We summarize antimicrobial resistance surveillance data in human and chicken isolates of
Fluoroquinolone-resistant
To investigate the epidemiology of fluoroquinolone-resistant
From 1989 to 1990, a national county-based survey of antimicrobial susceptibility among
NARMS for enteric bacteria is a collaboration between CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, and state and local health departments. The system monitors patterns of antimicrobial drug resistance. NARMS methods are described in detail elsewhere (
In brief, isolates were tested for viability, confirmed as
Isolates were tested with the E-test system (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) to determine MICs for six antimicrobial agents: chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, erythromycin, nalidixic acid, and tetracycline. Beginning in 1998, azithromycin and gentamicin were also included. When available, National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards interpretive criteria for
We used a multivariable logistic regression model to assess changes in the proportion of isolates with antimicrobial drug resistance from 1997 through 2001 because the population under surveillance more than doubled from 1997 to 2001, and substantial site-to-site variation in prevalence of antimicrobial drug resistance was identified (i.e., uncertainty was found in the denominators for calculating rates). The model was for antimicrobial drug resistance as a function of year and included main effects adjustments for age categories and site-to-site variation in prevalence. Within the available data, site by year interaction was not a significant factor but because the catchment areas expanded, the hypothesis of site by year interaction could not be fully tested.
Using NARMS isolates, we conducted a retrospective case-comparison study in four NARMS sites (California, Connecticut, Georgia, and Oregon). Persons with ciprofloxacin-resistant (CipR)
Three NARMS-participating state health departments (Georgia, Maryland, and Minnesota) participated in a survey of retail chicken products. From January to June 1999, each site purchased a convenience sample of 10 whole broiler chickens per month from supermarkets located within the state. State public health laboratories at each site tested the samples for
Two hundred ninety-eight patients were interviewed, and their
From 1997 to 2001, a total of 1,932 presumptive
The results of susceptibility testing among
| Antimicrobial agent | % resistant | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Undetermineda (n = 5 ) | Total (n = 1,553) | ||||||
| Azithromycinb | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Chloramphenicol | 0.3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 0.6 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 16 | 30c | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
| Clindamycin | 1 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 2 |
| Erythromycin | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 2 |
| Gentamicinb | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Nalidixic acid | 17 | 36c | 14 | 100 | 80 | 20 | 18 |
| Tetracycline | 43 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 43 |
aUndetermined isolates were hippurate-negative
| Antimicrobial agent | % resistant | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989–1990 (n = 286)a,b | 1997 (n = 209) | 1998 (n = 297) | 1999 (n = 294) | 2000 (n = 306) | 2001 (n = 365) | Total (n = 1,757) | |
| Azithromycinc | 1 | – | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Chloramphenicol | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 0 | 12 | 14 | 18 | 14 | 18 | 13 |
| Clindamycin | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Erythromycin | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Gentamicinc | 0 | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nalidixic acid | 1 | 13 | 16 | 20 | 16 | 19 | 14 |
| Tetracycline | 42 | 47 | 46 | 46 | 39 | 40 | 43 |
a1989–1990 U.S. sentinel county study used different sampling and laboratory methods (microbroth dilution testing) than NARMS (Etest). However, studies have concluded that broth microdilution and Etest give equivalent results for ciprofloxacin susceptibility testing of
The prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant
| Y | Unadjusted ORa (95% CI) | Adjusted ORb (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| 1997c | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 1998 | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.7) | 1.3 (0.7 to 2.4) |
| 1999 | 1.4 (0.9 to 2.3) | 2.1 (1.2 to 3.9) |
| 2000 | 1.1 (0.7 to 1.8) | 1.5 (0.8 to 2.8) |
| 2001 | 1.6 (1.0 to 2.5) | 2.5 (1.4 to 4.4) |
aOR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. bAdjusted odds ratios were calculated by using logistic regression model, which accounted for site-to-site variation in prevalence. c1997 was the reference value.
Fifty-one percent of
Sixteen (57%) of 28 ciprofloxacin-resistant
Among the 180 retail chicken products purchased, representing 18 domestic brand names from 22 grocery stores,
| Antimicrobial agent | % resistant | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Othera (n = 2) | |||
| Azithromycin | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Chloramphenicol | 0 | 0 | 50 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 24 | 19 | 50 |
| Clindamycin | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Erythromycin | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Gentamicin | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| Nalidixic acid | 29 | 37 | 50 |
| Tetracycline | 69 | 50 | 50 |
aOne isolate was undetermined (i.e., hippurate-negative
Distribution of ciprofloxacin MICs among
Fluoroquinolone-resistant
Quinolone- and fluoroquinolone-resistant
Our retrospective case-comparison study showed that patients with ciprofloxacin-resistant
Our study also identified foreign travel, particularly to Europe, to be associated with ciprofloxacin-resistant
Our 1999 survey of retail chicken sold in selected supermarkets provided ecologic evidence that chicken may be a source of domestically acquired ciprofloxacin-resistant
In the United States, the FDA has approved the use of fluoroquinolones at different times for humans and food animals. Fluoroquinolones have been commonly used in humans for treating intestinal and other infections since 1986 (
An association between the approval of fluoroquinolones for use in food-producing animals and the development of fluoroquinolone-resistant
Our studies had several limitations. The retrospective case-comparison study did not assess exposures among travelers and therefore cannot assess the possibility that the travelers may have acquired ciprofloxacin-resistant
In summary, we describe the emergence over the last decade of fluoroquinolone-resistant
This isolate was reported to be ciprofloxacin resistant in reference
We thank Allen Ries, Felecia Hardnett, Robert Hoekstra, Jocelyn Rocourt, and Charlotte Sumner for their assistance with this manuscript.
Funds for this study came from the Emerging Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and from state funds to support public health surveillance activities.
Dr. Gupta is a former EIS fellow of the Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is now on the faculty at Johns Hopkins University, Division of Infectious Diseases. Her research interests include diarrheal diseases and more recently HIV and coexisting conditions in India and other resource-poor settings.