35
other countries (Fedorka-Cray et al. 2002). In 1969, Martel and Coudert described
the national surveillance resistance in Salmonella and E. coli animal isolates in
France. In 1987, DuPont and Steele suggested national surveillance of the antimicrobials usage in food producing animals. Following the rise of multidrug resistant
Salmonella Typhimurium DT104, S. enteric serovar Newport resistant to third generation cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolone resistant Campylobacter in 1996, the
Center for Disease Control (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), founded the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) (CDC 2016a, b; FDA, 2016; Zawack
et al. 2016). Similarly, in Europe, Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring Program (DANMAP) was established targeting the rise of vancomycin
resistant enterococci in pigs and poultry (DANMAP 2015). The Canadian Integrated
Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) was initiated in
Canada in order to monitor the antimicrobial resistance. Since then, the antimicrobial resistance surveillance programs and recommendations of these programs were
followed in many countries. In India, the Indian Council of Medical Research, New
Delhi, developed an antimicrobial resistance surveillance network in 2014 in collaboration with tertiary care hospitals throughout India (Veeraraghavan et al. 2018).
2.3 Global and Supranational Surveillance Networks
Low and middle income countries investigated the burden of global antimicrobial
resistance and infectious diseases. For antimicrobial resistance surveillance, 72
supranational networks programs have been formed since 2000 in bacteria, tubercle
bacilli, fungi, human immunodeficiency virus, and malaria that have included low
and middle income countries. Networks are grouped as WHO/governmental
(n = 26), pharma initiated (n = 22) or academic (n = 24) (Ashley et al. 2018).
Funding agencies differ, with 30 networks receiving WHO or public funding, 13
foundation or trust, 25 corporate, and 4 are supported from more than one agency.
The foremost global programmes for resistance surveillance in Tubercle bacilli,
HIV and malaria gather data in low and middle income countries through intermittent active surveillance programs or combined approaches. The prime challenge
encountered by these networks has been getting high coverage across low and middle income countries and fulfilling the recommended frequency of reporting (Amos
et al. 2009). To get high quality data, representative surveillance in low and middle
income countries is demanding. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance requires a set
level of laboratory training and infrastructure that is not generally available in low
and middle income countries (Talisuna et al. 2012). The nascent Global resistance
Surveillance System aims to develop passive surveillance in all member states.
Previous experience suggests harmonizing active approaches may be required in
many low and middle income countries; if representative, meaningful, clinically
relevant data are to be acquired (WHO 2015). Sustaining an up-to-date registry of
networks would support a more coordinated approach to surveillance.
2 Global Surveillance Programs on Antimicrobial Resistance
other countries (Fedorka-Cray et al. 2002). In 1969, Martel and Coudert described
the national surveillance resistance in Salmonella and E. coli animal isolates in
France. In 1987, DuPont and Steele suggested national surveillance of the antimicrobials usage in food producing animals. Following the rise of multidrug resistant
Salmonella Typhimurium DT104, S. enteric serovar Newport resistant to third generation cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolone resistant Campylobacter in 1996, the
Center for Disease Control (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), founded the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) (CDC 2016a, b; FDA, 2016; Zawack
et al. 2016). Similarly, in Europe, Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring Program (DANMAP) was established targeting the rise of vancomycin
resistant enterococci in pigs and poultry (DANMAP 2015). The Canadian Integrated
Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) was initiated in
Canada in order to monitor the antimicrobial resistance. Since then, the antimicrobial resistance surveillance programs and recommendations of these programs were
followed in many countries. In India, the Indian Council of Medical Research, New
Delhi, developed an antimicrobial resistance surveillance network in 2014 in collaboration with tertiary care hospitals throughout India (Veeraraghavan et al. 2018).
2.3 Global and Supranational Surveillance Networks
Low and middle income countries investigated the burden of global antimicrobial
resistance and infectious diseases. For antimicrobial resistance surveillance, 72
supranational networks programs have been formed since 2000 in bacteria, tubercle
bacilli, fungi, human immunodeficiency virus, and malaria that have included low
and middle income countries. Networks are grouped as WHO/governmental
(n = 26), pharma initiated (n = 22) or academic (n = 24) (Ashley et al. 2018).
Funding agencies differ, with 30 networks receiving WHO or public funding, 13
foundation or trust, 25 corporate, and 4 are supported from more than one agency.
The foremost global programmes for resistance surveillance in Tubercle bacilli,
HIV and malaria gather data in low and middle income countries through intermittent active surveillance programs or combined approaches. The prime challenge
encountered by these networks has been getting high coverage across low and middle income countries and fulfilling the recommended frequency of reporting (Amos
et al. 2009). To get high quality data, representative surveillance in low and middle
income countries is demanding. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance requires a set
level of laboratory training and infrastructure that is not generally available in low
and middle income countries (Talisuna et al. 2012). The nascent Global resistance
Surveillance System aims to develop passive surveillance in all member states.
Previous experience suggests harmonizing active approaches may be required in
many low and middle income countries; if representative, meaningful, clinically
relevant data are to be acquired (WHO 2015). Sustaining an up-to-date registry of
networks would support a more coordinated approach to surveillance.
2 Global Surveillance Programs on Antimicrobial Resistance