| Literature DB >> 28749780 |
Charles H Brower1, Siddhartha Mandal2, Shivdeep Hayer3, Mandeep Sran4, Asima Zehra4, Sunny J Patel5, Ravneet Kaur6, Leena Chatterjee7, Savita Mishra6, B R Das7, Parminder Singh8, Randhir Singh4, J P S Gill4, Ramanan Laxminarayan1,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Agricultural use of antimicrobials in subtherapeutic concentrations is increasing in response to the rising demand for food animal products worldwide. In India, the use of antimicrobials in food animal production is unregulated. Research suggests that many clinically important antimicrobials are used indiscriminately. This is the largest study to date in India that surveys poultry production to test for antimicrobial resistance and the occurrence of extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) modulated by farming and managerial practices.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28749780 PMCID: PMC5744676 DOI: 10.1289/EHP292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Figure 1.Sampling framework depicting differences between on-farm and in-laboratory sampling protocols.
Figure 2.Ternary diagrams showing differences in resistance prevalence between original and validation data for 395 isolates against 9 common antimicrobials. Prevalence in the original data is shown as solid triangles, and those in the validation data are shown as solid dots. Each point represents a three-component vector showing the prevalence of susceptible, intermediate, and resistant isolates that sum to 100%. A point closer to a vertex (for instance, R) represents a high prevalence of the “resistant” state, also indicated by the arrows along each edge.
Figure 3.Results from logistic regression modeling the risk of resistance prevalence against farm and facility type, with random intercepts for each farm. Left panel presents the risk (in terms of odds ratios) of Escherichia coli resistance in broiler farms relative to layer farms, adjusted for facility type. Right panel presents the same risk in independent facilities as compared to contracted facilities, adjusted for farm type. For all of these analyses, intermediate isolates are treated as resistant. The x-axis represents odds ratios in a log scale. The horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals for the estimated odds ratios.
Figure 4.Predicted probabilities of resistance (solid blue dots) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (blue error-bars) against 10 antimicrobials [imipenem (IPM) was not included, as no resistant isolates were detected], by farm and facility type, based on a logistic regression model with random intercepts for farm. Each isolate is assumed to be either resistant or susceptible in this analysis.
Figure 5.(A) Distribution of ESBL-producing status of the 510 cloacal samples, disaggregated by farm and facility type. ESBL status was tested for all Enterobacteriaceae isolated, including seven non-Enterobacteriaceae, gram-negative isolates. The figure shows proportions and associated 95% confidence intervals of ESBL-positive strains within each group. (B) Distribution of 1,556 multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli isolates by farm type and facility type. The vertical axis shows the number of antimicrobials (maximum 10) to which an isolate was resistant. The horizontal lines within the boxes indicate the median number of antibiotics to which an isolate was resistant, while the length of the box represents the interquartile range (IQR). The lower and upper limits of the whiskers represent and , where Q1 and Q3 are the first and third quartiles, respectively. (C) Predicted probabilities and associated 95% confidence intervals for multidrug resistance according to a proportional odds logistic regression of categories of multidrug resistance against farm and facility type.
Odds ratios of increased resistance prevalence to all antibiotics for farms reporting antimicrobial use for growth promotion as compared to farms that did not report antimicrobial use for growth promotion.
| Antimicrobial | Odds ratios stratified by farm type | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | Broilers | Layers | |
| Ampicillin (AMP) | 1.413* (1.088, 1.839) | 0.784* (0.485, 1.256) | 1.460* (1.031, 2.079) |
| Chloramphenicol (C) | 1.698* (1.179, 2.489) | 2.721* (1.361, 6.040) | 0.916 (0.562, 1.513) |
| Ciprofloxacin (CIP) | 4.980** (3.792, 6.567) | 2.258* (1.168, 4.189) | 4.297** (2.899, 6.473) |
| Cotrimoxazole (COT) | 4.242** (3.131, 5.809) | 1.669* (1.042, 2.693) | 6.638** (4.221, 10.764) |
| Ceftriaxone (CTR) | 1.680 (0.885, 3.464) | 1.284 (0.529, 3.769) | 1.061 (0.363, 3.492) |
| Cefuroxime (CXM) | 2.032* (1.130, 3.923) | 1.888 (0.792, 5.479) | 0.993 (0.388, 2.747) |
| Gentamicin (GEN) | 2.559** (1.734, 3.875) | 1.151 (0.694, 1.954) | 3.279* (1.498, 8.190) |
| Nalidixic Acid (NX) | 5.572** (3.761, 8.298) | N/A | 3.977** (2.590, 6.158) |
| Nitrofurantoin (NIT) | 1.290 (0.984, 1.698) | 2.942** (1.669, 5.457) | 0.879 (0.624, 1.240) |
| Tetracycline (TE) | 1.969** (1.490, 2.598) | 1.101 (0.563, 2.036) | 1.633* (1.162, 2.295) |
Note: Fisher’s exact test was employed to compute the odds ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals (given in parentheses below) with the outcome as the presence or absence of resistant isolates. Odds ratios are presented for all farms (“overall”) and disaggregated by farm type (“broilers” vs. “layers”). Note that an OR could not be calculated for NX in broiler farms, as the cell frequency was zero. *; **.