Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Type of study
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 63(4): 733-44, 2009 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19233897

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to study antimicrobial susceptibility in Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Enterococcus recovered from chickens, pigs and cattle using uniform methodology. METHODS: Intestinal samples were taken at slaughter in five EU countries per host and bacteria isolated in national laboratories. MICs were determined in a central laboratory of key antimicrobials used in human medicine. Clinical resistance was based on CLSI breakpoints and decreased susceptibility on EFSA epidemiological cut-off values. RESULTS: Isolation rates from a total of 1500 samples were high for E. coli (n=1465), low for Salmonella (n=205) and intermediate for Campylobacter (n=785) and Enterococcus (n=718). Resistance prevalence varied among antibiotics, bacteria, hosts and countries. For E. coli and Salmonella, clinical resistance to newer compounds (cefepime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin) was absent or low, but a decreased susceptibility was apparent, particularly in chickens. Clinical resistance to older compounds (except colistin and gentamicin) was variable and higher. For Campylobacter jejuni from chickens, ciprofloxacin resistance was markedly higher than in isolates from cattle. Clinical resistance to erythromycin was absent for both hosts; decreased susceptibility very low. Similar trends were determined for Campylobacter coli, but C. jejuni was less resistant. None of the enterococcal strains was resistant to linezolid, but a few displayed resistance to ampicillin or vancomycin. Resistance prevalence to quinupristin/dalfopristin was clearly higher. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial resistance among enteric organisms in food animals varied among countries, particularly for older antimicrobials, but clinical resistance to essential compounds used to treat disease in humans was generally zero or low. In the absence of clinical resistance to newer compounds in E. coli and Salmonella, the apparent decreased susceptibility should be monitored carefully.


Subject(s)
Animals, Domestic/microbiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Enterobacteriaceae/drug effects , Enterobacteriaceae/isolation & purification , Gastrointestinal Tract/microbiology , Animals , Cattle , Chickens , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , European Union , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Swine
2.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 56(3): 538-43, 2005 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16085669

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To establish the susceptibility of Enterococcus faecium isolates from pigs and chickens to antimicrobial growth promoters that either were or had been in use in the European Union. METHODS: Samples were taken at abattoirs in two successive years (mid-1998-mid-1999, year 1; mid-1999-mid-2000, year 2) from chickens (France, The Netherlands, Sweden, UK) and pigs (Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden). E. faecium was isolated from faecal samples at national laboratories and sent to a central laboratory where MICs of avilamycin, avoparcin, bacitracin, flavophospholipol, spiramycin, tylosin and virginiamycin were determined. Microbiological breakpoints were allocated on the basis of MIC distributions, and comparison was made between host species, country of origin and year of sample. RESULTS: In total, 2567 isolates were obtained from chickens and 1742 from pigs. In all countries, resistance to avoparcin (banned in 1997) was uncommon, but resistance to bacitracin and flavophospholipol was common (and was probably largely intrinsic). The prevalence of resistance was similar in chicken and pig isolates, with the exception of avilamycin, to which resistance was commoner among chicken isolates. The removal of four compounds as growth promoters (bacitracin, spiramycin, tylosin, virginiamycin) between years 1 and 2 appeared to result in a significant decrease in resistance to three of them-spiramycin, tylosin and virginiamycin, with no change in resistance to bacitracin, but an increase in resistance to avilamycin (not discontinued). Associated resistance was shown between some of the compounds. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance prevalence declined rapidly following removal of growth promoters in pigs and chickens, suggesting that in the absence of selective pressure, a susceptible population began to replace phenotypically resistant strains. Associated resistance between different compounds, where seen, could have resulted from either shared resistance mechanisms or from carriage of resistance genes on the same plasmid. Multiresistance to streptogramins, macrolides and glycopeptides was rare.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Chickens/microbiology , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Enterococcus faecalis/drug effects , Swine/microbiology , Animals , Chickens/growth & development , Enterococcus faecalis/isolation & purification , Europe , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Swine/growth & development
3.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 54(4): 744-54, 2004 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15375107

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To study antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic bacteria isolated from food animals in different countries using uniform methodology. METHODS: Samples were taken at slaughter from chickens, pigs and cattle in four EU countries per host. Escherichia coli (indicator organism; n = 2118), Salmonella spp. (n = 271) and Campylobacter spp. (n = 1325) were isolated in national laboratories and MICs tested in a central laboratory against, where appropriate, ampicillin, cefepime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, erythromycin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid, streptomycin, tetracycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. RESULTS: Isolation rates were high for E. coli, low for Salmonella and intermediate for Campylobacter. MIC results showed resistance prevalence varied among compounds, hosts and countries. For E. coli and Salmonella, resistance to newer compounds (cefepime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin) was absent or low, but to older compounds (except gentamicin), resistance was variable and higher. E. coli isolates from Sweden showed low resistance, whereas among isolates from Spain (pigs), resistance to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, tetracycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was higher; the UK, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Denmark were intermediate. For Campylobacter spp. isolates from chickens, nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin resistance was >30% in France and the Netherlands, >6% in the UK and zero in Sweden. Nalidixic acid resistance was high in cattle (20%-64%), whereas ciprofloxacin resistance was markedly lower in cattle, variable in pigs (3%-21%) and highest in Sweden. Generally, Campylobacter coli was more resistant than Campylobacter jejuni. CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial resistance among enteric organisms in food animals varied among countries, particularly for older antimicrobials, but resistance to newer compounds used to treat disease in humans was generally low.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Campylobacter/drug effects , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial/drug effects , Escherichia coli/drug effects , Food Microbiology , Salmonella/drug effects , Animals , Campylobacter/growth & development , Campylobacter/isolation & purification , Cattle , Chickens , Data Collection , Escherichia coli/growth & development , Escherichia coli/isolation & purification , Europe , Feces/microbiology , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Salmonella/growth & development , Salmonella/isolation & purification , Swine
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...