Title: Antimicrobial risk assessment: The Macrolide example of a Deterministic Risk Assessment
1Antimicrobial risk assessment The Macrolide
example of a Deterministic Risk Assessment
APPENDED Oct. 12. 2004
- H. Scott Hurd D.V.M, Ph.D.
- Iowa State University
- College of Veterinary Medicine
- Ames, Iowa
- Hurd-Health Consulting
J. Food Protection, May 2004 www.ifss.iastate.edu
shurd_at_iastate.edu
2Additional comments
- A few additional slides are added to the end of
this presentation in reply to Mr. Voses
presentation at the same meeting. - Mr. Vose stated that his presentation was under
contract with FDA, although they did not have
opportunity to clear his comments - Therefore, we do not hold FDA liable for any
defamatory comments made. We are concerned that
Mr. Vose might be perceived as speaking on behalf
of FDA, however. Finally, we have concern about
the effect his remarks may have on open
scientific exchange and advancement in this
field. - Science proceeds by conjecture and refutation
(Karl Popper)
3Objectives for this presentation
- Explain our methods
- Encourage you to use this same or a similar
approach - Highlight our lessons learned
- Generate discussion
4Overview of lessons learned
- There is a system consisting of several
measurable processes - Must be multidisciplinary!
- Qualitative vs. quantitative
- Level of model and data resolution DEPENDS
- Risk Pr (hazard) consequence
- Estimation of risk is NOT the whole story
5There is a system consisting of several
measurable processes
From Dickson, J.S., Hurd, H.S, and Rostagno,
M.H., Salmonella in the Pork Production Chain.
National Pork Board Review. 2003
6Must be multidisciplinary!
- H. Scott Hurd, D.V.M., Ph.D., Hurd-Health
Consulting, Roland, IA, USA - Stephanie Doores, Ph.D., Pennsylvania State
University - Dermot Hayes, Ph.D., Iowa State University, USA
- Alan Mathew, Ph.D., University of Tennessee, USA
- John Maurer, Ph.D., University of Georgia, USA
- Peter Silley, Bs.C., Ph.D., MB Consult Limited,
Bingley, West Yorkshire, UK - Randall S. Singer, D.V.M., Ph.D., University of
Minnesota, USA - Ronald N. Jones, M.D., The JONES Group/JMI
Laboratories, North Liberty, IA, USA
7Objectives of the assessment
- Assess the potential public health risks relating
to the use of the macrolides - tylosin (Tylan) and
- tilmicosin (Pulmotil and Micotil) in cattle,
swine and poultry. - Provide input for regulatory decision making
- Stimulate (redirect) the scientific and public
debate
8Overall methods
- Define the real outcome of interest
- Identify the steps (events) leading to that
outcome - Express them in quantifiable terms
- Understandable by microbiologists
- Find the data
- Combine and understand
9Qualitative Risk Definition (from Food Drug
Admin 152)
- Probability human illness is caused by a specific
resistant bacteria, is attributable to specific
animal-derived food commodity, and is treated
with human antibiotic of interest. - All events categorized as H, M, L
- Consequence considered after probability is
estimated
10Qualitative vs. quantitative
- It is relative
- Transparency
- Hard to explain
- Hard to defend
- Units of measure or breakpoints
- How do you combine multiple qualitative
variables? - L L L ?
- L L L ??
11Hazard Definition
- Hazard defined as human illness that is
- Caused by macrolide-resistant Campylobacter spp.
or Enterococcus faecium. - Attributable to consumption of contaminated
poultry, pork or beef. - Treated with a human antibiotic of the macrolide
class. - Human salmonellosis not addressed because
organism is neither routinely susceptible to nor
treated by macrolides (Risk Ranking)
12Hazard Definition (cont.)
- Included all U.S. label claim uses for two
macrolide antibiotics, tylosin (Tylan) and
tilmicosin (Micotil) in poultry, swine, and beef
cattle. - Administered via medicated feed or drinking water
or by injection. - Used for treatment, prevention and control of
disease, and for increased feed efficiency and
weight gain. - Included two foodborne bacteria, Campylobacter
spp. and E. faecium.
13Risk Definition for this analysis
- Risk Pr (hazard) consequence
- The yearly probability that an average individual
in the U.S. population would be affected by the
defined hazard and would experience an adverse
therapeutic event (treatment failure) - Poorer efficacy than usual as manifested by
longer duration of diarrhea, progression to more
severe disease, or in worst case scenario
mortality. - OR The Pr that a random person in the U.S. will
suffer an adverse therapeutic event in one year.
14Methodology
- Event tree approach
- Some data are limited and thus are approximated
- When numbers uncertain, the most conservative
(highest risk) estimates were used. - Meets definition of semi-quantitative analysis
or deterministically quantitative - Describes all the necessary events that must
occur to create the modeled risk. - Provides greater transparency than qualitative
analysis regarding calculations and assumptions
at each point in the chain of events. - Consistent with FDA guidance 152!!
15Pathway of Events Leading to the Hazard
Release Assessment Describes the probability
that factors related to the antimicrobial use in
animals will result in the emergence of resistant
bacteria or resistance determinates
(RzD). Exposure Assessment Describes the
likelihood of human exposure to the RzD through
particular exposure pathways. Consequence
Assessment Describes the relationship between
specified exposures to the RzD (the hazardous
agent) and the consequences of those exposures
(CVM-defined hazard)
Risk
16Node 1 Tylosin or Tilmicosin administered to
food animals
- Included all possible uses
- Medicated feed and injection counted as separate
two exposure events - Single dose was considered an exposure
- Estimated number of animals exposed/ treated with
T-T in 2001 (Doanes, Rennier) - Cattle 16.1 million
- Swine 49 million
- Broilers - 632 million
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
17Node 2 Resistance selected above background
- This probability is a function of three factors
- Presence of ENT and/or CAMPY in treated animals.
- Intrinsic or background susceptibility of these
bacteria. - Mutation or RzD acquisition with survival of
newly resistant strains. - Used following data to estimate the parameters
- 1. Prevalence of CAMPY or ENT in livestock
- 2. Current resistance levels in livestock
- 3. Prevalence of resistance in human isolates
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
18Node 3 RzD escapes from the farm
- Conservatively assumed as 100
- Carried in market animals
- No decreasing effect of early withdrawal
- Conservative (risk increasing) assumption
- Needs to be refined for length of treatment
effects
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
19Pathway of Events Leading to the Hazard
Release Assessment Describes the probability
that factors related to the antimicrobial use in
animals will result in the emergence of resistant
bacteria or resistance determinates
(RzD). Exposure Assessment Describes the
likelihood of human exposure to the RzD through
particular exposure pathways. Consequence
Assessment Describes the relationship between
specified exposures to the RzD (the hazardous
agent) and the consequences of those exposures
(CVM-defined hazard)
Risk
20Node 4 Bacteria with RzD remain on carcass after
harvest
- Campylobacter spp. (FSIS data do not distinguish
between C. jejuni and C. coli) - 4 of beef carcasses
- 32 of swine carcasses
- 88 of poultry carcasses
- E. coli used as indicator of contamination from
intestinal contents and/or fecal matter - 8 of beef carcasses
- 31 of swine carcasses
- 100 of poultry carcasses
- No adjustment for imported meat
- All ground meat assumed contaminated
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
21Node 5 Bacteria carrying resistant determinant
survives to retail meat case
- There is considerable evidence that CAMPY does
not survive well under refrigeration, therefore,
the risk should be reduced accordingly. - But to what level?
- Due to the inconsistencies in retail studies and
retail prevalence being only partly a function of
wholesale carcass prevalence, retail data were
not entered directly into the model.
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
22Node 6 Mishandling and presentation of infective
dose for consumption
- To cause human illness or passage of RzD, it must
be mishandled such that a sufficient dose of
bacteria will survive for human consumption. - Food borne risk FDA guidance
- National rates on the frequency of mishandling
these commodities were not available, therefore,
the effects of these situations were combined
with the results from other nodes. - Microbial growth models were not applied in this
assessment.
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
23Pathway of Events Leading to the Hazard
Release Assessment Describes the probability
that factors related to the antimicrobial use in
animals will result in the emergence of resistant
bacteria or resistance determinates
(RzD). Exposure Assessment Describes the
likelihood of human exposure to the RzD through
particular exposure pathways. Consequence
Assessment Describes the relationship between
specified exposures to the RzD (the hazardous
agent) and the consequences of those exposures
(CVM-defined hazard)
Risk
24Node 7 Consumer becomes ill due to consumption
of organism containing RzD
- The output from this node is the number of
illnesses associated with RzD attributed to
meat-borne CAMPY and ENT. - Limited data are available on the dose-response
of humans to oral consumption of CAMPY and ENT. - Human illness from meat-borne ENT is extremely
rare and it is not considered a food-borne
disease. - Could not calculate the number of illnesses due
to that exposure dose, therefore, calculations
for this node were combined with other nodes.
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
25Level of model and data resolution DEPENDS
- Available data
- Go from known to known
- Use of the model
- Could this process be changed as a risk
management tool
26Nodes 5-7 Ratio Method
- FSIS carcass swab data on contamination
- CDC data on human illness from CAMPY
- Combined effect of nodes 5,6,7
- Equals the Probability of human
campylobacteriosis from a meal that originated
from contaminated carcass regardless of RzD.
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
27Nodes 5-7 Ratio Method
- Total human cases /
- contaminated servings
- Tot. Human cases
- CAMPY 13.3/100,000 U.S. pop
- Adjusted for under reporting (38x)
- 90 of human cases were attributed meat
- RESULT 8 x 10-6
- Same constant used for Enterococci
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
28Node 8 Ill patient is treated with macrolide
class antibiotic
- For hazard (treatment failure) to occur, illness
must occur AND be treated with a macrolide - Results for CAMPY (3) from the probabilities of
- Patient seeking medical care (23.5)
- Submission of a culture (17.7)
- Positive test for CAMPY (94.5)
- Accurate diagnosis (75)
- Use of a macrolide (100)
- Probability of changing therapy from empiric
regimen to a macrolide after CAMPY diagnosis
conservatively assumed as 100 - Result ENT 1 in 1 million chance of food borne
illness
29Node 8 Ill patient is treated with macrolide
class antibiotic
- Commonest drugs selected are fluoroquinlones
(FQs) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, not
macrolides - FQ (ciprofloxacin) or erythromycin are
recommended "first-line" therapies for CAMPY
gastroenteritis - Initial therapy (FQ) would only infrequently be
changed in the absence of clinical failure - Routine practice would likely not result in
macrolide treatment for diarrhea - Therapy for CAMPY, if known from diagnosis or
culture, is erythromycin, but not usually
prescribed unless a FQ-treated case worsens.
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
30Risk Pr (hazard) consequence
31Node 9 Infection with a resistant organism
results in clinical treatment failure
- Risk probability of the defined hazard times
the consequence, defined as treatment failure - Treatment failure can have numerous definitions
- Death attributable to the episode (fatalities are
very rare.) - Persistence of presenting symptoms and laboratory
test abnormalities. - Lack of bacteriological evidence of pathogen
eradication at designated evaluation intervals. - Probability of CAMPY treatment failure
conservatively estimated at 50 - Probability of ENT treatment failure when treated
with erythromycin set at 100
32Results
- Quan model V18c2v2 for PPT.xls
33Conservative Assumptions
- Conservative estimates increased the risk
estimate. - All ground beef and pork assumed to be
contaminated with RzD. - For poultry, assumed that the entire 4-5 lb.
carcass contaminated with RzD. - Assumed that all uses of tylosin or tilmicosin
produced the same risk. - Assumed that a single treatment was equivalent to
long-term feeding for growth promotion, - Assumed 100 probability RzD escape from the
farm. - Assumed 50 failure rate for treatment of a
macrolide-resistant CAMPY infection with a
macrolide. - Assumed 90 of CAMPY cases attributable to meat
consumption.
34Key data needs
- Selection growth of RzD in livestock
populations exposed to antibiotic (2) - Effect of withdrawal on RzD prevalence (3)
- National estimates of the contamination at retail
(5) - Estimate of the frequency and type of consumer
mishandling (6) - Potential of RzD transfer from animal ENT to
human gut flora
35How much danger are we really in??
INTERPRETATION
36What is acceptable risk?
- 1 in 1 million?
- 1 in 7000?
- Function of
- Personal control
- Choice
- Benefits
37Risk is NOT the whole story
- Secondary impacts of management change
- Unintended consequences
- Externalities
- Relative increased risk
- Benefits
- Economic
- Public health
38Alternative risks to decreased antimicrobial uses
- Increasing human salmonellosis Eurosurveillance
weekly (June 2002) - Decreased airsacculitis ? decreased Salmonella
and Campy on carcass (Russell, 2003) - Decreased condemnations in turkeys? decreased
Salmonella in ground product - Stopped avoparcin ? Increase necrotic enteritis
- Increased human illness ? increased Tx ?
antibiotic resistance??
39Future work
- Fully stochastic (uncertainty) model
- Benefits assessment
- Fill in critical research gaps,
- e.g. Pr (RzD develops)
- Revaluate E. faecium and RzD transfer
- Model at risk subpopulations
40Following are slides taken from Mr. Voses
presentation with Dr. Hurds replies shown in
yellow italics font
41It was (is) Dr. Hurds professional judgment as a
health care professional that a risk of 1 in 10
million could be deemed as safe (a risk
management opinion). Note, that nowhere in the
scientific (risk assessment) paper was that
terminology used.
42 Public Health Consequences of Macrolide Use in
Food Animals A Deterministic Risk Assessment.
Scott Hurd et al, (2004). J. Food Protection
67(5) p980-992
- Supported by Elanco Animal Health (acknowledged)
- Funded two meetings, not writing of paper
- Had antimicrobial use data thats great!
- There is often the suggestion that science funded
by industry is biased and self-serving with
possible insinuations against the integrity of
the scientists. However, it should be noted that
Eli Lilly Inc, parent of Elanco has much at stake
by the loss human health effects and could be
expected to have the highest interest in
promoting human health over animal profit. - Based on CVM-Vose FQ model mathematics
- Due credit was hopefully given. It was
encouraging that basic methodologies could be
similar
43continued
- Vose comments on poster sent to Hurd
- Math is inappropriate for E.faecium as it is a
reservoir not flow - It became obvious to the authors, as we
progressed that E.f. was an inappropriate
candidate for inclusion in the foodborne route
used in this model. However, we were attempting
to follow FDA 152. - However, that critique does not negate the
information derived from the Campylobacter
analysis - Reduction of E.faecium risk by 10-6 not explained
at all - It was stated in the paper that Human illness
from E.f. is extremely rare, and it is not
considered a foodborne disease 1 in a million
was a quantification of extremely rare (maybe
it should have been lower) - Sensitivity analysis not performed on important
factors - That is a matter of authors opinion based on the
great amount of uncertainty in the parameters
used. It represents an attempt at transparency. - Published without any amendments
- The comments were on the poster only (a very
short version of the whole). It was the authors
hope that the issues would have been addressed in
the publication and to press on with differing
opinions for the advancement of science.
44 - Now saying The analysis presented in our paper
was not meant to be the final answer about the
risk of food animal macrolide use - But results have already been widely publicised
as if it was - The authors realize that FDA is not swayed by
media publicity, but we accept that the objective
of this project as noted in this presentation was
to Generate discussion. Failure to do so would
not lead to scientific advancement. - Purpose of paper was to criticise Guidance 152
via an example - Used FDA-FQ model principles
- Used Guidance 152
- It is absolutely incorrect assume the purpose of
this paper was to criticise FDA, the guidance ,or
Mr Vose!!! - At the beginning of this project we had every
intention to follow 152, and in many respects we
did. In fact one reviewer of the manuscript
commented that it was not contrary to 152 and
should not be construed as an advancement or
improvement to 152 - It is inevitable that improvements to 152 could
be suggested from this exercise. It would be
most unfortunate if FDA or its contractors take
an attitude that hinders scientific advancement.
45continued
- Calculated a minimum human risk from macrolide
resistance - Based on the conservative estimates used for many
parameters, we conclude the real risk is likely
much lower than our estimate - Conclude that quantitative analysis better than
qualitative - The conclusions about the value of quantitative
analysis are methodological issues only
indirectly related to FDA decisions about
macrolide use. The greatest value of quantitative
analysis, which is relative to FDA decisions is
TRANSPARENCY. - i.e. 152 would disallow macrolide use, but
numbers show very small risk - That may be true, from that it appears that 152
is a risk MANAGEMENT document and not a guide for
risk ASSESSMENT. - Definitely has a good point, but better just to
make 152 criticism - Criticism of 152 were meant to be a learning
experience. - Dr Tollefson also noted that CVM would look at
low risk calculation - Indeed CVM has a challenge as to how information
of all types (Quant/Qual) should be utilized in
decision making