Evidence Hub

Antimicrobial resistance in food-borne pathogens at the human-animal interface: Results from a large surveillance study in India

Jaspreet Mahindroo, Chandradeo Narayan, Vinay Modgil, Harpreet Kaur, Varun Shahi, Bhawna Sharma, Ruby Jain, Siddhartha Thakur et al.

One Health, 2024

1,968 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

The burden of foodborne diseases and antimicrobial resistance carried by key foodborne pathogens in India is unknown due to a lack of an integrated surveillance system at the human-animal interface. We present data from the WHO-AGISAR (Advisory Group on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance), India project. Concurrent human and animal sampling was done across a large area across north India. Community-acquired diarrhea cases (n = 1968) of all age groups were included. Cross-sectional sampling of stool/ intestinal contents (n = 487) and meat samples (n = 419) from food-producing animals was done at farms, retail shops, and slaughterhouses. Pathogens were cultured and identified, and antimicrobial susceptibility was performed. Over 80% of diarrhoeal samples were obtained from moderate to severe diarrhea patients, which yielded EAEC (5%), ETEC (4.84%), EPEC (4.32%), and Campylobacter spp. (2%). A high carriage of EPEC (32.11%) and Campylobacter spp. (24.72%) was noted in food animals, but the prevalence of ETEC (2%) and EAEC (1%) was low. Atypical EPEC (aEPEC, 84.52%, p ≤0.0001) were predominant and caused milder diarrhea. All EPEC from animal/poultry were aEPEC. Overall, a very high level of resistance was observed, and the MDR rate ranged from 29.2% in Campylobacter spp., 53.6% in EPEC, and 59.8% in ETEC. Resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, ceftriaxone, and co-trimoxazole was significantly higher in human strains. In contrast, resistance to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 1,968 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free