1887
Research Open Access
Like 1

Abstract

Background

Monitoring of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in animals is essential for public health surveillance. To enhance interpretation of monitoring data, evaluation and optimisation of AMR trend analysis is needed.

Aims

To quantify and evaluate trends in AMR in commensal , using data from the Dutch national AMR monitoring programme in livestock (1998–2016).

Methods

Faecal samples were collected at slaughter from broilers, pigs and veal calves. Minimum inhibitory concentration values were obtained by broth microdilution for for 15 antimicrobials of eight antimicrobial classes. A Poisson regression model was applied to resistant isolate counts, with explanatory variables representing time before and after 2009 (reference year); for veal calves, sampling changed from 2012 represented by an extra explanatory variable.

Results

Resistant counts increased significantly from 1998-2009 in broilers and pigs, except for tetracyclines and sulfamethoxazole in broilers and chloramphenicol and aminoglycosides in pigs. Since 2009, resistant counts decreased for all antimicrobials in broilers and for all but the phenicols in pigs. In veal calves, for most antimicrobials no significant decrease in resistant counts could be determined for 2009–16, except for sulfamethoxazole and nalidixic acid. Within animal species, antimicrobial-specific trends were similar.

Conclusions

Using Dutch monitoring data from 1998-2016, this study quantified AMR trends in broilers and slaughter pigs and showed significant trend changes in the reference year 2009. We showed that monitoring in commensal useful to quantify trends and detect trend changes in AMR. This model is applicable to similar data from other European countries.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.25.1800438
2019-06-20
2019-12-06
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.25.1800438
Loading
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/eurosurveillance/24/25/eurosurv-24-25-3.html?itemId=/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.25.1800438&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ventola CL. The antibiotic resistance crisis: part 1: causes and threats. P&T. 2015;40(4):277-83. PMID: 25859123 
  2. Walker B, Barrett S, Polasky S, Galaz V, Folke C, Engström G, et al. Environment. Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science. 2009;325(5946):1345-6.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175325  PMID: 19745137 
  3. World Health Organization (WHO). Antimicrobial resistance - global report on surveillance. World Health Organization, 2014.Geneva: WHO; 2014. Available from: https://www.who.int/drugresistance/documents/surveillancereport/en/
  4. Chang Q, Wang W, Regev-Yochay G, Lipsitch M, Hanage WP. Antibiotics in agriculture and the risk to human health: how worried should we be? Evol Appl. 2015;8(3):240-7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12185  PMID: 25861382 
  5. Michael CA, Dominey-Howes D, Labbate M. The antimicrobial resistance crisis: causes, consequences, and management. Front Public Health. 2014;2:145.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00145  PMID: 25279369 
  6. Frimodt-Møller N. Microbial Threat--The Copenhagen Recommendations initiative of the EU. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2004;51(8-9):400-2.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0450.2004.00786.x  PMID: 15525373 
  7. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, 20.06.2001 COM(2001) 333 final. Proposal for a council recommendation on the prudent use of antimicrobial agents in human medicine. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2001/EN/1-2001-333-EN-F1-2.Pdf
  8. Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance and Antibiotic Usage in Animals in the Netherlands (MARAN) in. 2017. Lelystad: MARAN; 2018. Available from: https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/7/b/0/5e568649-c674-420e-a2ca-acc8ca56f016_Maran%202018.pdf
  9. Mevius D, Heederik D. Reduction of antibiotic use in animals "let’s go Dutch". J Verbraucherschutz Lebensmsicherh. 2014;9(2):177-81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-014-0874-z 
  10. Dorado-García A, Mevius DJ, Jacobs JJ, Van Geijlswijk IM, Mouton JW, Wagenaar JA, et al. Quantitative assessment of antimicrobial resistance in livestock during the course of a nationwide antimicrobial use reduction in the Netherlands. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(12):3607-19.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkw308  PMID: 27585970 
  11. Veterinary Medicines Institute (SDa). Usage of Antibiotics in Agricultural Livestock in the Netherlands in 2016. Utrecht: SDa; 2016. Available from: https://cdn.i-pulse.nl/autoriteitdiergeneesmiddelen/userfiles/Publications/engels-def-rapportage-2016-deel-1-en-2-22-09-2017.pdf
  12. Hanon JB, Jaspers S, Butaye P, Wattiau P, Méroc E, Aerts M, et al. A trend analysis of antimicrobial resistance in commensal Escherichia coli from several livestock species in Belgium (2011-2014). Prev Vet Med. 2015;122(4):443-52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.09.001  PMID: 26423778 
  13. Boireau C, Morignat É, Cazeau G, Jarrige N, Jouy É, Haenni M, et al. Antimicrobial resistance trends in Escherichia coli isolated from diseased food-producing animals in France: A 14-year period time-series study. Zoonoses Public Health. 2018;65(1):e86-94.  https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12412  PMID: 29110404 
  14. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility testing (EUCAST). Antimicrobial wild type distributions of microorganisms 2017. Växjö: EUCAST; 2017. Available from: http://www.eucast.org/mic_distributions_and_ecoffs/.
  15. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Report from the Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection including guidance for harmonized monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance in commensal Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. from food animals. EFSA J. 2008;141:1-14.
  16. van Hoek AH, Mevius D, Guerra B, Mullany P, Roberts AP, Aarts HJ. Acquired antibiotic resistance genes: an overview. Front Microbiol. 2011;2:203.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00203  PMID: 22046172 
  17. Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance and Antibiotic Usage in Animals in the Netherlands (MARAN) in. 2016. Lelystad: MARAN; 2017. Available from: https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/c/8/4/50343a1f-a2ad-4389-8208-d0e595b9a946_Maran%20report%202017.pdf
  18. Machuca J, Briales A, Labrador G, Díaz-de-Alba P, López-Rojas R, Docobo-Pérez F, et al. Interplay between plasmid-mediated and chromosomal-mediated fluoroquinolone resistance and bacterial fitness in Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(12):3203-15.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dku308  PMID: 25139837 
  19. World Health Organization (WHO). Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine, 5th revision. Geneva: WHO; 2017. Available from: https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/antimicrobials-fifth/en/
  20. Wu RB, Alexander TW, Li JQ, Munns K, Sharma R, McAllister TA. Prevalence and diversity of class 1 integrons and resistance genes in antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli originating from beef cattle administered subtherapeutic antimicrobials. J Appl Microbiol. 2011;111(2):511-23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05066.x  PMID: 21645183 
  21. Munk P, Andersen VD, de Knegt L, Jensen MS, Knudsen BE, Lukjancenko O, et al. A sampling and metagenomic sequencing-based methodology for monitoring antimicrobial resistance in swine herds. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(2):385-92.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkw415  PMID: 28115502 
  22. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Technical specifications on the harmonised monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella, Campylobacter and indicator Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. bacteria transmitted through food. EFSA J. 2012;10(6):2742. Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2742
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.25.1800438
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary data

Comment has been disabled for this content
Submit comment
Close
Comment moderation successfully completed
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error