• 1.

    American Society for Microbiology. Antimicrobial resistance: an ecological perspective. Report on the American Academy of Microbiology colloquium in San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 16–18, 1999. Washington, DC. Available at: www.asm.org/Academy/index.asp?bid=2167. Accessed May 15, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Antimicrobial resistance. Data to assess public health threat from resistant bacteria are limited. HEHS/NSIAD/RCED-99-132. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, 1999;141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    White DG, McDermott PF. Emergence and transfer of antimicrobial resistance. J Dairy Sci 2001;84:E151E155.

  • 4.

    FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine. Published guidance document No. 152. Guidance for industry: evaluating the safety of antimicrobial new animal drugs with regard to their microbiological effects on bacteria of human health concern. 2003. Available at: www.fda.gov/cvm/Guidance/published.htm. Accessed May 15, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Angulo FJ, Johnson K & Tauxe R, et al. Origins and consequences of antimicrobial-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella: implications for the use of fluoroquinolones in food animals. Microb Drug Resist 2000;6:7783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Piddock LJ. Does the use of antimicrobial agents in veterinary medicine and animal husbandry select antibiotic-resistant bacteria that infect man and compromise antimicrobial chemotherapy? J Antimicrob Chemother 1996;38:13.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Piddock LJ. Fluoroquinolone resistance: overuse of fluoroquinolones in human and veterinary medicine can breed resistance. BMJ 1998;317:10291030.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Phillips I, Casewell M & Cox T, et al. Does the use of antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? A critical review of published data. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004;53:2852.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Holmberg SD, Osterholm MT & Senger KA, et al. Drug-resistant Salmonella from animals fed antimicrobials. N Engl J Med 1984;311:617622.

  • 10.

    Spika JS, Waterman SH & Hoo GW, et al. Chloramphenicol-resistant Salmonella Newport traced through hamburger to dairy farms. N Engl J Med 1987;316:565570.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Wittum TE, Woollen NE & Perino LJ, et al. Relationships among treatment for respiratory tract disease, pulmonary lesions evident at slaughter, and rate of weight gain in feedlot cattle. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1996;209:814818.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Hill MA, Scheidt AB & Teclaw RF, et al. Association between growth indicators and volume of lesions in lungs from pigs at slaughter. Am J Vet Res 1992;53:22212223.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Zwald AG, Ruegg PL & Kaneene JB, et al. Management practices and reported antimicrobial usage on conventional and organic dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 2004;87:191201.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Sawant AA, Sordillo LM, Jayarao BM. A survey on antibiotic usage in dairy herds in Pennsylvania. J Dairy Sci 2005;88:29912999.

  • 15.

    Dunne EF, Fey P & Kludt P, et al. Emergence of domestically acquired ceftriaxone-resistant Salmonella infections associated with AmpC β-lactamase. JAMA 2000;284:31513156.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Fey PD, Safranek T & Rupp M, et al. Ceftriaxone-resistant Salmonella infection acquired by a child from cattle. New Engl J Med 2000;342:12421249.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    White DG, Zhao S & Sudler R, et al. The isolation of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella 2001;345:11471154.

  • 18.

    Winokur PL, Brueggemann A & DeSalvo DL, et al. Animal and human multidrug-resistant, cephalosporin-resistant Salmonella isolates expressing a plasmid-mediated CMY-2 AmpC β-lactamase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:27772783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Winokur PL, Vonstein DL & Hoffman LJ, et al. Evidence for transfer of CMY-2 AmpC β-lactamase plasmids between Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolates from food animals and humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45:27162722.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically: approved standard. 7th ed. CLSI document M7-A7. Wayne, Pa: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Snijders T, Bosker R. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications, 1999;99109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    USDA, Agricultural Research Service. Bacterial Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Resistance. 1997–2003 NARMS veterinary isolates annual reports. Available at: ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=6750. Accessed May 15, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    CDC, National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System for Enteric Bacteria (NARMS). 1997–2002 Annual Reports. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC. Available at: www.cdc.gov/narms/reports.htm. Accessed May 15, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Marshall B, Petrowski D, Levy SB. Inter- and intraspecies spread of Escherichia coli in a farm environment in the absence of antibiotic usage. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 1990;87:66096613.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Levy SB, Fitzgerald GB, Macone AB. Spread of antibiotic resistant plasmids from chicken to chicken and from chicken to man. Nature 1976;260:4042.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Association between ceftiofur use and isolation of Escherichia coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone from fecal samples of dairy cows

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
  • | 2 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
  • | 3 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
  • | 4 Iowa City VA Medical Center, 601 Hwy 6 W, Iowa City, IA 52246.
  • | 5 Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.
  • | 6 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Abstract

Objective—To estimate the association between ceftiofur use and the isolation of Escherichia coli with reduced ceftriaxone susceptibility from fecal samples of dairy cow populations.

Animals—1,266 dairy cows on 18 farms in Ohio.

Procedures—Individual fecal samples from all cows in the study herds were tested for Escherichia coli with reduced ceftriaxone susceptibility. Herd antimicrobial use policy and antimicrobial treatment records were also obtained. Plasmid DNA from these isolates was tested for the presence of the AmpC β-lactamase gene (blaCMY-2). Minimum inhibitory concentrations to a standard panel of 16 antimicrobial drugs were determined by use of a broth microdilution system.

Results—Herds for which ceftiofur use was reported were more likely to have cows from which reducedsusceptibility E coli was isolated than herds that did not report ceftiofur use (odds ratio, 25.0). However, at the individual cow level, no association was found between recent ceftiofur treatment and isolation of reduced-susceptibility E coli (adjusted odds ratio, 1.01). No observed linear relationship was found between the percentage of cows from which E coli with reduced ceftriaxone susceptibility was isolated and the percentage of cows in the herd recently treated with ceftiofur.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Our observation of a herd-level but not an individual cow-level association between ceftiofur use and isolation of E coli with reduced ceftriaxone susceptibility from fecal samples suggests that interventions to reduce the spread of antimicrobial resistance genes in agricultural animals will be most effective at the herd level.

Abstract

Objective—To estimate the association between ceftiofur use and the isolation of Escherichia coli with reduced ceftriaxone susceptibility from fecal samples of dairy cow populations.

Animals—1,266 dairy cows on 18 farms in Ohio.

Procedures—Individual fecal samples from all cows in the study herds were tested for Escherichia coli with reduced ceftriaxone susceptibility. Herd antimicrobial use policy and antimicrobial treatment records were also obtained. Plasmid DNA from these isolates was tested for the presence of the AmpC β-lactamase gene (blaCMY-2). Minimum inhibitory concentrations to a standard panel of 16 antimicrobial drugs were determined by use of a broth microdilution system.

Results—Herds for which ceftiofur use was reported were more likely to have cows from which reducedsusceptibility E coli was isolated than herds that did not report ceftiofur use (odds ratio, 25.0). However, at the individual cow level, no association was found between recent ceftiofur treatment and isolation of reduced-susceptibility E coli (adjusted odds ratio, 1.01). No observed linear relationship was found between the percentage of cows from which E coli with reduced ceftriaxone susceptibility was isolated and the percentage of cows in the herd recently treated with ceftiofur.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Our observation of a herd-level but not an individual cow-level association between ceftiofur use and isolation of E coli with reduced ceftriaxone susceptibility from fecal samples suggests that interventions to reduce the spread of antimicrobial resistance genes in agricultural animals will be most effective at the herd level.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Funk's present address is Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Supported in part by USDA/CSREES/NRI project No. 99-35212-8589 and USDA/CSREES/IREE project No. 00-51110-9822.

Address correspondence to Dr. Wittum.