Table 3.
Odds Ratios From Mixed Modelsa Comparing Escherichia coli Isolates in Rural Ecuador, 2010–2012
| Source and Marker | Small-Scale Production Bird | Household Bird | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjustedb | Unadjusted | Adjustedb | |||||
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Microarray | ||||||||
| int1 | 18.4 | 7.74, 43.9 | 25.4 | 9.32, 69.1 | 2.5 | 1.06, 5.90 | 3.1 | 1.27, 7.69 |
| int2 | 44.0 | 5.44, 355 | 56.1 | 6.61, 475 | 3.8 | 0.32, 45.9 | 4.6 | 0.38, 55.3 |
| tetA | 13.8 | 6.09, 31.2 | 15.1 | 6.38, 35.8 | 2.4 | 1.14, 5.10 | 2.6 | 1.20, 5.66 |
| tetB | 2.8 | 1.38, 5.80 | 3.0 | 1.39, 6.52 | 1.9 | 0.81, 4.55 | 2.0 | 0.82, 4.91 |
| Antibiogram | ||||||||
| Sulfisoxazole | 65.7 | 21.5, 201 | 82.8 | 24.0, 285 | 2.8 | 1.20, 6.46 | 3.3 | 1.35, 8.02 |
| Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole | 78.0 | 25.5, 239 | 98.5 | 28.7, 339 | 2.8 | 1.20, 6.41 | 3.3 | 1.35, 7.99 |
| Tetracycline | 6.1 | 2.91, 12.9 | 6.9 | 3.08, 15.7 | 1.5 | 0.70, 3.07 | 1.6 | 0.75, 3.49 |
| Ampicillin | 21.0 | 6.70, 65.6 | 22.2 | 6.61, 74.7 | 1.9 | 0.74, 4.90 | 2.0 | 0.74, 5.34 |
| Chloramphenicol | 16.2 | 5.43, 48.4 | 21.9 | 7.43, 64.4 | 0.8 | 0.23, 3.03 | 1.2 | 0.34, 4.19 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 16.1 | 5.11, 51.1 | 25.2 | 6.92, 92.1 | 0.6 | 0.16, 2.51 | 0.9 | 0.21, 3.44 |
| Streptomycin | 79.9 | 23.0, 278 | 102.0 | 26.5, 392 | 1.1 | 0.42, 2.87 | 1.4 | 0.52, 3.67 |
| MDR | 2.7 | 1.34, 5.38 | 3.4 | 1.53, 7.33 | 2.0 | 0.95, 4.41 | 2.4 | 1.07, 5.40 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; int1, class-1 integron; int2, class-2 integron; MDR, multiple-drug resistance; OR, odds ratio; tetA, tetracycline class A; tetB, tetracycline class B.
a Models compared E. coli isolates from small-scale production birds (n = 619) to isolates from household birds in villages without small-scale production operations (n = 380) and household birds in villages with small-scale production operations (n = 246) to isolates from household birds in villages without small-scale production operations (n = 380). Mixed models accounted for clustering at the household level; isolates were collapsed across birds due to high within-bird correlation. Reference group was household birds in villages without small-scale production operations. Models for 5 of 12 antibiotics not shown due to low frequencies.
b Adjustment includes year of sample collection.