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 21, Number 6—June 2015
Research

Dose-Response Relationship between Antimicrobial Drugs and Livestock-Associated MRSA in Pig Farming1

Alejandro Dorado-GarcíaComments to Author , Wietske Dohmen, Marian E.H. Bos, Koen M. Verstappen, Manon Houben, Jaap A. Wagenaar, and Dick J.J. Heederik
Author affiliations: Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands (A. Dorado-García, W. Dohmen, M.E.H. Bos, K.M. Verstappen, J.A. Wagenaar, D.J.J. Heederik); Wageningen UR, Lelystad, the Netherlands (J.A. Wagenaar); PorQ BV, Son, the Netherlands (M. Houben).

Main Article

Table 4

ORs for determinants of livestock-associated MRSA in humans, adjusted for number of hours worked per week on the farm, the Netherlands, 2011–2013*

Variable No.† OR‡ (95% CI) p value§ −2 log RSPL¶
Age, per 10 y increase 632 1.14 (0.93–1.41) 0.2 3,204.1
MRSA prevalence in pigs, %, per 10% increase
 632
 1.08 (0.97–1.21)
 0.16
 3,190.9
MRSA-negative farm
Yes 114 0.06 (0.01–0.27) <0.01 3,288.1
No
 518
 Ref
Touching dogs in past 6–12 mo
Yes 446 0.51 (0.27–0.96) 0.04 3,173.7
No
 180
 Ref
Touching pigs from other farms in past 6–12 mo
Yes 86 2.82 (1.35–5.91) 0.01 3,205.3
No
 546
 Ref
Sorting of sows in past 7 d
Yes 221 1.91 (0.97–3.77) 0.06 3,144.5
No
 392
 Ref
Sorting of suckling piglets in past 7 d
Yes 159 2.21 (1.16–4.22) 0.02 3,169.5
No
 455
 Ref
Sorting of weaned piglets in past 7 d
Yes 174 1.63 (0.83–3.20) 0.16 3,162.9
No
 439
 Ref
Feeding sows in past 7 d
Yes 220 2.03 (0.99–4.17) 0.05 3,126.0
No
 390
 Ref
Cleaning and disinfecting weaned piglets section in past 7 d
Yes 81 1.70 (0.76–3.80) 0.2 3,157.8
No 538 Ref

*Results from the random intercept generalized linear mixed models accounting for the repeated measurements design and adjusted for number of hours worked. MRSA, methicillin-associated Staphylococcus aureus; OR, odds ratio; Ref, reference category; RSPL, residual pseudo-likelihood. Bold type indicates p values <0.05.
†Number of observations in all sampling times together (158 persons, 4 sampling times). Some variables have missing observations.
‡For analysis in humans, a farm and a person random intercept were included in the mixed models, and number of hours worked on the farm and sampling time were used for adjustment of ORs.
§Only variables with p<0.2 in the mixed models are presented in the human analysis.
¶RSPL from the generalized linear mixed models.

Main Article

1Preliminary results from this study were presented at the 3rd American Society for Microbiology–European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ASM-ESCMID) Conference on Methicillin-resistant Staphylococci in Animals: Veterinary Public Health Implications, 2013 November 4–7, Copenhagen, Denmark (oral presentation, speaker abstract S7:3); and at the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine annual meeting, 2014 March 26–28, Dublin, Ireland (poster presentation).

Page created: May 15, 2015
Page updated: May 15, 2015
Page reviewed: May 15, 2015
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