| Literature DB >> 30532196 |
Ursula Kaspar1, Alexa von Lützau1, Andreas Schlattmann1, Uwe Roesler2, Robin Köck1, Karsten Becker1.
Abstract
Antimicrobial multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDRO) can be transmitted between companion animals and their human owners. Aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) and Staphylococcus aureus including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in different companion animal species. Dogs (n = 192), cats (n = 74), and rabbits (n = 17), treated in a veterinary practice and hospital or living in an animal shelter and private households, were sampled. All facilities were located in a region characterized by a high density of pig production. Nasal, buccal and perianal swabs were enriched and cultured on solid chromogenic selective media. A subgroup of 20 animals (13 dogs, 3 cats, 4 rabbits) was analyzed for the presence of staphylococci other than S. aureus. Amongst all animals (n = 283), twenty dogs (10.4%) and six cats (8.1%) carried S. aureus. MRSA was found in five dogs (2.6%) and two cats (2.7%). Isolates were of spa types t011, t034, t108 (all mecA-positive, ST398), and t843 (mecC-positive, ST130), typical for livestock-associated (LA)-MRSA. Except for one dog, MRSA-positive animals did not have direct contact to husbandry. ESBL-Escherichia coli (blaCTX-M/blaTEM/blaSHV genes) were present in seven dogs (3.6%), one cat (1.4%) possessed a cefotaxime-resistant Citrobacter freundii isolate (blaTEM/blaCMY-2 genes). MDRO carriage was associated with animals from veterinary medical settings (p<0.05). One dog and one rabbit carried methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci. The exclusive occurrence of MRSA lineages typically described for livestock stresses the impact of MDRO strain dissemination across species barriers in regional settings. Presence of ESBL-E and LA-MRSA among pets and probable dissemination in clinical settings support the necessity of a "One Health" approach to address the potential threats due to MDRO-carrying companion animals.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30532196 PMCID: PMC6285998 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208364
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Metadata of animals sampled.
| Characteristics | Dogs | Cats | Rabbits | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | Mean | 5.6 | 4.2 | 2.4 | 5.1 |
| Range | 0.1–16 | 0.1–17 | 0.3–10 | 0.1–17 | |
| Gender | Male | 85 (32) | 36 (23) | 9 (3) | 130 (58) |
| Female | 107 (42) | 38 (21) | 8 (2) | 153 (65) | |
| Origin of sample | Animal shelter | 4 | 17 | 0 | 21 |
| Private household | 45 | 19 | 0 | 64 | |
| Private veterinary practice | 91 | 31 | 17 | 139 | |
| Veterinary hospital | 52 | 7 | 0 | 59 | |
| Veterinary examination | Yes | 128 | 50 | 16 | 194 |
| No | 64 | 22 | 1 | 89 | |
| Reason for veterinary | Standard examination | 47 | 18 | 14 | 79 |
| Internal diseases | 20 | 19 | 0 | 39 | |
| Surgical intervention | 41 | 12 | 2 | 55 | |
| Orthopedics | 20 | 1 | 0 | 21 | |
| Antibiotic treatment | Topical | 9 | 5 | 0 | 14 |
| Systemic | 41 | 19 | 0 | 60 | |
| Both | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | |
| No antibiotics | 140 | 48 | 16 | 204 | |
| Contact with | Livestock | 35 | 14 | 4 | 53 |
| Horses | 79 | 19 | 0 | 98 | |
| Dogs | 78 | 23 | 2 | 103 | |
| Cats | 40 | 53 | 0 | 93 | |
| Rodents | 13 | 1 | 12 | 26 | |
| Birds | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| Owner stayed abroad | 72 | 17 | 4 | 93 | |
| Total | 192 | 74 | 17 | 283 | |
aNumbers in brackets give total numbers of neutered animals
bStandard examination: general examination and consultation, vaccination, parasite prophylaxis, or dental cleaning. Internal diseases: diseases of digestive tract, urogenital tract, circulatory system, nervous system, skin, eyes, ears, or metabolism. Surgical intervention: Sterilization, wound management, orthopedic surgery, or tumor resection. Orthopedics: diagnosis of lameness, radiography, or bandage management.
c within six months prior to sampling.
Resistance profiles of cefotaxime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae found in 283 companion animals.
| Species | Animal host | Sampling site | Resistance genes | Phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility test profile | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESBL-Screening | Other resistances | ||||
| Cat (#2) | Perianal | NEG | AMP, SAM, TZP, CXM, CPD, CTX, CAZ | ||
| Dog (#121) | Perianal | POS | AMP, SAM, CXM, CPD, CTX, SXT | ||
| Dog (#130) | Perianal | POS | AMP, SAM, CXM, CPD, CTX | ||
| Dog (#146) | Perianal | POS | AMP, SAM, CPD, CAZ, MXF, SXT | ||
| Dog (#147) | Perianal | POS | AMP, SAM, CXM, CPD, CTX, CAZ, SXT | ||
| Dog (#160) | Perianal | POS | AMP, SAM, CXM, CPD, CTX, CIP, MXF | ||
| Dog (#163) | Perianal | POS | AMP, SAM, CXM, CPD, CTX, CIP, MXF, SXT | ||
| Dog (#182) | Perianal | POS | AMP, SAM, CXM, CPD, CTX | ||
a Individual running numbers of animals are given in brackets.
b as determined by MASTDISC ID ESβL-Set (CPD10) D67C (MAST Diagnostica)
c MICs were detected with VITEK 2 (bioMérieux) and evaluated using breakpoints provided by EUCAST [22].
POS, positive; AMP, ampicillin; CAZ, ceftazidime; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CPD, cefpodoxime; CTX, cefotaxime; CXM, cefuroxime; MXF, moxifloxacin; SAM, ampicillin-sulbactam; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazol; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam.
Resistance profiles of (i) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from 283 companion animals and (ii) methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci from 20 companion animals.
| Species | Animal host | Sampling site | Resistance genes | Phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility test profile | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOX screening | Other resistances | |||||
| Dog (#12) | Nasal | t108 | POS | PEN, OXA, TET | ||
| Dog (#16) | Nasal | t034 | POS | PEN, OXA, CLI, ERY, TET | ||
| Dog (#89) | Buccal | t011 | POS | PEN, OXA, LVX, TET | ||
| Dog (#103) | Nasal | t034 | POS | PEN, CLI, TET | ||
| Dog (#171) | Buccal | t034 | POS | PEN, OXA, LVX, TET, SXT | ||
| Dog (#171) | Nasal | t034 | POS | PEN, OXA, LVX, TET, SXT | ||
| Cat (#44) | Buccal | t843 | POS | PEN, OXA | ||
| Cat (#44) | Nasal | t843 | POS | PEN | ||
| Cat (#67) | Buccal | t011 | POS | PEN, OXA, LVX, TET | ||
| Dog (#2) | Buccal | POS | OXA, FOF | |||
| Rabbit (#3) | Nasal | POS | OXA, FOF, FA | |||
| Rabbit (#3) | Buccal | POS | OXA, FOF, FA | |||
| Rabbit (#1) | Buccal | POS | OXA, FOF | |||
| Rabbit (#3) | Nasal | POS | OXA, FOF, FA | |||
a Individual running numbers of animals are given in brackets.
b as determined by VITEK 2 automated system (bioMérieux).
c MICs were detected with VITEK 2 (bioMérieux) and evaluated using breakpoints provided by EUCAST [22].
POS, positive; CLI, clindamycin; ERY, erythromycin; FOF, fosfomycin; FA, fusidic acid; LVX, levofloxacin; OXA, oxacillin; PEN, penicillin; TET, tetracycline; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazol.
Fig 1Absolute numbers of companion animals (dogs, cats, rabbits) colonized with different staphylococcal species other than S. aureus in the subgroup of 20 animals.