Monitoring the Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Companion Animals: Results from Clinical Isolates in an Italian University Veterinary Hospital

Scarpellini, Raffaele; Assirelli, Giammarco; Giunti, Massimo; Esposito, Erika; Mondo, Elisabetta; Piva, Silvia

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6695493

Transboundary and Emerging Diseases

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 6695493 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6695493

Monitoring the Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Companion Animals: Results from Clinical Isolates in an Italian University Veterinary Hospital

Raffaele Scarpellini,¹Giammarco Assirelli,¹Massimo Giunti,¹Erika Esposito,¹Elisabetta Mondo,¹and Silvia Piva¹

Academic Editor: Mohsin Khurshid

Received29 Jun 2023

Revised23 Aug 2023

Accepted29 Aug 2023

Published14 Sept 2023

Abstract

The role of companion animals in the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is still not well known. As part of a wider surveillance system, this study aimed to provide data about AMR in bacterial isolates from infections in companion animals referred to an Italian University Veterinary Hospital (VUH) from November 2020 to September 2022. A total of 940 isolates were identified with MALDI-TOF MS and subsequently the antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) for 12 antimicrobials was performed. Urine was the most commonly submitted specimen (54.92%) and Escherichia coli was the most common bacterial species isolated (36.06%). Out of the 940 isolates, 747 (79.47%) were nonsusceptible to at least one drug (AMR), while 420 (44.68%) were considered multidrug resistant (MDR). The highest nonsusceptibility percentages were recorded for clindamycin (59.65 %), erythromycin (58.96 %), ampicillin (52.85%), and enrofloxacin (48.19%). Alarming percentages were recorded also for ceftiofur (25.51%), amoxicillin–clavulanate (22.99%), and piperacillin–tazobactam (15.85%). In multivariable risk factors analysis, previous use of invasive devices ( in both cases) and previous use of antimicrobials ( in both cases) were statistically related with higher AMR and MDR percentages. Apart from a general evaluation, the study focused on specific bacterial species (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.) and specimens (blood cultures, urine from suspected healthcare-associated urinary tract infections, and surgical site infections), showing in both cases higher AMR and MDR percentages compared to average. These data highlight the urgency to further investigate AMR spread in pets and how passive surveillance systems can be effective tools to monitor AMR and to optimize antimicrobial use.

1. Introduction

Bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is considered one of the most concerning and widespread health concerns worldwide. In a global epidemiological overview, limited data are available regarding the role of companion animals in the spread of AMR bacteria [1]. This topic is particularly relevant in European Union countries, in which pets are increasingly popular with more than 60 million cats and dogs [2] sharing the same environment with people. This must be considered not only for the increasing risk of therapeutic failure in animals, but also for the wide use of antimicrobials shared with human medicine and the potential zoonotic transmission of AMR [3]. In this context, veterinary hospitals could play a major role in the selection of multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria, which could spread into the local community not only through animals, but also owners or veterinary personnel. From a one health perspective, some bacterial species (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.) grouped under the acronym ESKAPE [4] represent a particular matter of concern due to their pathogenic potential. In addition, MDR bacteria represent a threat because they are often associated with severe infections such as bloodstream infections, surgical site infections (SSIs), or healthcare-associated urinary tract infections (HA UTIs). In Europe, some countries are developing national surveillance programs in small animal practice [5]; however, there is still a lack of specific legislation.

For all these reasons, the need to focus on antimicrobial stewardship measures, guidelines, and education should be considered with urgency in small animal practice. The first step is data collection, which can be executed through internal passive surveillance systems by registering information from clinical samples for diagnostic purposes, with a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio and less time-consuming efforts [6]. The aims of this paper are: (i) to describe a passive surveillance system for AMR in bacterial isolates from companion animals referred to a Veterinary University Hospital (VUH), (ii) to describe the specimen type and species distribution of the analyzed isolates, their AMR and MDR percentages and their nonsusceptibility percentages in relation with the 12 antimicrobials tested; (iii) to identify the risk factors associated with AMR/MDR in the analyzed isolates; (iv) to focus on the nonsusceptibility percentages of isolates identified as species from the ESKAPE group, and of isolates from specimens associated with severe infections such as bloodstream infections, suspected HA UTIs, and SSIs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This prospective, observational study was part of a larger project on surveillance of AMR and hospital-acquired infections in VUHs. The data used for the analysis originated from routine diagnostic bacteriological cases received by the Veterinary Laboratory of Bacteriology (VeLaBac) at the Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, from the internal Small Animals VUH. We collected data from November 2020 to September 2022 on isolates from biological specimens from dogs and cats referred to the VUH, submitted for culture, bacterial isolation, identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). Only isolates with a reported AST result were included in the study.

2.2. Culture and Identification of Bacterial Isolates

Depending on the specimen type, standard microbiological procedures were used and are listed in Table S1. The different specimen types, sampled by the submitting veterinarian, were classified as follows: abdominal/pleural/peritoneal effusion, abscess, bile, biopsy, blood culture, ear swab, exudate, nasal swab, respiratory tract lavage, urine (both by cystocentesis and from catheterization), SSI and implant, wound, vaginal/uterine swab, and “other.” The “other” cathegory included specimens with very few frequencies or without specific indications. After the incubation of 24–48 hr at 37 + −1°C, plates that presented adequate growth according to guidelines [7] were considered positive. Colonies were evaluated morphologically and the identification at species level of each isolate was assessed using the matrix-assisted laser desorption–ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry method (MALDI-TOF MS) (Biotyper, Bruker Daltonics, Billerica, MA), following manufacturer’s instructions (Bruker Daltonik, Bremen, Germany) and considered a species-level identification when the ID score was >2 (green—high accuracy). If isolates identified as the same bacterial species were isolated from different specimens in the same patient at the same time, they were considered separately only in the specimen analysis.

2.3. Data Collection

For every isolate, the following variables were collected from the patient: species (dog/cat), age (years, rounded up), type of specimen (see above), previous hospitalization/surgery in the past 30 days (yes/no), hospitalization at the time of the sampling (yes/no), hospitalization in intensive care unit (yes/no), surgery at the time of the sampling (yes/no), days of hospitalization at the time of the sampling (number of days), invasive device use in the previous 90 days (yes/no), antimicrobial use in the past 90 days (yes/no), and current antimicrobial use (yes/no).

2.4. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

AST of all the isolates was performed using the Kirby–Bauer disc diffusion method, according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) guidelines [8]. For every tested drug, each isolate was classified as susceptible (S), intermediate (I), or resistant (R) based on the CLSI [8] veterinary breakpoints. Overall, 12 antimicrobials from 8 antimicrobial classes were included in the final analysis (Table S2). All the discs were purchased from Oxoid (Oxoid, Milan, Italy). For Gram-negative bacteria, clindamycin and erythromycin were not tested due to their low-activity rates [9]. For certain species, antimicrobial agents known to exhibit intrinsic resistance phenotypes according to the National Reference Laboratory for AMR [10] were not tested. Isolates identified as the same bacterial species found in the same patient at different time points were considered separately only when they showed different AST results. For AST interpretation, the strains were divided into “susceptible” and “nonsusceptible,” as suggested by Sweeney et al. [11], where the “nonsusceptible” category included resistant and intermediate isolates. Isolates that were nonsusceptible to at least one antimicrobial drug were considered as AMR isolates, and isolates that were not susceptible to at least one antimicrobial drug in three or more antimicrobial classes were considered as MDR [12].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics was performed considering bacterial species and their Gram stain, type of specimen, nonsusceptibility percentages of the 12 tested drugs, and AMR and MDR proportions, that were evaluated by dividing the number of AMR/MDR strains by the number of total strains. Besides this general overview, descriptive statistics was also prepared considering only bacterial species belonging to the ESKAPE group and for strains from specific specimens such as blood cultures, urine from suspected HA UTIs, following the definition by Haque et al. [13], SSIs/surgical implants. The association between Gram stain and AMR/MDR was tested with the χ² test. The alpha risk was set to 0.05. The association between AMR/MDR and the independent variables was calculated using univariable logistic regression analyses. Categorical variables (species, previous hospitalization/surgery, hospitalization at the moment of the sampling, intensive care unit hospitalization, surgery at the time of the sampling, previous invasive device use, previous antimicrobial treatment, and antimicrobial treatment at the time of the sampling) were expressed as percentages. Normality and heteroskedasticity of data were assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test and the Levene’s test. Only variables with a in the initial assessment were included in the multivariable logistic model built using forward stepwise selection at . Data were checked for multicollinearity with the Belsley–Kuh–Welsch technique. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed with MedCalc (version v22.009).

3. Results

From a total of 2,406 specimens from 1,759 patients (1,296 dogs and 463 cats), 863 (35.87%, from 673 patients, 596 dogs and 167 cats) were positive for bacterial growth and a total of 940 strains with a reported AST was recorded. The specimen type distribution is listed in Table 1. Urine (n = 474, 54.92%) was the most frequent specimen in both cats and dogs, followed by ear swab in dogs (n = 69, 10.00%) and blood culture (n = 14, 8.09%) in cats.

Strains isolated from cats were 20.64% (n = 194) of the total, while 79.36% (n = 746) were isolated from dogs. Distribution of bacterial species is shown in Table 2. Five hundred eighty-four (62.13%) strains were classified as Gram negative, while 356 (37.87%) as Gram positive. Escherichia coli (36.06%) was the most commonly isolated species, followed by Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (12.87%), Streptococcus canis (7.23%), and Enterococcus faecalis (5.11%). S. pseudintermedius was less frequent in cats than in dogs (5.15% vs. 14.88%), while E. faecalis was more frequent in cats (9.28% vs. 4.02%).

The overall AMR percentage was 79.47% (n = 747), while MDR percentage was 44.68% (n = 420). Considering only AMR strains, 56.22% had an MDR pattern. The AMR percentages were, respectively, 73.12% and 89.89% in Gram-negative and Gram-positive isolates (OR = 3.27; CI 95% 2.21–4.83; ), while the MDR percentages were, respectively, 35.79% and 59.27% (OR = 2.61; CI 95% 1.99–3.42; ). The single resistance analysis for each drug tested is shown in Table 3. The highest nonsusceptibility percentages were recorded for clindamycin, erythromycin, ampicillin, and enrofloxacin (59.65%, 58.96%, 52.85%, and 48.19%, respectively). The lowest nonsusceptibility percentages were recorded for amikacin and piperacillin–tazobactam (11.32% and 15.85%, respectively), and none of the tested drug had nonsusceptibility percentages lower than 10%.

Univariable analysis results for AMR and MDR are shown in Table 4. In the multivariable analysis for AMR (Table 5), species dog (OR 1.55, CI 95% 1.06–2.29; ), invasive device use in the previous 90 days (OR 2.06, CI 95% 1.29–3.30, ), and antimicrobial use in the past 90 days (OR 3.74, CI 95% 2.52–5.56, ) were associated with a higher proportion of AMR. In the multivariable analysis for MDR (Table 5), invasive device use in the previous 90 days (OR 1.76, CI 95% 1.28–2.41, ), antimicrobial use in the past 90 days (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.93–3.15, ), and current antimicrobial use (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08–1.79, ) were associated with higher percentages of MDR.

Considering only the identified strains belonging to the ESKAPE group (n = 169, 17.98% of the total strains), AMR and MDR percentages were 88.17% (149) and 49.70% (84), respectively. The single percentage of nonsusceptibility is presented in Table 6. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most commonly isolated (n = 47), followed by P. aeruginosa (n = 45) and Enterobacter spp. (n = 42). P. aeruginosa, A. baumanni, and E. faecium strains showed the highest AMR (100.00%) percentages, while E. faecium showed the highest MDR percentage (90.00%), followed by K. pneumoniae (57.45%).

Considering only strains isolated from blood cultures, urines from suspected HA UTIs and SSIs/surgical implants, they represented 14.68% (n = 138) of the total strains. Strains from blood cultures and SSIs/surgical implants (n = 49) accounted for 5.21%, while urines from suspected HA UTIs (n = 42) accounted for 4.47%. In two cases, the same strain was isolated from blood culture and urine from suspected HA UTI in the same patient. AMR and MDR percentages were considerably higher than the average ones observed in all the isolates (Table 7). Considering single analysis for each tested drug, the nonsusceptibility percentage toward ceftiofur was the one with the largest difference compared with the average percentage in both blood cultures (46.67% vs. 25.51%) and SSIs and surgical implants (59.52% vs. 25.51%), while it was cefazolin/cephalothin in urines from suspected HAIs (61.29% vs. 30.73%). Considering drugs with the lowest nonsusceptibility percentages between the 12 tested, a considerable difference was observed for piperacillin–tazobactam, with nonsusceptibility percentages from 24.49% (blood cultures) to 34.69% (SSIs/surgical implants), compared with the average nonsusceptibility percentage for piperacillin–tazobactam of 15.85%.

4. Discussion

This study describes the most frequently isolated bacteria from cat and dog infections sampled from November 2020 to September 2022 in an Italian VUH, their AMR/MDR percentages and associated risk factors, focusing on the specific bacterial species (ESKAPE group) and specimens, through an internal passive surveillance system.

In both cats and dogs, the most frequently submitted sample was urine (54.92% of the total). Although this result is in contrast with other similar studies worldwide in which it was found to be wounds [14–16], or ear swabs in dogs [17], its high prevalence was expected in Italy because it is considered to be one of the most frequently cultured biological materials [18]. Ear swabs (8.93% of total) were more frequent in dogs compared with cats (10.00% vs. 4.62%), while in contrast nasal swabs were more frequent in cats than in dogs (6.94% vs. 1.30%). Those results are comparable with a Spanish study [16] over 5,875 clinical samples from dogs and cats, in which otitis was shown to be more prevalent in dogs and respiratory tract disease in cats. Considering bacterial species analysis, E. coli was found to be the most common in both cats and dogs. Its high prevalence is probably related with the high prevalence of urine specimens. Indeed, other studies worldwide have highlighted that E. coli is the most common agent in urinary tract infections in pets [19–22]. S. pseudintermedius, found to be the second most common species in dog infections, it has been reported to be a common agent of otitis and pyoderma in small animal practice [23]; notably, its prevalence is higher than S. aureus, as highlighted by the other works [24–27].

Dogs and cats were considered together for the general evaluation of AMR and MDR percentages. In contrast with other studies [17, 28], a temporal evaluation of resistance trends was not performed because of the short timeframe of the study, but it could be implemented in future works. Since the majority of the studies on AMR in companion animals have been conducted on specific bacterial species or specimens, the originality of this study was to consider all the isolates from a determined timeframe. A recent Colombian study over a 4-year period on 1,413 isolates from dogs and cats showed MDR percentages of 18.7% and 22%, respectively [14], whereas a Malaysian study on 780 isolates from 2015 to 2017 reported MDR percentages of 75.8% in cats and 71.6% in dogs [15]. A longer Canadian study from 1994 to 2013 on more than 15,000 specimens showed MDR rates of 9% and 12% in cats and dogs isolates, respectively [17]. In Italy, Smoglica et al. [29] described very similar results to our report in isolates from urines in companion animals, with AMR and MDR rates of 74.3% and 44.8%, respectively. Since the reasons that could explain the difference between the results are primarily geographical, comparisons, and data extrapolation should be done with prudence. The high nonsusceptibility percentages have to be considered as a reflection of the Italian epidemiological situation about AMR, which is currently one of the most concerning in Europe [30]. AMR and MDR occurrence in companion animals is influenced by policies in antimicrobial use in the local community, not only in small animal settings but also in livestock production and human medicine [31]. Notably, the present study was conducted in a VUH, which is considered a higher risk place due to the large number of personnel and students [32], and high number of referred patients, that are more likely to have received previous antimicrobic treatment [33, 34]. This could mean that the percentages reported in this study could be higher if compared with the other veterinary settings from the same geographical area. Moreover, the study describes only bacterial strains from diagnostic cases, so it does not provide an overall picture about AMR in the general dogs and cats population.

Considering the nonsusceptibility for the single drug, this study highlights that clindamycin, amoxicillin–clavulanate, ceftiofur, piperacillin–tazobactam, and enrofloxacin percentages represent a serious threat from a one health perspective. In Europe, reported clindamycin nonsusceptibility percentages in pets reached a maximum of 100% in 39 S. aureus isolates from canine dermatitis in an Italian study [35]. Amoxicillin–clavulanate nonsusceptibility percentages, reported to be 22.99% in our study, are comparable the ones reported both by the French and the German national surveillance systems for AMR in companion animals, with percentages of nonsusceptibility of 35.5%–40% for E. coli in France [36], and of 20% in E. coli isolated from dogs with UTIs in Germany [37]. Notably, the nonsusceptibility percentage for ceftiofur (25.51%) are very similar to the percentage of E. coli resistant to third generation cephalosporins in the Emilia–Romagna region (22.6%) reported by the Italian surveillance system for AMR in humans [38]. Reports on piperacillin–tazobactam rates are scarcely present in veterinary literature, but the report from the Italian surveillance system in humans described nonsusceptibility percentages from 8.2% for E. coli to 44.8% for K. pneumoniae [38]. Considering enrofloxacin, the high nonsusceptibility percentages are not surprising since fluoroquinolones are one of the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial classes in small animal practice [39]. In Italy, a study on 70 S. pseudintermedius isolates from canine pyoderma [40] described a resistance rate of 94%.

Overall, these results reflect the widespread consumption of antimicrobials such as clindamycin, amoxicillin–clavulanate, ceftiofur, piperacillin–tazobactam, and enrofloxacin in the Italian small animal practice. Although the major limitation of the study is the absence of data on single drug prescriptions and consumption, from our results it can be assumed that nonsusceptibility percentages are proportional to them. In addition, risk factor analysis for AMR and MDR confirms the extremely strict relationship between antimicrobial use and the onset of resistance, as reported in other studies in both human [41] and veterinary medicine [42, 43]. Also, the use of invasive devices, related with the occurrence of HAIs in other studies [44], was linked with a higher chance of AMR and MDR strains. Compared to dogs, cats seems to have a lower predisposition to develop an infection caused by AMR bacteria; this result could be due to the differences in population size between the two species, but it may also reflect less frequent use of antimicrobials in cats, as described by Hur et al. [45] in Australia and by Joosten [46] in Italy in a multicentric study. In contrast, other studies by Escher et al. [47] and Singleton et al. [48], described a higher systemic antimicrobial prescription and AMR rates in cats than in dogs.

Isolated strains belonging to the ESKAPE group (n = 169) represented 17.98% of the total strains. AMR and MDR percentages were alarmingly high in every species considered. Particular attention should be paid to the species that were isolated more frequently, such as K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp., which accounted for 14.25% of the total strains. The isolates of K. pneumoniae had high nonsusceptibility percentages toward potentiated penicillins, very similar to the ones described by the Italian national surveillance system in humans [38], with percentages of 54.2% for amoxicillin–clavulanate and 44.8% for piperacillin–tazobactam. The high nonsusceptibility percentage toward enrofloxacin described in this study (70.21%) should also be considered, since it is very similar to a Portuguese study by Marques et al. [49], that reported resistance rates of 72% for enrofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in 25 K. pneumoniae isolates from pets with UTI. Notably, P. aeruginosa strains showed a lower MDR percentage, mainly due to the high number of intrinsic resistances (7 out of 12) toward the antimicrobials considered. The relatively low nonsusceptibility percentages toward amikacin and gentamicin, similar to the ones reported by the Italian national surveillance system in humans (3.6%–11.6%) [38] suggests that aminoglycosides should be considered when facing a pseudomonal infection, as confirmed by previous studies [16, 17]. For Enterobacter spp. isolates, their importance must be considered in relation to their high nonsusceptibility proportion even in the presence of several intrinsic resistances (5 out of 12). In particular, nonsusceptibility percentages toward third-generation cephalosporins such as ceftiofur (47.62%) recorded for Enterobacter spp. are higher than the results from a French study by Haenni et al. [50], in which it ranged from 3.5% to 10.2%. Considering E. faecium strains, the high nonsusceptibility percentages for penicillins +/− beta-lactamases inhibitors (83.33%–77.78%) are comparable with the ones for ampicillin (89.7%) described by the Italian surveillance system in humans [38] and suggest that, in contrast to other studies [17], the empiric treatment with this antimicrobial class in case of enterococcal infections should be avoided. Data about the ESKAPE group should address veterinary hospitals and clinics to enforce surveillance for these specific pathogens.

Considering only strains from bloodstream infections, suspected HA UTIs and SSIs, they represented 14.68% of the total. The higher AMR and MDR percentages compared with the average were expected, with relevant increases registered for piperacillin–tazobactam and cephalosporins. These results should remark the importance of a correct antimicrobial stewardship policy to avoid therapeutic failure in severe infections, in which antimicrobial use is required to save the patient’s life.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present article aimed to highlight that the role of companion animals in AMR epidemiology requires more attention, especially because the antimicrobials used are shared with human medicine. Considering the absence of collective control programs in the EU for companion animals, facilities such as veterinary hospitals should be encouraged to develop internal microbiological surveillance plans to obtain and to share data. Tailored surveillance plans can be useful to detect specific AMR frameworks and to serve as a guide for clinicians to make rational therapeutic decisions and to limit the selection and spread of AMR in the local community. Surveillance may also focus only on specific specimens or also bacterial species such as the ESKAPE group, which are extremely important from one health perspective, in order to prevent and address potential emerging health threats at the human–animal–environment interface.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

This work was performed as part of the employment of the authors.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: summarizes the standard procedures of bacteriological culture used in the study. Table S2: lists the antimicrobials tested for the antimicrobial susceptibility testing. (Supplementary Materials)

References

C. Pomba, M. Rantala, C. Greko et al., “Public health risk of antimicrobial resistance transfer from companion animals,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 957–968, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. R. Gee and M. K. Mueller, “A systematic review of research on pet ownership and animal interactions among older adults,” Anthrozoös, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 183–207, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Vercelli, G. Gambino, M. Amadori, and G. Re, “Implications of veterinary medicine in the comprehension and stewardship of antimicrobial resistance phenomenon. From the origin till nowadays,” Veterinary and Animal Science, vol. 16, Article ID 100249, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. B. Rice, “Federal funding for the study of antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial pathogens: no eskape,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 197, no. 8, pp. 1079–1081, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Marco-Fuertes, C. Marin, L. Lorenzo-Rebenaque, S. Vega, and L. Montoro-Dasi, “Antimicrobial resistance in companion animals: a new challenge for the one health approach in the European Union,” Veterinary Sciences, vol. 9, no. 5, Article ID 208, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. S. Morley, “Surveillance for nosocomial infections in veterinary hospitals,” Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 561–576, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Markey, F. Leonard, M. Archambault, A. Cullinane, and D. Maguire, Clinical Veterinary Microbiology, Elsevier, 2013.
CLSI, Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilutions Susceptibility Test for Bacteria Isolated from Animals, 4th edition edition, 2018.
T. Kuriyama, T. Karasawa, and D. W. Williams, “Antimicrobial chemotherapy: significance to healthcare,” in Biofilms in Infection Prevention and Control, pp. 209–244, Academic Press, Boston, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
CRAB, “Tables of intrinsic resistances in bacterial species of veterinary interest,” 2018, https://www.izslt.it/crab/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2018/08/Tabelle-Resistenze-intrinseche-in-batteri-di-interesse-veterinario.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
M. T. Sweeney, B. V. Lubbers, S. Schwarz, and J. L. Watts, “Applying definitions for multidrug resistance, extensive drug resistance and pandrug resistance to clinically significant livestock and companion animal bacterial pathogens,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 1460–1463, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A.-P. Magiorakos, A. Srinivasan, R. B. Carey et al., “Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 268–281, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Haque, M. Sartelli, J. McKimm, and M. Abu Bakar, “Health care-associated infections—an overview,” Infection and Drug Resistance, vol. 11, pp. 2321–2333, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Gómez-Beltrán, D. Villar, S. López-Osorio, D. Ferguson, L. K. Monsalve, and J. J. Chaparro-Gutiérrez, “Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in bacterial isolates from dogs and cats in a veterinary diagnostic laboratory in Colombia from 2016–2019,” Veterinary Sciences, vol. 7, no. 4, Article ID 173, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. A. Haulisah, L. Hassan, S. M. Jajere, N. I. Ahmad, and S. K. Bejo, “High prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and multidrug resistance among bacterial isolates from diseased pets: retrospective laboratory data (2015–2017),” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 12, Article ID e0277664, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Li, R. Fernández, I. Durán, R. A. Molina-López, and L. Darwich, “Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from cats and dogs from the Iberian Peninsula,” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 11, Article ID 621597, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. B. Awosile, J. T. McClure, M. E. Saab, and L. C. Heider, “Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from cats and dogs from the Atlantic Provinces, Canada from 1994–2013,” Canadian Veterinary Journal, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 885–893, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Rampacci, M. Bottinelli, V. Stefanetti et al., “Antimicrobial susceptibility survey on bacterial agents of canine and feline urinary tract infections: weight of the empirical treatment,” Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, vol. 13, pp. 192–196, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Garcês, R. Lopes, A. Silva, F. Sampaio, D. Duque, and P. Brilhante-Simões, “Bacterial isolates from urinary tract infection in dogs and cats in Portugal, and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern: a retrospective study of 5 years (2017–2021),” Antibiotics, vol. 11, no. 11, Article ID 1520, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Ishii, J. C. Freitas, and M. V. B. Arias, “Resistance of bacteria isolated from dogs and cats at veterinary hospital of Universidade Estadual de Londrina (2008–2009),” Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira, vol. 31, no. 6, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. H. McMeekin, K. E. Hill, I. R. Gibson, J. P. Bridges, and J. Benschop, “Antimicrobial resistance patterns of bacteria isolated from canine urinary samples submitted to a New Zealand veterinary diagnostic laboratory between 2005–2012,” New Zealand Veterinary Journal, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 99–104, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Yudhanto, C.-C. Hung, C. W. Maddox, and C. Varga, “Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from canine urine samples submitted to a veterinary diagnostic laboratory, Illinois, United States,” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 9, Article ID 867784, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. van Duijkeren, B. Catry, C. Greko et al., “Review on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 2705–2714, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Bourély, G. Cazeau, N. Jarrige et al., “Antimicrobial resistance patterns of bacteria isolated from dogs with otitis,” Epidemiology and Infection, vol. 147, Article ID E121, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. G. Conner, J. Smith, E. Erol et al., “Temporal trends and predictors of antimicrobial resistance among Staphylococcus spp. isolated from canine specimens submitted to a diagnostic laboratory,” PLOS ONE, vol. 13, no. 8, Article ID e0200719, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Pires dos Santos, P. Damborg, A. Moodley, and L. Guardabassi, “Systematic review on global epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius: inference of population structure from multilocus sequence typing data,” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 7, Article ID 1599, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. N. Qekwana, J. W. Oguttu, F. Sithole, and A. Odoi, “Patterns and predictors of antimicrobial resistance among Staphylococcus spp. from canine clinical cases presented at a veterinary academic hospital in South Africa,” BMC Veterinary Research, vol. 13, Article ID 116, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Ekakoro, G. K. Hendrix, L. F. Guptill, and A. Ruple, “Antimicrobial susceptibility and risk factors for resistance among Escherichia coli isolated from canine specimens submitted to a diagnostic laboratory in Indiana, 2010–2019,” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 8, Article ID e0263949, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Smoglica, G. Evangelisti, C. Fani et al., “Antimicrobial resistance profile of bacterial isolates from urinary tract infections in companion animals in Central Italy,” Antibiotics, vol. 11, no. 10, Article ID 1363, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
ECDC, “Antimicrobial resistance in the EU/EEA (EARS-Net)-annual epidemiological report 2021,” 2022, https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/AER-EARS-Net-2021_2022-final.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Manyi-Loh, S. Mamphweli, E. Meyer, and A. Okoh, “Antibiotic use in agriculture and its consequential resistance in environmental sources: potential public health implications,” Molecules, vol. 23, no. 4, Article ID 795, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. R. C. Shoen, S. J. Rose, S. A. Ramsey, H. De Morais, and L. E. Bermudez, “Analysis of Staphylococcus infections in a veterinary teaching hospital from 2012 to 2015,” Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, vol. 66, Article ID 101332, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Baker, J. Van-Balen, B. Lu, A. Hillier, and A. E. Hoet, “Antimicrobial drug use in dogs prior to admission to a veterinary teaching hospital,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 241, no. 2, pp. 210–217, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Benedict, P. S. Morley, and D. C. V. Metre, “Characteristics of biosecurity and infection control programs at veterinary teaching hospitals,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 233, no. 5, pp. 767–773, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Ghidini, C. Piancastelli, S. Taddei, E. Gandolfo, S. Cavirani, and C. S. Cabassi, “Antibiotic sensitivity of bacterial isolates from cases of canine dermatitis,” The New Microbiologica, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 403–408, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
ANSES, “Résapath–epidemiological surveillance network for antibiotic resistance in animal pathogenic bacteria,” 2021, 2021 report.
View at: Google Scholar
GERM-Vet, “Report of the 2020 monitoring on antibiotic resistance situation in clinically important animal pathogenic bacteria,” 2021, https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Berichte/07_Resistenzmonitoringstudie/Bericht_Resistenzmonitoring_2020.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Iachini, S. Bellino, F. D’Ancona et al., “AR-ISS: national surveillance on antibiotic resistance: 2021 data,” 2022, https://www.iss.it/documents/20126/6703853/RIS-1_2022.pdf/0d8ac191-5886-c5cb-7589-3cee93040575?t=1668687989078.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Pedersen, K. Pedersen, H. Jensen, K. Finster, V. F. Jensen, and O. E. Heuer, “Occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from diagnostic samples from dogs,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 775–781, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Casagrande Proietti, A. Bietta, M. Coletti, M. L. Marenzoni, A. V. Scorza, and F. Passamonti, “Insertion sequence IS256 in canine pyoderma isolates of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius associated with antibiotic resistance,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 157, no. 3-4, pp. 376–382, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Chen, D. Li, C. Beiersmann et al., “Risk factors for antibiotic resistance development in healthcare settings in China: a systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, vol. 149, Article ID E141, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Saputra, D. Jordan, K. A. Worthing et al., “Antimicrobial resistance in coagulase-positive staphylococci isolated from companion animals in Australia: a one year study,” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 4, Article ID e0176379, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. M. Schmidt, G. Pinchbeck, K. M. McIntyre et al., “Routine antibiotic therapy in dogs increases the detection of antimicrobial-resistant faecal Escherichia coli,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 3305–3316, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Walther, K. Tedin, and A. Lübke-Becker, “Multidrug-resistant opportunistic pathogens challenging veterinary infection control,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 200, pp. 71–78, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. A. Hur, L. Y. Hardefeldt, K. M. Verspoor, T. Baldwin, and J. R. Gilkerson, “Describing the antimicrobial usage patterns of companion animal veterinary practices; free text analysis of more than 4.4 million consultation records,” PLOS ONE, vol. 15, no. 3, Article ID e0230049, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Joosten, D. Ceccarelli, E. Odent et al., “Antimicrobial usage and resistance in companion animals: a cross-sectional study in three European countries,” Antibiotics, vol. 9, no. 2, Article ID 87, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Escher, M. Vanni, L. Intorre, A. Caprioli, R. Tognetti, and G. Scavia, “Use of antimicrobials in companion animal practice: a retrospective study in a veterinary teaching hospital in Italy,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 920–927, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Singleton, G. L. Pinchbeck, A. D. Radford et al., “Factors associated with prescription of antimicrobial drugs for dogs and cats, United Kingdom, 2014–2016,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1778–1791, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Marques, J. Menezes, A. Belas et al., “Klebsiella pneumoniae causing urinary tract infections in companion animals and humans: population structure, antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 594–602, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Haenni, E. Saras, C. Ponsin et al., “High prevalence of international ESBL CTX-M-15-producing Enterobacter cloacae ST114 clone in animals,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 1497–1500, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Raffaele Scarpellini et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies