OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to study antimicrobial susceptibility in Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Enterococcus recovered from chickens, pigs and cattle using uniform methodology. METHODS: Intestinal samples were taken at slaughter in five EU countries per host and bacteria isolated in national laboratories. MICs were determined in a central laboratory of key antimicrobials used in human medicine. Clinical resistance was based on CLSI breakpoints and decreased susceptibility on EFSA epidemiological cut-off values. RESULTS: Isolation rates from a total of 1500 samples were high for E. coli (n=1465), low for Salmonella (n=205) and intermediate for Campylobacter (n=785) and Enterococcus (n=718). Resistance prevalence varied among antibiotics, bacteria, hosts and countries. For E. coli and Salmonella, clinical resistance to newer compounds (cefepime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin) was absent or low, but a decreased susceptibility was apparent, particularly in chickens. Clinical resistance to older compounds (except colistin and gentamicin) was variable and higher. For Campylobacter jejuni from chickens, ciprofloxacin resistance was markedly higher than in isolates from cattle. Clinical resistance to erythromycin was absent for both hosts; decreased susceptibility very low. Similar trends were determined for Campylobacter coli, but C. jejuni was less resistant. None of the enterococcal strains was resistant to linezolid, but a few displayed resistance to ampicillin or vancomycin. Resistance prevalence to quinupristin/dalfopristin was clearly higher. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial resistance among enteric organisms in food animals varied among countries, particularly for older antimicrobials, but clinical resistance to essential compounds used to treat disease in humans was generally zero or low. In the absence of clinical resistance to newer compounds in E. coli and Salmonella, the apparent decreased susceptibility should be monitored carefully.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to study antimicrobial susceptibility in Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Enterococcus recovered from chickens, pigs and cattle using uniform methodology. METHODS: Intestinal samples were taken at slaughter in five EU countries per host and bacteria isolated in national laboratories. MICs were determined in a central laboratory of key antimicrobials used in human medicine. Clinical resistance was based on CLSI breakpoints and decreased susceptibility on EFSA epidemiological cut-off values. RESULTS: Isolation rates from a total of 1500 samples were high for E. coli (n=1465), low for Salmonella (n=205) and intermediate for Campylobacter (n=785) and Enterococcus (n=718). Resistance prevalence varied among antibiotics, bacteria, hosts and countries. For E. coli and Salmonella, clinical resistance to newer compounds (cefepime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin) was absent or low, but a decreased susceptibility was apparent, particularly in chickens. Clinical resistance to older compounds (except colistin and gentamicin) was variable and higher. For Campylobacter jejuni from chickens, ciprofloxacin resistance was markedly higher than in isolates from cattle. Clinical resistance to erythromycin was absent for both hosts; decreased susceptibility very low. Similar trends were determined for Campylobacter coli, but C. jejuni was less resistant. None of the enterococcal strains was resistant to linezolid, but a few displayed resistance to ampicillin or vancomycin. Resistance prevalence to quinupristin/dalfopristin was clearly higher. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial resistance among enteric organisms in food animals varied among countries, particularly for older antimicrobials, but clinical resistance to essential compounds used to treat disease in humans was generally zero or low. In the absence of clinical resistance to newer compounds in E. coli and Salmonella, the apparent decreased susceptibility should be monitored carefully.
Authors: Oliver James Dyar; Nguyen Quynh Hoa; Nguyen V Trung; Ho D Phuc; Mattias Larsson; Nguyen T K Chuc; Cecilia Stålsby Lundborg Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Mohamed O Ahmed; Peter D Clegg; Nicola J Williams; Keith E Baptiste; Malcolm Bennett Journal: Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob Date: 2010-04-07 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Charlotte R Ulstad; Margrete Solheim; Sophie Berg; Morten Lindbæk; Ulf R Dahle; Astrid L Wester Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Kamelia M Osman; Aziza M Amer; Jihan M Badr; Nashwa M Helmy; Rehab A Elhelw; Ahmed Orabi; Magdy Bakry; Aalaa S A Saad Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 5.640