Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Feb 27;17(2):e05598.
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5598. eCollection 2019 Feb.

The European Union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017

European Food Safety Authority; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

The European Union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017

European Food Safety Authority et al. EFSA J. .

Abstract

The data on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria in 2017, submitted by 28 EU Member States (MSs), were jointly analysed by EFSA and ECDC. Resistance in zoonotic Salmonella and Campylobacter from humans, animals and food, and resistance in indicator Escherichia coli as well as meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals and food were addressed, and temporal trends assessed. 'Microbiological' resistance was assessed using epidemiological cut-off (ECOFF) values; for some countries, qualitative data on human isolates were interpreted in a way which corresponds closely to the ECOFF-defined 'microbiological' resistance. In Salmonella from humans, as well as in Salmonella and E. coli isolates from fattening pigs and calves of less than 1 year of age, high proportions of isolates were resistant to ampicillin, sulfonamides and tetracyclines, whereas resistance to third-generation cephalosporins was uncommon. Varying occurrence/prevalence rates of presumptive extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)/AmpC producers in Salmonella and E. coli monitored in meat (pork and beef), fattening pigs and calves, and Salmonella monitored in humans, were observed between countries. Carbapenemase-producing E. coli were detected in one single sample from fattening pigs in one MS. Resistance to colistin was observed at low levels in Salmonella and E. coli from fattening pigs and calves and meat thereof and in Salmonella from humans. In Campylobacter from humans, high to extremely high proportions of isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines, particularly in Campylobacter coli. In five countries, high to very high proportions of C. coli from humans were resistant also to erythromycin, leaving few options for treatment of severe Campylobacter infections. High resistance to ciprofloxacin and tetracyclines was observed in C. coli isolates from fattening pigs, whereas much lower levels were recorded for erythromycin. Combined resistance to critically important antimicrobials in both human and animal isolates was generally uncommon but very high to extremely high multidrug resistance levels were observed in S. Typhimurium and its monophasic variant in both humans and animals. S. Kentucky from humans exhibited high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin, in addition to a high prevalence of ESBL.

Keywords: ESBL; antimicrobial resistance; indicator bacteria; zoonotic bacteria.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of MDR isolates, isolates resistant to 1 and/or 2 antimicrobials and completely susceptible Salmonella isolates from humans in 2017
Figure 2
Figure 2
A comparison of the number of MDR and completely susceptible monophasic S. Typhimurium isolates recovered from pig carcases and fattening pigs in 2015 and 2017
Figure 3
Figure 3
A comparison of the number of MDR and completely susceptible S. Derby isolates recovered from pig carcases and fattening pigs in 2015 and 2017
Figure 4
Figure 4
A comparison of the number of MDR and completely susceptible S. Typhimurium isolates recovered from pig carcases and fattening pigs in 2015 and 2017
Figure 5
Figure 5
A comparison of the number of MDR and completely susceptible S. Rissen isolates recovered from pig carcases in 2015 and 2017
Figure 6
Figure 6
A comparison of the number of MDR and completely susceptible S. Infantis isolates recovered from pig carcases in 2015 and 2017
Figure 7
Figure 7
Number of MDR isolates, isolates resistant to 1 and/or 2 antimicrobials and completely susceptible Campylobacter isolates from humans in 2017
Figure 8
Figure 8
Distribution of the occurrence of resistance to ampicillin (AMP), ciprofloxacin (CIP), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfonamides (SMX) and tetracyclines (TET) in E. coli from fattening pigs, using ECOFFs, EU MSs, 2017
Figure 9
Figure 9
Distribution of the occurrence of resistance to ampicillin (AMP), ciprofloxacin (CIP), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfonamides (SMX) and tetracyclines (TET) in E. coli from calves under 1 year of age, using ECOFFs, EU MSs, 2017
Figure 10
Figure 10
Inferred MRSA types in food‐producing animals, 2017. MRSA isolates were recovered from pigs, calves and Gallus gallus (broilers and laying hen flocks). 799 MRSA isolates were reported, of which 530 were subject to spa‐typing; some of these were subject to MLST. NB. In Finland, all MRSA isolates were subject to spa‐typing; furthermore, from a slaughter batch of pigs, up to three different spa‐types were detected.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Inferred MRSA types from clinical investigations, 2017. MRSA isolates were recovered from cattle, goats, sheep, horses and companion animals (29/66 MRSA isolates were subject to spa‐typing; denominator data were not available for the isolates which were subject to spa‐typing).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Percentage of MRSA types reported in 2017, inferred from spa‐typing data (574 MRSA isolates were spa‐typed) – from meat, food‐producing animals and following clinical investigations (goats, sheep, horses and companion animals)
Figure 13
Figure 13
Overview of MRSA types by species reported in 2017, including healthy animals and clinical investigations ST/CC and MRSA categories have mostly been inferred from spa‐typing data; MLST was only carried out on a few isolates. spa‐type t091 was not categorised as either HA‐MRSA or LA‐MRSA. In total, 574 MRSA isolates were spa‐typed VCCI: At‐veterinary‐clinic clinical investigation; OFCI: On‐farm clinical investigations; ARM: At‐retail monitoring.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Phenotypes inferred based on the resistance to the β‐lactams included in Panel 2

  1. Presumptive ESBL producers include isolates exhibiting phenotype 1 or 3.

  2. Presumptive AmpC producers include isolates exhibiting phenotype 2 or 3.

Figure 15
Figure 15
Comparison of CBPs for non‐susceptibility (intermediate and resistant categories combined) and ECOFFs used to interpret MIC data reported for Salmonella spp. from humans, animals or food
Figure 16
Figure 16
Spatial distribution of combined ‘microbiological’ resistance to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime among Salmonella spp. from human cases in reporting countries in 2017
Figure 17
Figure 17
Frequency distribution of Salmonella spp. isolates from humans completely susceptible or resistant to one to nine antimicrobial classes in 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common set of antimicrobials for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one up to nine antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure 18
Figure 18
Spatial distribution of (a) ciprofloxacin and (b) cefotaxime resistance among S. Typhimurium from human cases in reporting countries in 2017
Figure 19
Figure 19
Trends in resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/pefloxacin, cefotaxime and tetracycline in Salmonella Typhimurium from humans in 23 reporting countries, 2013–2017

  1. Statistically significant increasing trends over 3–5 years, as tested by logistic regression (p ≤ 0.05), were observed for ciprofloxacin in Austria, Finland, Slovakia and the United Kingdom (↑), for ampicillin in Belgium, Denmark and Slovakia (↑), for tetracyclines in Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania and Romania (↑) and for cefotaxime in Belgium (↑). Statistically significant decreasing trends over 3–5 years were observed for ciprofloxacin in Greece and Spain (↓), for ampicillin in Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal and Spain (↓), for tetracyclines in Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain (↓), and for cefotaxime in Norway, Portugal and Slovenia (↓). Only countries testing at least 10 isolates per year were included in the analysis.

Figure 20
Figure 20
Frequency distribution of Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from humans completely susceptible or resistant to one to nine antimicrobial classes in 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one up to nine antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure 21
Figure 21
Spatial distribution of (a) ciprofloxacin and (b) cefotaxime resistance among monophasic S. Typhimurium from human cases in reporting countries in 2017
Figure 22
Figure 22
Trends in resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin/pefloxacin/nalidixic acid, cefotaxime and tetracycline in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from humans in 12 reporting countries, 2013–2017

  1. Statistically significant increasing trends over 3–5 years, as tested by logistic regression (p ≤ 0.05), were observed for ciprofloxacin in Austria and Portugal (↑), for ampicillin in Greece and the Netherlands (↑) and for tetracyclines in Greece and Ireland (↑). Statistically significant decreasing trends over 3–5 years were observed for ciprofloxacin in Greece (↓), for ampicillin in Estonia and Portugal (↓) and for cefotaxime in Estonia, Italy and Luxembourg (↓). Only countries testing at least 10 isolates per year were included in the analysis.

Figure 23
Figure 23
Frequency distribution of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from humans completely susceptible or resistant to one to nine antimicrobial classes in 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one up to nine antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure 24
Figure 24
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening pig carcases, 22 EU MSs and 1 non‐MS, 2017
Figure 25
Figure 25
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in Salmonella spp. from fattening pig carcases, using harmonised ECOFFs, 22 EU MSs and 1 non‐MS, 2017
Figure 26
Figure 26
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening pig carcases, 22 MSs and 1 non‐MS, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eleven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure 27
Figure 27
Spatial distribution of complete susceptibility to the panel of antimicrobials tested among Salmonella spp. from fattening pig carcases, using harmonised ECOFFs, 22 EU MSs and 1 non‐MS, 2017
Figure 28
Figure 28
Trends in ampicillin (AMP), cefotaxime (CTX), ciprofloxacin (CIP), nalidixic acid (NAL) and tetracycline (TET) resistance in tested Salmonella spp. from pig meat and fattening pig carcases, 11 EU MSs, 2009–2017

  1. Statistical significant trends for 4 or more years were assessed using a logistic regression model (p ≤ 0.05). Statistically significant increasing trends were observed for ampicillin in Denmark (↑), Estonia (↑), Italy (↑) and Romania (↑), for cefotaxime in Germany (↑), for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Belgium (↑) and Romania (↑), as well as for tetracycline in the Czech Republic (↑) and Romania (↑).

  2. Statistically significant decreasing trends were observed for ampicillin in Belgium (↓), the Czech Republic (↓), Germany (↓), Hungary (↓) and Portugal (↓), for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in the Czech Republic (↓), as well as for tetracycline in Belgium (↓), Estonia (↓), Germany (↓), Hungary (↓) and Portugal (↓).

Figure 29
Figure 29
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among Salmonella spp. from fattening pigs, using harmonised ECOFFs, 8 EU MSs, 2017
Figure 30
Figure 30
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in Salmonella spp. from fattening pigs, using harmonised ECOFFs, 8 EU MSs, 2017
Figure 31
Figure 31
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from fattening pigs, 8 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eleven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure 32
Figure 32
Spatial distribution of complete susceptibility to the panel of antimicrobials tested among Salmonella spp. from fattening pigs in reporting countries, 8 EU MSs, 2017, using harmonised ECOFFs
Figure 33
Figure 33
Trends in ampicillin (AMP), cefotaxime (CTX), ciprofloxacin (CIP), nalidixic acid (NAL) and tetracyclines (TET) resistance in Salmonella spp. from fattening pigs, using harmonised ECOFFs, 8 EU MSs, 2009–2017

  1. Statistical significant trends for 4 or more years were assessed using a logistic regression model (p ≤ 0.05). Statistically significant increasing trends were observed for ampicillin in Denmark (↑) and the Netherlands (↑), for ciprofloxacin in Estonia (↑), for nalidixic acid in Ireland (↑), for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Germany (↑), as well as for tetracycline in the Netherlands (↑).

  2. Statistically significant decreasing trends were observed for ampicillin in Germany (↓), Ireland (↓) and Italy (↓), for ciprofloxacin in Ireland (↓), for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Italy (↓), as well as for tetracycline in Ireland (↓) and Italy (↓).

Figure 34
Figure 34
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among Salmonella spp. from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, 7 EU MSs, 2017
Figure 35
Figure 35
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, 7 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eleven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure 36
Figure 36
Spatial distribution of complete susceptibility to the panel of antimicrobials tested among Salmonella spp. from carcases calves of less than 1 year of age in reporting countries, 7 EU MSs, 2017, using harmonised ECOFFs
Figure 37
Figure 37
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance in Salmonella spp. from cattle, 7 EU MSs and 1 non‐EU MS, 2017
Figure 38
Figure 38
Spatial distribution of co‐resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin resistance in Salmonella spp. from cattle, 7 EU MSs and 1 non‐MS, 2017
Figure 39
Figure 39
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella spp. from cattle, 7 EU MSs and 1 non‐EU MS, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eleven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure 40
Figure 40
Spatial distribution of complete susceptibility to the panel of antimicrobials tested among Salmonella spp. from cattle, 7 EU MSs and 1 non‐EU MS, 2017, using harmonised ECOFFs
Figure 41
Figure 41
Trends in ampicillin (AMP), cefotaxime (CTX), ciprofloxacin (CIP), nalidixic acid (NAL) and tetracycline (TET) resistance in tested Salmonella spp. from cattle, 4 EU MSs, 2009–2017

  1. Statistical significant trends for 4 or more years were assessed using a logistic regression model (p ≤ 0.05). Statistically significant increasing trends were observed for ampicillin in Italy (↑) and the Netherlands (↑), for ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid in Italy (↑), as well as for tetracycline in Italy (↑) and the Netherlands (↑).

  2. Statistically significant decreasing trends were observed for ampicillin in Finland (↓).

Figure 42
Figure 42
Tigecycline resistance in Salmonella spp. from carcases of pigs (fatteners) and calves (under one year), fattening pigs and cattle
Figure 43
Figure 43
Colistin resistance in Salmonella spp. from carcases of pigs (fatteners) and calves (under one year), fattening pigs and cattle
Figure 44
Figure 44
A comparison of the number of MDR and completely susceptible S. Rissen isolates recovered from pig carcases in 2015 and 2017 (MDR levels are also expressed as a percentage)
Figure 45
Figure 45
A comparison of the number of MDR and completely susceptible S. Infantis isolates recovered from pig carcases in 2015 and 2017 (MDR levels are also expressed as a percentage)
Figure 46
Figure 46
A comparison of the number of MDR and completely susceptible S. Derby isolates recovered from pig carcases and fattening pigs in 2015 and 2017 (MDR levels are also expressed as a percentage)
Figure 47
Figure 47
Comparison of clinical breakpoints (CBPs) and epidemiological cut‐off values (ECOFFs) used to interpret MIC data reported for Campylobacter spp. from humans, animals or food
Figure 48
Figure 48
Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin (a) and erythromycin (b) resistance among Campylobacter jejuni from human cases in reporting countries in 2017
Figure 49
Figure 49
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin in Campylobacter jejuni from human cases in reporting countries in 2017
Figure 50
Figure 50
Trends in ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and tetracycline resistance in Campylobacter jejuni from humans in reporting countries, 2013–2017

  1. Statistically significant increasing trends over 3–5 years, as tested by logistic regression (p ≤ 0.05), were observed for ciprofloxacin in Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia (↑), for erythromycin France, Norway and Slovakia (↑) and for tetracycline in Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom (↑). Statistically significant decreasing trends were observed for erythromycin in Luxembourg and Malta (↓) and for tetracycline in France. Only countries testing at least 10 isolates per year were included in the analysis.

Figure 51
Figure 51
Erythromycin MIC distribution in C. jejuni from humans, 2017 (n = 2,485)
Figure 52
Figure 52
Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from humans completely susceptible or resistant to one to four antimicrobial classes in 2017
Figure 53
Figure 53
Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin (a) and erythromycin (b) resistance among Campylobacter coli from human cases in reporting countries in 2017
Figure 54
Figure 54
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin in Campylobacter coli from human cases in reporting countries in 2017
Figure 55
Figure 55
Trends in ciprofloxacin, erythromycin and tetracycline resistance in Campylobacter coli from humans in reporting countries, 2013–2017

  1. Statistically significant increasing trends over 3–5 years, as tested by logistic regression (p ≤ 0.05), were observed for ciprofloxacin in Estonia, Finland, Slovakia and Slovenia (↑), for tetracycline in France, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Slovenia (↑). Statistically significant decreasing trends were observed for ciprofloxacin and erythromycin in France (↓). Only countries reporting at least 10 isolates per year were included in the analysis.

Figure 56
Figure 56
Erythromycin MIC distribution in C. coli from humans, 2017 (n = 274)
Figure 57
Figure 57
Frequency distribution of Campylobacter coli isolates from humans completely susceptible or resistant to one to four antimicrobial classes in 2017
Figure 58
Figure 58
Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin (a) and erythromycin (b) resistance in Campylobacter coli isolates from fattening pigs, 7 EU/EEA MSs, 2017
Figure 59
Figure 59
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin in Campylobacter coli isolates from fattening pigs, 7 EU/EEA MSs, 2017
Figure 60
Figure 60
Trends in ciprofloxacin (CIP), erythromycin (ERY), gentamicin (GEN), nalidixic acid (NAL), streptomycin (STR) and tetracycline (TET) resistance in Campylobacter coli isolates from pigs, 3 reporting countries, 2008–2017

  1. Statistically significance of trends over 4/5 or more years was tested by a logistic regression model (p ≤ 0.05).

  2. Statistically significant increasing trends were observed for ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, streptomycin and tetracycline in Switzerland.

  3. Statistically significant decreasing trends were observed for erythromycin in the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland, for gentamicin in Spain, for streptomycin in Spain.

Figure 61
Figure 61
Frequency distribution of Campylobacter coli isolates completely susceptible and resistant to one to four antimicrobials, from fattening pigs, 9 reporting countries, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole harmonised set of antimicrobials for Campylobacter; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the harmonised set for Campylobacter; res1–res4: resistance to one up to four antimicrobial classes of the harmonised set for Campylobacter.

Figure 62
Figure 62
MIC distribution to erythromycin in Campylobacter coli from fattening pigs ‐ 1,478 isolates, 10 reporting countries, 2017
Figure 63
Figure 63
Spatial distribution of ciprofloxacin (a) and erythromycin (b) resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolates from calves under 1 year of age, 5 EU MSs, 2017

  1. C. jejuni isolates from cattle tested in the Netherlands in 2017 derive from fattening steers.

Figure 64
Figure 64
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin in Campylobacter jejuni isolates from calves under 1 year of age, 5 EU MSs, 2017

  1. C. jejuni isolates from cattle tested in the Netherlands in 2017 derive from fattening steers.

Figure 65
Figure 65
Frequency distribution of Campylobacter jejuni isolates completely susceptible and resistant to one to four antimicrobial classes, from calves under 1 year of age, 5 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole harmonised set of antimicrobials for Campylobacter; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the harmonised set for Campylobacter; res1–res4: resistance to one up to four antimicrobial classes of the harmonised set for Campylobacter.

Figure 66
Figure 66
Spatial distribution of resistance to cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening pigs, using harmonised ECOFFs, 28 EU MSs and 3 non‐MSs, 2017
Figure 67
Figure 67
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in indicator Escherichia coli from fattening pigs, using harmonised ECOFFs, 28 EU MSs and 3 non‐MSs, 2017
Figure 68
Figure 68
Trends in ampicillin (AMP), cefotaxime (CTX), ciprofloxacin (CIP), nalidixic acid (NAL) and tetracyclines (TET) resistance in indicator commensal Escherichia coli from pigs in reporting countries, 2009–2017
Figure 69
Figure 69
Distribution of MICs of tigecycline in indicator Escherichia coli from fattening pigs (4,774 isolates from 28 EU MSs and 3 non‐MSs) and calves under 1 year of age (2,383 isolates from 10 EU MSs and 2 non‐MSs), 2017
Figure 70
Figure 70
Frequency distribution of Escherichia coli isolates completely susceptible or resistant to 1–11 antimicrobials, from fattening pigs, 31 EU/EEA MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole harmonised set of antimicrobials for Escherichia coli; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the harmonised set for E. coli; res1–res9: resistance to 1 up to 11 antimicrobial classes of the harmonised set for E. coli.

Figure 71
Figure 71
Spatial distribution of complete susceptibility to the panel of antimicrobials tested in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening pigs, using harmonised ECOFFs, 28 EU MSs, 2017
Figure 72
Figure 72
Changes in the occurrence of complete susceptibility to the panel of antimicrobials tested in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from fattening pigs, using harmonised ECOFFs, 28 EU MSs, 2015 and 2017

  1. ^indicates statistically significant positive difference in the occurrence of complete susceptibility between 2017 and 2015.

  2. *indicates statistically significant negative difference in the occurrence of complete susceptibility between 2017 and 2015.

Figure 73
Figure 73
Spatial distribution of resistance to cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from calves under 1 year of age, 10 EU MSs and 2 non‐MSs, 2017
Figure 74
Figure 74
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from calves under 1 year of age, 10 EU MSs and 2 non‐MSs, 2017
Figure 75
Figure 75
Trends in ampicillin (AMP), cefotaxime (CTX), ciprofloxacin (CIP), nalidixic acid (NAL) and tetracyclines (TET) resistance in indicator commensal Escherichia coli from bovine animals in reporting countries, 2009–2017
Figure 76
Figure 76
Frequency distribution of Escherichia coli isolates completely susceptible and resistant to 1–11 antimicrobials, from calves under 1 year of age, 10 EU MSs and 2 non‐MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole harmonised set of antimicrobials for Escherichia coli; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the harmonised set for Escherichia coli; res1–res9: resistance to one up to 11 antimicrobial classes of the harmonised set for Escherichia coli.

Figure 77
Figure 77
Spatial distribution of complete susceptibility to the panel of antimicrobials tested among indicator Escherichia coli isolates from calves under 1 year of age, using harmonised ECOFFs, 10 EU MSs, 2017
Figure 78
Figure 78
Changes in the occurrence of complete susceptibility to the panel of antimicrobials tested in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from calves under 1 year of age, using harmonised ECOFFs, 10 EU MSs, 2015 and 2017

  1. Stars indicate statistically significant negative difference in occurrence of complete susceptibility between 2017 and 2015.

Figure 79
Figure 79
Distribution of MICs of colistin in indicator E. coli from fattening pigs (4,774 isolates from 28 EU MSs and 3 non‐MSs) and calves under 1 year of age (2,383 isolates from 10 EU MSs and 2 non‐MSs), 2017
Figure 80
Figure 80
Prevalence of presumptive ESBL‐producing (a) and AmpC‐producing (b) E. coli isolates in pig meat, assessed by the specific ESBL‐/AmpC‐/carbapenemase‐producing E. coli monitoring, 28 EU MSs and 3 non‐MSs, 2017
Figure 81
Figure 81
Prevalence of presumptive ESBL‐producing (a) and AmpC‐producing (b) E. coli isolates in fattening pigs, assessed by the specific ESBL‐/AmpC‐/carbapenemase‐producing E. coli monitoring, 28 EU MSs and 3 non‐MSs, 2017
Figure 82
Figure 82
Prevalence of presumptive ESBL‐producing (a) and AmpC‐producing (b) E. coli isolates in bovine meat, assessed by the specific ESBL‐/AmpC‐/carbapenemase‐producing monitoring, 28 EU MSs and 3‐non MSs, 2017
Figure 83
Figure 83
Prevalence of presumptive ESBL‐producing (a) and AmpC‐producing (b) E. coli isolates in cattle under 1 year of age, assessed by the specific ESBL‐/AmpC‐/carbapenemase‐producing E. coli monitoring, 10 EU MSs and 2 non‐MSs, 2017
Figure 84
Figure 84
Overview of MRSA types by species reported in 2017, including healthy animals and clinical investigations ST/CC and MRSA categories have mostly been inferred from spa‐typing data; MLST was only carried out on a few isolates. spa‐type t091 was not categorised as either HA‐MRSA or LA‐MRSA. In total, 574 MRSA isolates were spa‐typed. VCCI: At‐veterinary‐clinic clinical investigation; OFCI: On‐farm clinical investigations; ARM: At‐retail monitoring.
Figure A.1
Figure A.1
Breakdown of Salmonella serovars in fattening pig carcases, 22 EU MSs and one non‐EU MS, 2017 (N = 960)
Figure A.2
Figure A.2
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among Salmonella Derby from fattening pig carcases in countries reporting MIC data in 2017
Figure A.3
Figure A.3
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in Salmonella Derby from fattening pig carcases, using harmonised ECOFFs, EU MSs, 2017.
Figure A.4
Figure A.4
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella Derby from fattening pig carcases, 19 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eleven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure A.5
Figure A.5
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium from fattening pig carcases in countries reporting MIC data, 2017
Figure A.6
Figure A.6
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in monophasic S. Typhimurium from fattening pig carcases, 15 MSs and 1 non‐EU MS, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eight antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure A.7
Figure A.7
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among Salmonella Typhimurium from fattening pig carcases, 17 MSs, 2017
Figure A.8
Figure A.8
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella Typhimurium from fattening pig carcases, 17 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to seven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure B.1
Figure B.1
Breakdown of Salmonella serovars in fattening pigs, EU MSs, 2017 (N = 474)
Figure B.2
Figure B.2
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among Salmonella Derby from fattening pigs in countries reporting MIC data in 2017
Figure B.3
Figure B.3
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in Salmonella Derby from fattening pigs, using harmonised ECOFFs, 7 EU MSs, 2017
Figure B.4
Figure B.4
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella Derby from fattening pigs, 7 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eleven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure B.5
Figure B.5
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among monophasic S. Typhimurium from fattening pigs in countries reporting MIC data in 2017
Figure B.6
Figure B.6
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in monophasic S. Typhimurium from fattening pigs in 6 MSs in 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eight antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure B.7
Figure B.7
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among S. Typhimurium from fattening pigs in countries reporting MIC data in 2017
Figure B.8
Figure B.8
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin resistance in S. Typhimurium from fattening pigs, 7 EU MSs, 2017
Figure B.9
Figure B.9
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in S. Typhimurium from fattening pigs, 7 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res7: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to seven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure C.1
Figure C.1
Breakdown of Salmonella serovars in carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, EU MSs, 2017 (N = 82)
Figure C.2
Figure C.2
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age in countries reporting MIC data in 2017
Figure C.3
Figure C.3
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in monophasic S. Typhimurium from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age in MSs in 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eight antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure C.4
Figure C.4
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella Typhimurium from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, 2 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to seven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure C.5
Figure C.5
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella Meleagridis from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, 2 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to seven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure C.6
Figure C.6
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella Mbandaka from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, 3 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to seven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure C.7
Figure C.7
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin among Salmonella Typhimurium from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, 2 EU MSs, 2017
Figure C.8
Figure C.8
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin among Salmonella Meleagridis from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, 2 EU MSs, 2017
Figure C.9
Figure C.9
Spatial distribution of combined resistance to cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin among Salmonella Mbandaka from carcases of calves of less than 1 year of age, 3 EU MSs, 2017
Figure D.1
Figure D.1
Breakdown of serovars among Salmonella isolates from cattle tested for susceptibility, 7 MSs and 1 non‐MS, 2017 (N = 176)
Figure D.2
Figure D.2
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among Salmonella Typhimurium from cattle, 7 EU MSs and 1 non‐EU MS, 2017
Figure D.3
Figure D.3
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella Typhimurium from cattle, 7 EU MSs and 1 non‐EU MS, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; CZ: Czech Republic; UK: United Kingdom; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eleven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure D.4
Figure D.4
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium from cattle, 3 EU MSs and one non‐MS, 2017
Figure D.5
Figure D.5
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium from cattle, 3 EU MSs and 1 non‐MS in 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; CZ: Czech Republic; UK: United Kingdom; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to eleven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

Figure D.6
Figure D.6
Spatial distribution of cefotaxime (a) and ciprofloxacin (b) resistance among Salmonella Dublin from cattle, 5 EU MSs, 2017
Figure D.7
Figure D.7
Frequency distribution of completely susceptible isolates and resistant isolates to one to nine antimicrobial classes in Salmonella Dublin from cattle, 5 EU MSs, 2017

  1. N: total number of isolates tested for susceptibility against the whole common antimicrobial set for Salmonella; UK: United Kingdom; sus: susceptible to all antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella; res1–res9: resistance to one antimicrobial class/resistance to seven antimicrobial classes of the common set for Salmonella.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Agersø Y, Torpdahl M, Zachariasen C, Seyfarth A, Hammerum AM and Møller Nielsen EM, 2012. Tentative colistin epidemiological cut‐off value for Salmonella spp. Foodborne Pathogens Disease, 9, 367–369. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd. 2011.1015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Angen Ø, Stegger M, Larsen J, Lilje B, Kaya H, Pedersen KS, Jakobsen A, Petersen A and Larsen AR, 2017. Report of mecC‐carrying MRSA in domestic swine. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 72, 60–63. 10.1093/jac/dkw389 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anonymous , 2018. Annual Report on Zoonoses in Denmark 2017, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark. Available from: https://www.food.dtu.dk/-/media/Institutter/Foedevareinstituttet/Publika...
    1. Aviv G, Tsyba K, Steck N, Salmon‐Divon M, Cornelius A, Rahav G, Grassl GA and Gal‐Mor O, 2014. A unique megaplasmid contributes to stress tolerance and pathogenicity of an emergent Salmonella enterica serovar Infantis strain. Environmental Microbiology, 16, 977–994. 10.1111/1462-2920.12351 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bangerter PD, Sidler X, Perreten V and Overesch G, 2016. Longitudinal study on the colonisation and transmission of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms. Veterinary Microbiology, 183, 125–134. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2015.12.007 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources