4.3 Article

Cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli isolated from farm workers and pigs in northern Vietnam

期刊

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 415-424

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.13054

关键词

cephalosporin resistance; ESBL; CTX-M; pigs; farmers; Vietnam

资金

  1. Danish International Development Assistance [17-M06-KU]
  2. National Foundation for Science and Technology Development in Vietnam [02-2014.02, 106-YS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveAntimicrobial-resistant bacteria may be transmitted between farm workers and livestock. This study aimed to determine and compare the prevalence and the genetic determinants of cefotaxime-resistant and ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in faecal isolates from workers and pigs at 100 farms in northern Vietnam. MethodsFarmers were interviewed about antimicrobial usage in livestock. Escherichia coli isolated on MacConkey agar containing 2mg/l of cefotaxime (CTX) were tested for susceptibility to different cephalosporins by disc diffusion and screened for occurrence of ESBL-encoding genes by PCR. ResultsAntimicrobial usage was widespread and included classes regarded of critical or high importance in human medicine. Dosages were 0.5-2 times higher than recommended, and antimicrobials were often administered right until slaughter. Prevalence of CTX-resistant E.coli was 86% in farm workers and 89% in pigs. In 76% of farms, CTX-resistant E.coli were shared by pigs and farm workers. ESBL-producing E.coli were detected from pigs and workers at 66 and 69 farms, respectively. The ESBL phenotype was mainly mediated by CTX-M and to a lesser extent by TEM. Occurrence of bla(CTX-M) was similar in E.coli from pigs (66.7%) and humans (68.5%). ConclusionThe high occurrence of ESBL-producing E.coli in pig farmers and pigs could present a risk for spillover of these bacteria from pig farms into the community. Genomic studies are needed to elucidate reservoirs and transmission routes of ESBL-producing E.coli at livestock farms.

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

4.3
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