Methodological comparisons for antimicrobial resistance surveillance in feedlot cattle

BMC Veterinary Research

Paul S Morley¹  Tim A McAllister³  Calvin W Booker⁴  Sylvia Checkley²  Sheryl P Gow⁵  Katharine M Benedict¹ 

[1] Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1678, USA;Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6, Canada;Lethbridge Research Center, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada;Feedlot Health Management Services Ltd, Okotoks, AB, T1S 2A2, Canada;Laboratory for Foodborne Zoonoses, Public Health Agency of Canada, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5B4, Canada

关键词: Sampling;    Disk diffusion;    Broth microdilution;    Susceptibility testing;    Mannheimia haemolytica;    Escherichia coli;    Cattle;    Antibiotic resistance;   

Others  :  1119422
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-6148-9-216

 received in 2013-06-04, accepted in 2013-10-19,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose of this study was to objectively compare methodological approaches that might be utilized in designing an antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance program in beef feedlot cattle. Specifically, four separate comparisons were made to investigate their potential impact on estimates for prevalence of AMR. These included investigating potential differences between 2 different susceptibility testing methods (broth microdilution and disc diffusion), between 2 different target bacteria (non-type-specific E. coli [NTSEC] and Mannheimia haemolytica), between 2 strategies for sampling feces (individual samples collected per rectum and pooled samples collected from the pen floor), and between 2 strategies for determining which cattle to sample (cattle that were culture-positive for Mannheimia haemolytica and those that were culture-negative).

Results

Comparing two susceptibility testing methods demonstrated differences in the likelihood of detecting resistance between automated disk diffusion (BioMIC®) and broth microdilution (Sensititre®) for both E. coli and M. haemolytica. Differences were also detected when comparing resistance between two bacterial organisms within the same cattle; there was a higher likelihood of detecting resistance in E. coli than in M. haemolytica. Differences in resistance prevalence were not detected when using individual animal or composite pen sampling strategies. No differences in resistance prevalences were detected in E. coli recovered from cattle that were culture-positive for M. haemolytica compared to those that were culture-negative, suggesting that sampling strategies which targeted recovery of E. coli from M. haemolytica-positive cattle would not provide biased results.

Conclusions

We found that for general purposes, the susceptibility test selected for AMR surveillance must be carefully chosen considering the purpose of the surveillance since the ability to detect resistance appears to vary between these tests depending upon the population where they are applied. Continued surveillance of AMR in M. haemolytica recovered by nasopharyngeal swab is recommended if monitoring an animal health pathogen is an objective of the surveillance program as results of surveillance using fecal E. coli cannot be extrapolated to this important respiratory pathogen. If surveillance of E. coli was pursued in the same population, study populations could target animals that were culture-positive for M. haemolytica without biasing estimates for AMR in E. coli. Composite pen-floor sampling or sampling of individuals per-rectum could possibly be used interchangeably for monitoring resistance in E. coli.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Benedict et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cornaglia G, Hryniewicz W, Jarlier V, Kahlmeter G, Mittermayer H, Stratchounksi L, Baquero F: European recommendations for antimicrobial resistance surveillance. Clin Microbiol Infec 2004, 10(4):349-383.
• [2]Tenover FC, Mohammad MJ, Stelling J, O’Brien T, Williams R: Ability of laboratories to detect emerging antimicrobial resistance: proficiency testing and quality control results from the World Health Organization’s external quality assurance system for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J Clin Microb 2001, 39(1):241-250.
• [3]White DG, Acar J, Anthony F, Franklin A, Gupta R, Nicholls T, Tamura Y, Thompson S, Threlfall EJ, Vose D, et al.: Antimicrobial resistance: standardization and harmonization of laboratory methodologies for the detection and quantification of antimicrobial resistance. Rev Sci Tec Off Int Epiz 2001, 20(3):849-858.
• [4]Franklin A, Acar J, Anthony F, Gupta R, Nicholls T, Tamura Y, Thompson S, Threlfall EJ, Vose D, van Vuuren M, et al.: Antimicrobial resistance: harmonization of national antimicrobial resistance monitoring and surveillance programmes in animals and in animal-derived food. Rev Sci Tech Off Nit Epiz 2001, 20(3):859-870.
• [5]Murray PR, Zeitinger JR, Krogstad DJ: Reliability of disc diffusion susceptibility testing. Infect Control 1982, 3(3):230-237.
• [6]Metzler CM, DeHaan RM: Susceptibility tests of anaerobic bacteria: statistical and clinical considerations. J Infect Dis 1974, 130(6):588-594.
• [7]Klement E, Chaffer M, Leitner G, Shwimmer A, Friedman S, Saran A, Shpigel N: Assessment of accuracy of disk diffusion tests for the determination of antimicrobial susceptibility of common bovine mastitis pathogens: a novel approach. Microb Drug Resist 2005, 11(4):342-350.
• [8]McEwen SA, Fedorka-Cray PJ: Antimicrobial use and resistance in animals. Clin Infect Dis 2002, 34(Suppl 3):93-106.
• [9]Watts JL, Sweeney MT: Antimicrobial resistance in bovine respiratory disease pathogens: measures, trends, and impact on efficacy. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2010, 26(1):79-88.
• [10]Hoar BR, Atwill ER, Elmi C, Utterback WW, Edmondson AJ: Comparison of fecal samples collected per rectum and off the ground for estimate of environmental contamination attributable to beef cattle. Am J Vet Res 1999, 60(11):1352-1356.
• [11]Wagner BA, Dargatz DA, Salman MD, Morley PS, Wittum TE, Keefe TJ: Comparison of sampling techniques for measuring the antimicrobial susceptibility of enteric Escherichia coli recovered from feedlot cattle. Am J vet Res 2002, 63(12):1662-1670.
• [12]Ward TI: Antimicrobial resistance patterns of selected bacterial pathogens of feedlot cattle. University of Calgary, Department of Medical Science; 2004. [Master of Science Thesis]
• [13]National Research Council: Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 8th revised edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2000.
• [14]Alexander TW, Booker SW, Gow SP, Read RR, McAllister TA: Recovery of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli after storage of bovine feces in Cary-Blair medium. Can J Microbiol 2009, 55(10):1224-1227.
• [15]Angen O, Ahrens P, Bisgaard M: Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of Mannheimia (Pasteurella) haemolytica-like strains isolated from diseased animals in Denmark. Vet Microbiol 2002, 84(1–2):103-114.
• [16]Alexander TW, Cook SR, Yanke LJ, Booker CW, Morley PS, Read RR, Gow SP, McAllister TA: A multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for the identification of Mannheimia haemolytica, Mannheimia glucosida, and Mannheimia ruminalis. Vet Microbiol 2008, 130(1–2):165-175.
• [17]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals, fourth edition: approved standard M31-A4. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2013.
• [18]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Methods for antimicrobial dilution and disk susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated or fastidious bacteria, second edition: approved guideline. M45-A2. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2010.
• [19]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 18th informational supplement. M100-S18. Wayne, PA: CLSU; 2008.
• [20]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 21st informational supplement. M100-S21. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2011.
• [21]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 22nd informational supplement. M100-S22. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2012.
• [22]Food and Drug Administration: National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System – enteric bacteria (NARMS). Rockville, MD; 2009. [Executive report]
• [23]Catry B, Dewulf J, de Kruif A, Vanrobaeys M, Haesebrouck F, Decostere A: Accuracy of susceptibility testing of Pasteurella multocida and Mannheimia haemolytica. Microb Drug Resist 2007, 13(3):204-211.
• [24]Kahlmeter G, Brown DFJ, Goldstein FW, MacGowan AP, Mouton JW, Osterlund A, Rodloff A, Steinbakk M, Urbaskova P, Vatopoulos A: European harmonization of MIC breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003, 52:145-148.
• [25]Morley PS, Dargatz DA, Hyatt DR, Dewell GA, Patterson G, Wittum TE: Effects of restricted antimicrobial exposure on antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli from feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2011, 8:87-98.
• [26]Rao S, Van Donkersgoed J, Bohaychuk V, Besser TE, Song XM, Wagner B, Hancock D, Renter D, Dargatz DA, Morley PS: Antimicrobial drug use and antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria among cattle from Alberta feedlots. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2010, 7:449-457.
• [27]D’Amato RF, Hochstein L, Vernaleo JR, Cleri DJ, Wallman AA, Gradus MS, Thornsberry C: Evaluation of the BIOGRAM antimicrobial susceptibility test system. J Clin Microbiol 1985, 22(5):793-798.
• [28]Hubert SK, Nguyen PD, Walker RD: Evaluation of a computerized antimicrobial susceptibility systems with bacteria isolated from animals. J Vet Diagn Invest 1998, 10(2):164-168.