Advertisement
Antimicrobial use patterns and resistance among peri-urban and rural poultry farmers in Soroti and Wakiso districts, Uganda
Upcoming SlideShare
Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in broiler farms in peri-urban...Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in broiler farms in peri-urban...
Loading in ... 3
1 of 1
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Antimicrobial use patterns and resistance among peri-urban and rural poultry farmers in Soroti and Wakiso districts, Uganda(20)

More from ILRI(20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded(20)

Antimicrobial use patterns and resistance among peri-urban and rural poultry farmers in Soroti and Wakiso districts, Uganda

  1. Antimicrobial use patterns and resistance among peri-urban and rural poultry farmers in Soroti and Wakiso districts, Uganda Irene Mbatidde1, Dickson Ndoboli1, Dreck Ayebare1, Savino Biryomumaisho2, Kristina Roesel1, Michel Dione1, Dishon Muloi1, Bernd-Alois Tenhagen3, Eddie Wampande2, John Elmerdahl Olsen4 and Arshnee Moodley1 Objectives Describe antimicrobial use (AMU) on semi-intensive and free-range poultry farms in Wakiso with good access to Vet services and Soroti with poor access and to detect Salmonella spp. and quantify antimicrobial-resistant E. coli. Methods • Cross-sectional study on 400 broiler farms between Oct 21 – Feb 22 • Farm size = 500-2000 birds in Wakiso and >20 birds in Soroti • Structured questionnaire to capture AMU data • Regression analysis using Stata/SE 17.0 • Microbiology: two samples collected from one chicken house per farm • Composite environmental and a boot sock. • Salmonella spp. isolated using XLD and chromogenic agar • Quantification of AMR E. coli was done by serial dilution and plating on MacConkey agar with and without antimicrobials (cefotaxime and colistin) Pictures Conclusions • Lack of access to Vet services was associated with less frequent AMU but frequent use of human drugs • The more intensive farms used antimicrobials more frequently than the traditional farms • >40% of farms had colistinR and cefotaximeR E.coli but do not report the use of these antibiotics Corresponding author Irene Mbatidde I.Mbatidde@cgiar.org ILRI c/o Bioversity International P.O. Box 24384, Kampala Uganda +256 392 081 154/155 This document is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. September 2022. 22 September 2022 ILRI thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund. Contribution to Uganda’s livestock development agenda • Highlight gaps in AMU practices and provides AMR data on zoonotic pathogens in semi-intensive and free-range systems for appropriate interventions • Personnel capacity development in epidemiology, risk assessment and antimicrobial resistance 1International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya/Uganda, 2Makerere University, Uganda, 3Germany Federal Institute for Risk assessment, 4University of Copenhagen, Denmark 0 20 40 60 80 100 Macrolides Sulphonamides Aminoglycosides Penicilin Fluoroquinolones Tetracycline Vitamins Vaccines Antihelmitics AM USE BY DISTRICT Percentage AM-Use Soroti Percentage AM-Use Wakiso Findings Microbiology More farms in Soroti were positive for Salmonella compared to Wakiso 45-62% of farms were positive for presumptive colistinR E.coli and cefotaximeR E.coli CFU counts 1 x 102 – 4.6 x 105 CFU/g (colistinR E.coli ) 1 x 102 – 1.1 x 106 CFU/g (cefotaximeR E.coli ) Logistic regression model showed strong association between antimicrobial use and these variables AM Use Odds Ratio Z Value P-Value confidence Interval (95%) Who Diagnosed (ref.Vet) Farmer 0.24 -3.10 0.002 0.1-0.6 Drug store 1.8 0.75 0.5 0.4-7 Other Health worker 0.8 -0.23 0.8 0.2-3.3 Production scale(ref.Traditinal) Semi-intensive (51-2000) 2 1.37 0.172 0.7-5.5 Intensive (>2000) 7.2 2.69 0.007 1.7-30 Easy access to Vet services 0.5 -1.5 0.144 0.1-1.2
Advertisement