A European survey of antimicrobial susceptibility among zoonotic and commensal bacteria isolated from food-producing animals.
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.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Bywater
Robin
R
EASSA Study Group, c/o CEESA, 1, Rue Defacqz, Brussels, Belgium. rbywater@onetel.com
Deluyker
Hubert
H
Deroover
Erik
E
de Jong
Anno
A
Marion
Hervé
H
McConville
Malcolm
M
Rowan
Tim
T
Shryock
Thomas
T
Shuster
Dale
D
Thomas
Valérie
V
Vallé
Michel
M
Walters
John
J
D000818:Animals; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000494:pharmacology*; D002167:Campylobacter / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000254:growth & development / Q000302:isolation & purification; D002417:Cattle; D002645:Chickens; D003625:Data Collection; D024901:Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial / Q000187:drug effects*; D004926:Escherichia coli / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000254:growth & development / Q000302:isolation & purification; D005060:Europe; D005243:Feces / Q000382:microbiology; D005516:Food Microbiology; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests; D012475:Salmonella / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000254:growth & development / Q000302:isolation & purification; D013552:Swine
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents