53 such Action Items. Many of the Action Items also list implementation steps representing specific activities that one or more of the participating agencies will undertake to accomplish the Action Item. Most of these implementation steps are time-delimited; the planned completion date is given in parentheses as the year by which this step will be completed (indicating December 31 of that year). For example, (2011) means that the work is expected to be completed by the end of the 2011 calendar year. Other activities constitute continuing work of the agencies and are noted as "ongoing" with no set end date. The format of this report is new, and differs from updates of the previous Action Plan by providing progress descriptions that are embedded into the Action Plan. The Task Force hopes that this format is useful for the reader in understanding the Federal agencies' activities as we move toward accomplishment of the Action Plans goals. The Task Force plans to continue to provide annual updates on these Action Items and implementation steps as was done in the past. The goals, action items, and implementation steps represent current priorities based on today's science and threats to public health. Because of the rapidly evolving nature of AR, there will likely be new or emerging challenges in antimicrobial resistance subsequent to the publication of this Action Plan. The Task Force is committed to identifying and responding to these issues as they arise. Thus, the Action Items and implementation steps will be updated at least every two years and more often if circumstances require. ; Introduction -- The Focus Areas -- Focus Area I: Surveillance -- Focus Area II: Prevention and control -- Focus Area III: Research -- Focus Area IV: Product development -- Acronyms and abbreviations. ; Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance ; co-chairs: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health. ; 6/16/11 - date from document properites ; Participating agencies: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Health Resources and Services Administration, Health and Human Services/Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Health and Human Services/ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. ; Mode of access: Internet; PDF reader (Acrobat .pdf file: 345 KB, 54 p.). ; Text (electronic publication)

Since their discovery, antibiotics, and more broadly, antimicrobials, have been a cornerstone of modern medicine. But the overuse and misuse of these drugs have led to rising rates of antimicrobial resistance, which occurs when bacteria adapt in ways that render antibiotics ineffective. A world without effective antibiotics can have drastic impacts on population health, global development, and the global economy. As a global common good, antibiotic effectiveness is vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons, where a shared limited resource is overused by a community when each individual exploits the finite resource for their own benefit. A borderless threat like antimicrobial resistance requires global governance mechanisms to mitigate its emergence and spread, and it is the responsibility of all countries and relevant multilateral organizations. These mechanisms can be in the form of legally binding global governance mechanisms such as treaties and regulatory standards or nonbinding mechanisms such as political declarations, resolutions, or guidelines. In this article, we argue that while both are effective methods, the strong, swift, and coordinated action needed to address rising rates of antimicrobial resistance will be better served through legally binding governance mechanisms.

During the past 70 years, there has been a continued incremental worsening of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) by a combination of abusing antimicrobials in humans and animals as well as insufficient research and investment for new antimicrobial agents. The current trend of worsening AMR is likely to result in increased mortality and morbidity, longer stays in hospitals and accelerated health care costs. It is estimated that the global mortality attributed by AMR could reach 10 million per year by 2050, which is a massive increase from the current estimated mortality of 700, 000 per year. The year 2014 was the turning point of more than a half century of AMR history, transforming it from technical issue to a political agenda. Major progress includes adoption of the Global Action Plan on AMR at the WHO World Health Assembly in May 2015, followed by completion of a National Action Plan in most parts of the world, enactment of the Global Antimicrobial Surveillance System (GLASS) in October 2015, launch of the World Antibiotic Awareness Week in November 2015, and G20 Leaderscommitment to create the AMR Global Collaboration Hub in July 2017. Moreover, a comprehensive program against AMR has been implemented in some countries, such as UK, USA, and Germany. The strategic approach through coordination led by WHO with relevant international agencies and other entities was one of the key enabling factors for sustained political commitment on AMR.

AbstractThe desire to govern antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in animal agriculture has gained renewed prominence in the UK and international policy and practice in response to growing concern about the impact of AMR infections on human and animal health. This article adopts a more‐than‐human approach inspired by assemblage and biopolitical thinking to explorehowdiverse actors work to assemble a regime of governance in animal agriculture through their efforts to tackle AMR. How agricultural animals are represented and positioned in this process, and the consequences of these efforts for broader agricultural animal–human relation in UK animal agriculture is also a concern. Qualitative, empirical material is produced from documents published by government, industry organisations, NGOs and retailers. We highlight the negotiated contingencies of actions on AMR in UK animal agriculture and reflect on the limited extent to which they constitute a new front in the regulation of agricultural animals.

The desire to govern antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in animal agriculture has gained renewed prominence in the UK and international policy and practice in response to growing concern about the impact of AMR infections on human and animal health. This article adopts a more-than-human approach inspired by assemblage and biopolitical thinking to explore how diverse actors work to assemble a regime of governance in animal agriculture through their efforts to tackle AMR. How agricultural animals are represented and positioned in this process, and the consequences of these efforts for broader agricultural animal–human relation in UK animal agriculture is also a concern. Qualitative, empirical material is produced from documents published by government, industry organisations, NGOs and retailers. We highlight the negotiated contingencies of actions on AMR in UK animal agriculture and reflect on the limited extent to which they constitute a new front in the regulation of agricultural animals.

In 2001, the Task Force developed an initial Action Plan, outlining specific issues, goals, and actions important for addressing the problem of AR. This document, entitled A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, Part I: Domestic Issues, reflected a broad- based consensus of participating federal agencies, which was reached with individual input from state and local health agencies, universities, professional societies, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare delivery organizations, agricultural producers, consumer groups, and other members of the public. Continued collaboration with these partners has been vital to achieving successful implementation of the Action Plan. In 2011, the Action Plan was revised based in part on individual input obtained at a consultants' meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia in December 2007. Present at the public meeting were consultants with wide-ranging expertise in areas such as human and veterinary medicine, pharmaceutical and diagnostics manufacturing, animal husbandry, clinical microbiology, epidemiology, and infectious diseases and infection control, and state and local public health officials. This 2012 update reflects changes since the 2011 Action Plan. The Action Plan includes action items organized into four focus areas: Surveillance, Prevention and Control, Research, and Product Development. Within each of these four areas, specific goals are listed. ; Executive summary -- Introduction and overview -- The Focus Areas -- Focus Area I: Surveillance -- Focus Area II: Prevention and Control -- Focus Area III: Research -- Focus Area IV: Product Development -- Acronyms and abbreviations -- Appendix A: Retired Projects and Implementation Steps ; Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance ; co-chairs: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration. ; Title from caption (viewed on October 1, 2012). ; The Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (hereafter referred to as the Task Force) was created in 1999 to coordinate the activities of federal agencies in addressing antimicrobiala resistance (AR) in recognition of the increasing importance of AR as a public health threat. The Task Force is co-chaired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and also includes the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (HHS/ASPR), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (HHS/OASH). ; Mode of access: Internet; PDF reader (Acrobat .pdf file: 339 KB, 40 p.). ; Text (electronic publication)

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Beyond their use of treating human and animal diseases, antimicrobial agents have also been employed in animal feeding as "growth promoters", being administrated at low doses throughout the husbandry period, and leading to beneficial effects, mainly for large-scale production. However, the consequent selective pressure has helped to increase antimicrobial resistance frequencies in isolates from animals globally. Brazil is a major food producer and exporter; therefore, it is of great value to look at the panorama of bacterial resistance associated with farm animals. Since 1998, many drugs have been prohibited from being used as growth promoters in Brazil. However, neither data on the prophylactic and therapeutic use of antimicrobial agents in farms, nor results of contemporary and integrated surveillance programs regarding antimicrobial resistance associated with food production animals, are still publicly available. This review aims to update and discuss the available Brazilian data on this topic emphasizing legal aspects, occurrence, and genetics of the resistance reported by studies published since 2009, focusing on producing animals and derived foods with the most global public health impact. Data here compiled may be useful to monitor and evaluate the local situation and serve as a basis for establishing parameters for the future. ABSTRACT: In animal husbandry, antimicrobial agents have been administered as supplements to increase production over the last 60 years. Large-scale animal production has increased the importance of antibiotic management because it may favor the evolution of antimicrobial resistance and select resistant strains. Brazil is a significant producer and exporter of animal-derived food. Although Brazil is still preparing a national surveillance plan, several changes in legislation and timely programs have been implemented. Thus, Brazilian data on antimicrobial resistance in bacteria associated with animals come from official programs and the scientific community. This ...

"The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us the terrible cost of being unprepared for global health emergencies. The lack of treatments, vaccines, and sufficiently coordinated responses resulted in many unprecedented challenges that must now be analyzed and tackled rapidly. The crisis has raised awareness of the urgent need to improve the design of health systems, as well as the practical implementation of new strategies and technical solutions to better prepare for future pandemics. These preparations must also consider harms secondary to the pandemic, including the resulting effects on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While drug-resistant infections pose a well-known and severe threat to human and animal health, the COVID-19 pandemic is compounding this already problematic situation. Although often considered only a medical problem, antimicrobial resistance is an evolutionary challenge accelerated by social, cultural and economic factors that lead to the misuse, overuse and abuse of life-saving antimicrobial medicines. The antimicrobial resistance challenge is compounded by inadequate attention to disease prevention and response, global circulation of people and products, differences in industry and market regulations across countries, and a fragile pipeline of new antibiotics and their alternatives. While the discovery of new antimicrobials will provide temporary solutions, sustainable success requires rigorous social science research that explores the drivers of antimicrobial resistance. These solutions should promote balance between equitable access to, conservation of, and innovation for antimicrobials, adapted to local conditions across the globe. To encourage collaboration and to address this challenge, we have created the International Network for Antimicrobial Resistance Social Science (INAMRSS).12 The network is an open consortium of social science researchers focused on addressing the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. We believe antimicrobial resistance is only surmountable through efforts that consider social, political and economic factors. We intend to champion social science as part of a broadly defined One Health perspective to inform global initiatives. INAMRSS is a member of the Global AMR R&D Hub stakeholder group, which has built a system to track antimicrobial resistance research investment, but has not yet started monitoring relevant social science research funding. We endorse the recommendation of the United Nations Interagency Coordination Group on Antimicrobial Resistance for creating an Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against such resistance, with appropriate expertise across disciplines including the social sciences, and with a focus on the ways that humans are driving this problem and can contribute to solutions"