| Literature DB >> 25887706 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence and spread of drug resistant Salmonellae of both human and animal origins are global concerns and worrisome in countries where the risk of infection is high and treatment options are limited. The objective of this study was to estimate the proportions of animal isolates resistant to antimicrobials used against human salmonellosis in Ethiopia.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25887706 PMCID: PMC4352553 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-015-0835-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Figure 1A flow diagram of the selection of eligible studies.
Characteristics of the eligible studies
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ | 1999-2000 | DZ | Ct | 25 | 13 (52) | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 13 (52) |
| [ | 2001-2002 | DJ | Cm | 116 | 28 (24.14) | 24 (20.69) | 4 (3.45) | 2 (1.72) | 0 (0) | 33 (28.45) |
| [ | 2003-2004 | AM | Sg | 22 | 4 (18.18) | 2 (9.09) | 1 (4.55) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (18.18) |
| [ | 2004-2005 | DZ | Pg | 94 | 2 (2.13) | 1 (1.06) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 30 (31.91) | 66 (70.21) |
| [ | 2004-2005 | AA | Pg | 173 | 8 (4.62) | 2 (1.16) | 2 (1.16) | 0 (0) | 7 (4.05) | 55 (31.79) |
| [ | 2005-2006 | DZ | Ct | 75 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (4) |
| [ | 2006-2007 | BD | Ct | 28 | 2 (7.14) | Nt | 1 (3.57) | Nt | Nt | 3 (10.71) |
| [ | 2010 | AA | Dc | 21 | 21 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 (9.52) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 (66.67) |
AA = Addis Ababa; AM = Addis Ababa and Modjo; Amp = ampicillin; BD = Bahir Dar; Chl = chloramphenicol; Cip = ciprofloxacin; Cm = slaughtered camels; Cro = ceftriaxone; Ct = slaughtered cattle; Dc = dairy cattle; DJ = Diredawa and JiJiga; DZ = Debrezeit; MDR = multi-drug resistant; Ni = number of tested isolates; Nt = not tested; Pg = slaughtered pigs; Sg = slaughtered sheep and goats; Sxt = co-trimoxazole.
aData on ceftiofur was substituted for ceftriaxone.
bThe numbers of co-trimoxazole, chloramphenicol and ciprofloxacin resistant isolates was extracted from the narrative part of the results and discussion section.
cIsolates from holding pens were excluded.
Sampling, isolation and antimicrobial test methods
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | all | 323 | f, m, ad | 1292 | ISO | 17 | mic |
| [ | all | 119 | f, m, ad, l, s | 714 | ISO | 17 | mic |
| [ | rs | 204 | f, m, ad, l, s | 1224 | ISO | 24 | mic |
| [ | rs | 101 | c, m, ad, l, t | 501 | ISO | 24 | mic |
| [ | all | 278 | c, m, cs | 833 | ISO | 24 | mic |
| [ | rs | 100 | r, c, m, cs, h, hs | 788 | ISO | 24 | mic |
| [ | rs | 186 | i, m, l, cs | 744 | ISO | 8 | dzi |
| [ | rs | 195 | f, ml | 390 | ISO | 10 | dzi |
ad = abdominal and diaphragmatic muscles; cs = carcass swab; rs = random sampling; c = caecal contents; dzi = diameter of zone of inhibition; f = feces; h = hide; hs = hand swabs at flaying and evisceration; i = intestinal contents; l = liver; m = mesenteric lymph nodes; mic = minimum inhibitory concentration; ml = milk; s = spleen; r = rumen contents; t = tongue.
aAll animals slaughtered on each sampling day were sampled.
bThe bacterial isolation and identification methods were according the International Organization for Standardization (ISO-6579, 1998–2002) [12,13,17-22] and Quinn et al. (Clinical Veterinary Microbiology, printed from1994-2004) [12,13,17-21], and GSS (Global Salmonella Surveillance) and NHS (National Health Service for Wales) [22].
cThe interpretative standards were according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS, 1990–2005) [12,13,17-19,21,22] and Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, 2005) [20]; the susceptibility break point levels for ciprofloxacin resistance were < = 0.125 μg/ml [12,13]; < = 0.5 μg/ml [18] and < = 1 μg/ml [17] but not reported in three studies[19,20,22], and the resistance break point levels were > = 1 μg/ml [18] and > = 4 μg/ml [17] but not tested [12,13] and not reported in others [19,20,22].
Figure 2Funnel plots of the logit event estimates (lp) of ampicillin (A), co-trimoxazole (B), chloramphenicol (C), ceftriaxone (D), ciprofloxacin (E) and multi-drug (F) resistant isolates.
Figure 3Galbraith plots of the logit event estimates (lp) of ampicillin (A), co-trimoxazole (B), chloramphenicol (C), ceftriaxone (D), ciprofloxacin (E) and multi-drug (F) resistant isolates.
Figure 4Forest plots of the proportions of drug resistant isolates.
Pooled proportions and heterogeneity estimates of drug resistant isolates
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Ruminants | Ampa | 17.28 (7.28, 37.36) | 0.003 | 0.000 | 5.21 | 80.8 |
| Sxtb | 4.35 (1.57, 11.45) | 0.000 | 0.370 | 1.5 | 4.5 | |
| MDRa | 19.12 (8.40, 37.87) | 0.003 | 0.000 | 6.3 | 84.1 | |
| Pigs | Amp | 3.95 (2,14, 7.20) | 0.000 | 0.317 | 1.00 | 0.2 |
| Sxt | 1.12 (0.36, 3.43) | 0.000 | 0.946 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Cip | 12.55 (1.34, 60.32) | 0.107 | 0.000 | 29.32 | 96.6 | |
| MDR | 50.98 (17.52, 83.59) | 0.961 | 0.000 | 33.9 | 97.0 | |
| All animals | Chl | 2.24 (1.38, 3.61) | 0.000 | 0.366 | 1.09 | 8.3 |
| Cro | 1.25 (0.52, 2.98) | 0.000 | 0.883 | 0.39 | 0.0 | |
Amp = ampicillin; Chl = chloramphenicol; Cip = ciprofloxacin; Cro = ceftriaxone; df = degrees of freedom; I2 = inverse variance index; Q = Cochran’s Q; Q-p = probability of Cochran’s Q test; Sxt = co-trimoxazole; Z-p = probability of Z test.
aThe estimate is for slaughtered ruminants.
bThe estimate is for true ruminants.
Serotypes resistant to drugs uncommonly used in clinical practice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Pg | 23 | 0 | 0 | 20 | [ |
|
| Pg | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | [ |
|
| Pg, Sg | 17 | 0 | 0 | 5 | [ |
|
| Pg, Cm, Ct, Sg | 36 | 7 | 1 | 2 | [ |
|
| Pg, Cm, Ct | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | [ |
|
| Pg, Cm, Ct | 62 | 0 | 1 | 0 | [ |
|
| Pg | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | [ |
| Total | 160 | 8 | 2 | 37 |
Chl = chloramphenicol; Cip = ciprofloxacin; Cro = ceftriaxone; Cm = slaughtered camels; Ct = slaughtered cattle; Pg = slaughtered pigs; Sg = Slaughtered sheep and goats.
aThe number of isolates tested with third generation cephalosporins was 31 [13,17-20].
bThe number of isolates tested with third generation cephalosporins was 7 [13,18].
MDR serotypes resistant to phenicols, cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chl |
| ChlStrTet | Cattle | 1 | [ |
| AmpChlSmxSptStrTet | Camel | 1 | [ | ||
| AmpAmc ChlFenSmxSptStrTet | Camel | 2 | [ | ||
| AmpAmcCefChlSptStrSulSxtTmp | Shoat | 1 | [ | ||
| AmpAmcChlCipFenNalSptStrSulTet | Pig | 2 | [ | ||
|
| ChlColSpeTet | Camel | 1 | [ | |
| Cro |
| CftSptStr | Camel | 1 | [ |
|
| AmpAmc CftSmxSptStrTet | Camel | 1 | [ | |
| Cip |
| AmpAmcCipNal | Pig | 1 | [ |
| CipNalSptSulTet | Pig | 2 | [ | ||
| CipNalSptStrSulTet | Pig | 10 | [ | ||
| CipGenNalSptStrSulTet | Pig | 2 | [ | ||
| AmpAmcCipNalStrSulTet | Pig | 1 | [ | ||
| AmpAmcCefCipNalStrSulTet | Pig | 1 | [ | ||
| AmpAmcCipGenNalSptStrSulTet | Pig | 2 | [ | ||
|
| CipKanNalNeoNitStrTet | Pig | 7 | [ | |
| AmpCipKanNalNeoNitStrTet | Pig | 1 | [ | ||
|
| CipNalNit | Pig | 5 | [ | |
|
| CipNalNit | Pig | 2 | [ | |
|
| AmpAmcChlCipFenNalSptStrSulTet | Pig | 2 | [ |
Amp = ampicillin; Amc = amoxicillin-clavulanic acid; Cef = Cephalothin; Chl = chloramphenicol; Cft = ceftiofur; Cip = ciprofloxacin; Col = colistin; Cro = ceftriaxone; Fen = florphenicol; Gen = gentamicin; Kan = kanamycin; Nal = nalidixic acid; Neo = neomycin; Nit = nitrofurantoin; Nri = number of resistant isolates; Smx = sulfamethoxazole; Spt = spectinomycin; Str = streptomycin; Sul = sulfisoxazole; Sxt = co-trimoxazole; Tet = tetracycline; Tmp = trimethoprim.
aThe same pig isolates were resistant to chloramphenicol and ciprofloxacin.
MDR serotypes susceptible to phenicols, third generation cephalospoins and fluoroquinolones
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| AmpSptStrSulSxtTmp | Pig | 1 | [ |
| AmpSmxSpeStrSxtTmp | Camel | 19 | [ | |
| AmpSpeStrSxtTetTmp | Camel | 1 | [ | |
| AmpColSmxSpeStrSxtTmp | Camel | 3 | [ | |
|
| AmpStrTet | Cattle | 2 | [ |
|
| NitStrTet | Pig | 80 | [ |
|
| StrSmxTet | Camel | 1 | [ |
| StrSmxSpeTetTmp | Camel | 1 | [ | |
|
| AmpStrSulSxtTetTmp | Pig | 1 | [ |
|
| AmpSmxTic | Cattle | 11 | [ |
| AmpCefSmxTic | Cattle | 1 | [ | |
|
| StrSulTet | Cattle | 2 | [ |
|
| StrSulTet | Sheep/goat | 2 | [ |
|
| ColSpeStrTmp | Camel | 1 | [ |
|
| AmpColSmxSpeStrSxtTmp | Camel | 1 | [ |
|
| StrSulSxtTetTmp | Sheep/ goat | 1 | [ |
| AmpSmxTicSxt | Cattle | 1 | [ | |
| Salmonella 1:6.8:–:enx | NitStrTet | Pig | 2 | [ |
| Salmonella1:6.8:z10: | NitStrTet | Pig | 1 | [ |
Amp = ampicillin; Cef = cephalothin; Col = colistin; Nit = nitrofurantoin; Nri = number of resistant isolates; Smx = sulfamethoxazole; Spt = spectinomycin; Str = streptomycin; Sul = sulfisoxazole; Sxt = co-trimoxazole; Tet = tetracycline; Tic = ticarcillin; Tmp = trimethoprim.
aThe sensitivities of the isolates to potentiated amoxicillin were not tested.