Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:28:30.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antibiotic resistance among salmonella from human and other sources in New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. M. Heffernan
H. M. Heffernan
Affiliation:
New Zealand Communicable Disease Centre (formerly National Health Institute), PO Box 50 348, Porirua, New Zealand
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Of 2210 salmonella isolates referred to the New Zealand Communicable Disease Centre for epidemiological surveillance during 1987, 147 (6·7%) were resistant to one or more of 10 antibiotics. Resistance to streptomycin was most common (4·5%). followed by sulphamethoxazole (3·4%), tetracycline (3·3%), ampicillin (1·5%). and kanamycin (1·4%). Resistance to cephalothin, chloramphenicol, gentamicin and trimethoprim occurred in less than 1 % of isolates. There was no resistance to norfloxacin. Isolates from human sources were significantly (P < 0·001) more resistant (10%) than those from other sources (3·2%). The majority of resistant isolates were resistant to more than one antibiotic, but multiresistance to five or more antibiotics occurred only among human isolates. Comparison of these results with data from earlier years shows that there has been little change in the incidence of resistance among salmonella in this country over the last 10 years. The prevalence of antibiotic resistance among salmonella in New Zealand is low relative to many other countries.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 106 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 17 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

1. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria which grow aerobically; approved standard. NCCLS publication M7–A. Villanova, Pa.: NCCLS, 1985.Google Scholar
2.Bauer, AW, Kirby, WMM, Sherris, JC, Turck, M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol 1966; 45: 493–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Ericsson, HM, Sherris, JCAntibiotic sensitivity testing. Report of an international collaborative study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1971; Section B (suppl 217).Google ScholarPubMed
4.Stokes, EJ, Waterworth, PMAntibiotic sensitivity tests by diffusion methods. Association of Clinical Pathologists Broadsheet 1972; (55): 1–12.Google Scholar
5.The Animal Remedies Regulations 1980. Wellington: New Zealand Government, 1980. ([NZ Govt Reg]; 1980/145).Google Scholar
6.Rowe, B, Threlfall, EJ. Antibiotic resistance in salmonella. PHLS Digest 1986; 3: 23–5.Google Scholar
7.Cherubin, CE. Antibiotic resistance of salmonella in Europe and the United States. Rev Infect Dis 1981; 3: 1105–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.MacDonald, KL. Cohen, ML, Hargrett-Bean, NT et al. , Changes in antimicrobial resistance of salmonella isolated from humans in the United States. JAMA 1987; 258: 1496–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Neu, HC, Cherubin, CE, Longo, ED, Flouton, B, Winter, J. Antimicrobial resistance and R–factor transfer among isolates of Salmonella in the Northeastern United States: a comparison of human and animal isolates. J Infect Dis 1975; 132: 617–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed