| Literature DB >> 29187195 |
Terence Odoch1,2, Yngvild Wasteson3, Trine L'Abée-Lund3, Adrian Muwonge4, Clovice Kankya5, Luke Nyakarahuka5,3, Sarah Tegule5, Eystein Skjerve3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) are among the leading global foodborne pathogens and a significant public health threat. Their occurrence in animal reservoirs and their susceptibilities to commonly used antimicrobials are poorly understood in developing countries. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence, determine antimicrobial susceptibility and identify risk factors associated with NTS presence in laying hen farms in Uganda through a cross-sectional study.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial susceptibility; Layer hens; Non-typhoidal Salmonella; Prevalence; Risk factor
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29187195 PMCID: PMC5707898 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1291-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Distribution of NTS serotypes in layer hen farms in Uganda
| Serotype | Number of farms | Percentage (%) of positive farms | Percentage (%) of farms investigated |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 13 | 26.5 | 5.5 |
|
| 7 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
|
| 10 | 20.4 | 4.2 |
|
| 7 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
|
| 6 | 6.0 | 2.5 |
|
| 4 | 8.2 | 1.7 |
|
| 3 | 6.1 | 1.3 |
|
| 2 | 4.1 | 0.8 |
|
| 1 | 2.0 | 0.4 |
|
| 1 | 2.0 | 0.4 |
Multidrug resistant profiles of NTS isolates from Wakiso, Lira and Masaka districts, Uganda 2017
| Serotype | Resistance profile | No of isolates | District where isolates were recovered |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| CIPR, SULFA, TET | 1 | Lira |
|
| CIPR, CLR, AMP | 4 | Masaka (2), Wakiso (2) |
|
| SULFA, TRIM, SxT | 4 | Wakiso |
|
| CIPR, SUL, TRIM, SxT | 2 | Wakiso |
|
| CIPR, SULFA, TET, ENROF | 1 | Wakiso |
AMP Ampicillin, CIPR Ciprofloxacin, CLR Chloramphenicol, ENROF Enrofloxacin, SULFA Sulphonamides, SxT Sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim, TET Tetracycline, TRIM Trimethoprim
Key demographic factors, disease management practices and farm characteristics associated with the prevalence of Salmonella, with p-values from simple chi-square analyses
| Variable | Category |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex of farmer | Male ( | 31 (28.7) | 0.004 |
| Female ( | 18 (14.0) | ||
| Sex of manager | Male ( | 27 (31.89) | < 0.001 |
| Female ( | 12 (10.4) | ||
| Not applicable ( | |||
| Age of the manager | < 20 years ( | 4 (80.0) | 0.001 |
| 20–35 years ( | 18 (17.5) | ||
| 36–50 years ( | 23 (27.1) | ||
| > 50 years ( | 3 (8.6) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Education level of the farmer | Primary ( | 5 (11.4) | 0.012 |
| Secondary ( | 12 (15.8) | ||
| Tertiary ( | 31 (30.4) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Farm size (no. of birds) | Small (50–500) ( | 19 (11.7) | < 0.001 |
| Medium (501–1000) ( | 14 (42.4) | ||
| Large (> 1000) ( | 14 (36.8) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Number of poultry houses | One house ( | 12 (8.9) | < 0.001 |
| Two houses ( | 8 (17.8) | ||
| Three houses ( | 21 (65.6) | ||
| > 3 houses ( | 8 (32.0) | ||
| Management system | Free range ( | 2 (4.3) | < 0.001 |
| Semi intensive ( | 11 (12.2) | ||
| Intensive ( | 35 (35.7) | ||
| Others ( | |||
| Use of protective clothing | Yes ( | 35 (25.7) | 0.031 |
| No ( | 14 (14.1) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Who does vaccination | Private ( | 19 (21.6) | 0.029 |
| Self/family ( | 25 (18.4) | ||
| Employee ( | 5 (55.6) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Reuse of egg trays | Yes ( | 29 (27.6) | 0.034 |
| No ( | 19 (16.0) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Who treats the birds | Self ( | 22 (14.2) | < 0.001 |
| Government/Animal Health Worker ( | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Private/Animal Health worker ( | 24 (46.2) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Presence of other livestock | Present ( | 26 (25.7) | 0.097 |
| Not present ( | 23 (16.9) | ||
| Having a separate house for new birds | Yes ( | 24 (17.6) | 0.134 |
| No ( | 25 (25.8) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Disposal of dead birds | Burying ( | 21 (19.3) | < 0.001 |
| Burning ( | 12 (70.6) | ||
| Throw away ( | 9 (20.0) | ||
| Giving to animals (dogs and pigs) ( | 4 (12.5) | ||
| Drop in a pit ( | 3 (12.5) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| Keeping of pets | Yes ( | 35 (25.5) | 0.025 |
| No ( | 14 (14.1) | ||
| Missing ( | |||
| If yes, species of pets | Dogs ( | 20 (32.3) | 0.006 |
| Cats ( | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Both dogs and cats ( | 15 (29.4) | ||
| Keeping of records | Yes ( | 43 (28.1) | < 0.001 |
| No ( | 5 (6.2) |
Results from multivariable logistic regression showing identified factors associated with Salmonella spp. prevalence, with odds ratios with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and corresponding p-values for the variables
| Variable | Level | Odds Ratio | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farm size (no. of birds) | Medium vs small | 7.0 | 2.5–19.8 | < 0.001 |
| Large vs small | 5.9 | 2.1–16.1 | 0.001 | |
| Presence of other animal species | Present vs absent | 5.0 | 2.1–16.1 | < 0.001 |
| Houses for new birds | Present vs absent | 0.4 | 0.2–0.8 | 0.014 |
| Records | Present vs absent | 6.7 | 2.2–20.2 | 0.001 |