4.6 Review

Antimicrobial Usage and Antimicrobial Resistance in Animal Production in Southeast Asia: A Review

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics5040037

关键词

antimicrobial resistance; antimicrobial consumption; antimicrobial residues; animal production; farms; chickens; pigs; Salmonella; E. coli

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [110085/Z/15/Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Southeast Asia is an area of great economic dynamism. In recent years, it has experienced a rapid rise in the levels of animal product production and consumption. The region is considered to be a hotspot for infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We reviewed English-language peer-reviewed publications related to antimicrobial usage (AMU) and AMR in animal production, as well as antimicrobial residues in meat and fish from 2000 to 2016, in the region. There is a paucity of data from most countries and for most bacterial pathogens. Most of the published work relates to non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS), Escherichia coli (E. coli), and Campylobacter spp. (mainly from Vietnam and Thailand), Enterococcus spp. (Malaysia), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (Thailand). However, most studies used the disk diffusion method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; breakpoints were interpreted using Clinical Standard Laboratory Institute (CSLI) guidelines. Statistical models integrating data from publications on AMR in NTS and E. coli studies show a higher overall prevalence of AMR in pig isolates, and an increase in levels of AMR over the years. AMU studies (mostly from Vietnam) indicate very high usage levels of most types of antimicrobials, including beta-lactams, aminoglycosides, macrolides, and quinolones. This review summarizes information about genetic determinants of resistance, most of which are transferrable (mostly plasmids and integrons). The data in this review provide a benchmark to help focus research and policies on AMU and AMR in the region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据