Volume 10, Number 5—May 2004
Research
Antimicrobial Resistance in Commensal Flora of Pig Farmers
Table 2
Nasopharyngeal isolation of Staphylococcus aureus with various susceptibility to antimicrobial agents in pig farmers and nonfarmersa
Type of S. aureus |
Prevalence no. (%) |
Prevalence ratio |
CI 95% |
p value |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pig farmers | Nonfarmers | ||||||||||
Any |
50/112 |
(44.6) |
27/1122 |
(24.1) |
1.85 |
1.26 to 2.71 |
<0.01 |
||||
Resistant to |
|||||||||||
Methicillin |
5a/50 |
(10.0) |
0/27 |
NAc |
0.59 |
||||||
Macrolides |
36/50 |
(72.0) |
2/27 |
(7.4) |
9.72 |
2.53 to 37.30 |
<0.01 |
||||
Gentamicin |
10/50 |
(20.0) |
0/27 |
NA |
NA |
0.11 |
|||||
Pefloxacin | 8/50 | (16.0) | 1/27 | (3.7) | 4.32 | 0.57 to 32.75 | 0.22 |
aMatched nasal samples were available for 112 pig farmer–nonfarmer pairs only.
bIn addition of being resistant to methicillin, two strains were resistant to at least one macrolide antibiotic (two were resistant [R] to erythromycin, lincomycin, and pristinamycin; 1 susceptible [S] to erythromycin only; and one susceptible to pristinamycin only), 4 strains were R to aminoglycosides (2 were RRS and 2 RRR to kanamycin, tobramycin, and gentamicin, respectively). Four strains were resistant to pefloxacin.
cNA, not applicable.