Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Modelling considerations in the analysis of associations between antimicrobial use and resistance in beef feedlot cattle

  • N. R. NOYES (a1), K. M. BENEDICT (a1), S. P. GOW (a2), C. L. WALDNER (a3), R. J. REID-SMITH (a4), C. W. BOOKER (a5), T. A. McALLISTER (a6) and P. S. MORLEY (a1)...

Summary

A number of sophisticated modelling approaches are available to investigate potential associations between antimicrobial use (AMU) and resistance (AMR) in animal health settings. All have their advantages and disadvantages, making it unclear as to which model is most appropriate. We used advanced regression modelling to investigate AMU-AMR associations in faecal non-type-specific Escherichia coli (NTSEC) isolates recovered from 275 pens of feedlot cattle. Ten modelling strategies were employed to investigate AMU associations with resistance to chloramphenicol, ampicillin, sulfisoxazole, tetracycline and streptomycin. Goodness-of-fit statistics did not show a consistent advantage for any one model type. Three AMU-AMR associations were significant in all models. Recent parenteral tetracycline use increased the odds of finding tetracycline-resistant NTSEC [odds ratios (OR) 1·1–3·2]; recent parenteral sulfonamide use increased the odds of finding sulfisoxazole-resistant NTSEC (OR 1·4–2·5); and recent parenteral macrolide use decreased the odds of recovering ampicillin-resistant NTSEC (OR 0·03–0·2). Other results varied markedly depending on the modelling approach, emphasizing the importance of exploring and reporting multiple modelling methods based on a balanced consideration of important factors such as study design, mathematical appropriateness, research question and target audience.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Modelling considerations in the analysis of associations between antimicrobial use and resistance in beef feedlot cattle
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Modelling considerations in the analysis of associations between antimicrobial use and resistance in beef feedlot cattle
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Modelling considerations in the analysis of associations between antimicrobial use and resistance in beef feedlot cattle
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Author for correspondence: Dr P. S. Morley, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Campus Delivery 1678, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1678, USA. (Email: paul.morley@colostate.edu)

References

Hide All
1. Smith, R, Coast, J. The true cost of antimicrobial resistance. British Medical Journal 2013; 346: f1493.
2. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives. 111th Congress 2010.
3. Rao, S, et al. Antimicrobial drug use and antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria among cattle from Alberta feedlots. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 2010; 7: 449457.
4. Morley, PS, et al. Effects of restricted antimicrobial exposure on antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli from feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 2011; 8: 8798.
5. Checkley, SL, et al. Associations between antimicrobial use and the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in faecal Escherichia coli from feedlot cattle in western Canada. Canadian Veterinary Journal 2010; 51: 853861.
6. Gow, SP, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in faecal generic Escherichia coli isolated in western Canadian cow-calf herds. Part I – Beef calves. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 2008; 72: 8290.
7. Gow, SP, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in faecal generic Escherichia coli isolated in western Canadian cow-calf herds. Part II – Cows and cow-calf pairs. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 2008; 72: 91100.
8. Hurd, SH, et al. Public health consequences of macrolide use in food animals: a deterministic risk assessment. Journal of Food Protection 2004; 67: 980992.
9. Alban, L, Nielsen, EO, Dahl, J. A human health risk assessment for macrolide-resistant Campylobacter associated with the use of macrolides in Danish pig production. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2008; 83: 115129.
10. Hurd, SH, Malladi, S. A stochastic assessment of the public health risks of the use of macrolide antibiotics in food animals. Risk Analysis 2008; 28: 695710.
11. Cox, LA, Popken, DA. Quantifying potential human health impacts of animal antibiotic use: enrofloxacin and macrolides in chickens. Risk Analysis 2006; 26: 135146.
12. Hurd, SH, et al. Quantitative risk from fluoroquinolone-resistant Salmonella and Campylobacter due to treatment of dairy heifers with enrofloxacin for bovine respiratory disease. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 2010; 7: 13051322.
13. Alali, WQ, et al. Relationship between level of antibiotic use and resistance among Escherichia coli isolates from integrated multi-site cohorts of humans and swine. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2009; 90: 160167.
14. Benedict, KM, et al. Latent class comparison of test accuracy when evaluating antimicrobial susceptibility using disk diffusion and broth microdilution to test Escherichia coli and Mannheimia haemolytica isolates recovered from beef feedlot cattle. Epidemiology and Infection 2014; 142: 23142325.
15. Benedict, KM, et al. Methodological comparisons for antimicrobial resistance surveillance in feedlot cattle. BMC Veterinary Research. 2013; 9: 216.
16. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals, fourth edition: approved standard M31-A4. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2013.
17. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for antimicrobial dilution and disk susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated or fastidious bacteria, second edition: approved guideline. M45-A2. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2010.
18. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 18th informational supplement. M100-S18. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2008.
19. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 21st informational supplement. M100-S21. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2011.
20. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 22nd informational supplement. M100-S22. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2012.
21. Benedict, KM, et al. Metrics for quantifying antimicrobial use in the beef industry. Canadian Veterinary Journal 2012; 53: 841848.
22. Carey, V, Zeger, S, Diggle, P. Modelling multivariate binary data with alternating logistic regressions. Biometrika 1993; 80: 517526.
23. Wolfinger, R. Laplace's approximation for nonlinear mixed models. Biometrika 1993; 80, 791–5.
24. Zeger, SL, Liang, K-Y, Albert, PS. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 10491060.
25. Agresti, A, Coull, BA. Approximate is better than ‘exact’ for interval estimation of binomial proportions. The American Statistician 1998; 52: 119126.
26. Royston, P, Altman, DG, Sauerbrei, W. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25: 127141.
27. Dohoo, I, Martin, W, Stryhn, H. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: VER Inc., 2009, pp. 377378.
28. Greven, S, Kneib, T. On the behaviour of marginal and conditional AIC in linear mixed models. Biometrika 2010; 97: 773789.
29. Dohoo, I, Stryhn, H. Simulation studies on the effects of clustering. In: Proceedings of the 11th Symposium of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics. Cairns: International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 2006, p. 505.
30. Wagner, BA, et al. Factor analysis of minimum-inhibitory concentrations for Escherichia coli isolated from feedlot cattle to model relationships among antimicrobial-resistance outcomes. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2003; 57: 127139.
31. Lowrance, TC, et al. Changes in antimicrobial susceptibility in a population of Escherichia coli isolated from feedlot cattle administered ceftiofur crystalline-free acid. American Journal of Veterinary Research 2007; 68: 501507.
32. Hill, AB. The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58: 295300.
33. Dohoo, I, Martin, W, Stryhn, H. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: VER Inc., 2009, pp. 631.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed