| Literature DB >> 20031042 |
Lucie Dutil1, Rebecca Irwin, Rita Finley, Lai King Ng, Brent Avery, Patrick Boerlin, Anne Marie Bourgault, Linda Cole, Danielle Daignault, Andrea Desruisseau, Walter Demczuk, Linda Hoang, Greg B Horsman, Johanne Ismail, Frances Jamieson, Anne Maki, Ana Pacagnella, Dylan R Pillai.
Abstract
The Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance describes a strong correlation (r = 0.9, p<0.0001) between ceftiofur-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg isolated from retail chicken and incidence of ceftiofur-resistant Salmonella serovar Heidelberg infections in humans across Canada. In Quebec, changes of ceftiofur resistance in chicken Salmonella Heidelberg and Escherichia coli isolates appear related to changing levels of ceftiofur use in hatcheries during the study period, from highest to lowest levels before and after a voluntary withdrawal, to increasing levels after reintroduction of use (62% to 7% to 20%, and 34% to 6% to 19%, respectively). These events provide evidence that ceftiofur use in chickens results in extended-spectrum cephalosporin resistance in bacteria from chicken and humans. To ensure the continued effectiveness of extended-spectrum cephalosporins for treating serious infections in humans, multidisciplinary efforts are needed to scrutinize and, where appropriate, limit use of ceftiofur in chicken production in Canada.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20031042 PMCID: PMC2874360 DOI: 10.3201/eid1601.090729
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Prevalence of retail chicken contaminated with ceftiofur-resistant Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg and incidence of human infections from ceftiofur-resistant Salmonella Heidelberg in Canada.
Prevalence of ceftiofur resistance among human and retail chicken Salmonella serovar Heidelberg isolates and retail chicken Escherichia coli isolates from Canadian provinces surveyed during 2003–2008
| Isolate/province | Prevalence of ceftiofur resistance, % (no. resistant isolates/total no. isolates tested) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |
| Human clinical | ||||||
| Québec | 31 (52/167) | 36 (42/116) | 35 (37/106) | 8 (8/96) | 6 (4/63) | 12 (8/65) |
| Ontario | 18 (31/172) | 38 (70/185) | 30 (42/140) | 10 (12/122) | 22 (21/94) | 32 (7/22) |
| Saskatchewan | 0 (0/15) | 7 (1/14) | 0 (0/11) | 0 (0/7) | ||
| British Columbia |
|
|
|
| 23 (3/13) | 19 (3/16) |
| Chicken retail | ||||||
| Québec | 65 (13/20) | 62 (18/29) | 33 (4/12) | 7 (1/14) | 19 (6/32) | 18 (7/38) |
| Ontario | 16 (3/19) | 58 (19/33) | 27 (3/11) | 21 (3/14) | 21 (9/42) | 14 (3/21) |
| Saskatchewan | 0 (0/5) | 13 (1/8) | 0 (0/9) | 8 (1/12) | ||
| British Columbia |
|
|
|
| 50 (2/4) | 67 (2/3) |
| Chicken retail | ||||||
| Québec | 32 (36/111) | 34 (54/158) | 25 (35/142) | 6 (8/135) | 13 (17/128) | 18 (24/131) |
| Ontario | 18 (24/136) | 21 (32/150) | 17 (25/145) | 22 (34/152) | 22 (35/157) | 24 (36/150) |
| Saskatchewan | 4 (3/82) | 6 (5/85) | 13 (10/75) | 20 (18/92) | ||
| British Columbia | 29 (12/42) | 49 (34/70) | ||||
Figure 2Prevalence of ceftiofur resistance (moving average of the current quarter and the previous 2 quarters) among retail chicken Escherichia coli, and retail chicken and human clinical Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg isolates during 2003–2008 in Québec, Canada.