Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link

Volume 10, Number 5—May 2004

Research

Antimicrobial Resistance in Commensal Flora of Pig Farmers

Hélène Aubry-Damon*, Karine Grenet†, Penda Sall-Ndiaye‡, Didier Che*, Eugenio Cordeiro*, Marie-Elisabeth Bougnoux¶, Emma Rigaud‡, Yann Le Strat*, Véronique Lemanissier*, Laurence Armand-Lefèvre†, Didier Delzescaux§, Jean-Claude Desenclos*, Michel Liénard‡, and Antoine Andremont†Comments to Author 
Author affiliations: *National Institute for Public Health, Saint-Maurice, France; †Bichat Hospital, Assistance Publique, Paris, France; ‡National Medical Insurance System for Agriculture, Bagnolet, France; §National Federation of Cattle and Pig Raisers, Paris, France; ¶Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Paris, France

Main Article

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.

Main Article

Page created: February 22, 2011
Page updated: February 22, 2011
Page reviewed: February 22, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external