Table 2.
Resistance profile of Salmonella sp. Escherichia coli and Yersinia enterocolitica isolated from pigs, Brazil (data published between 2009 and 2019).
| Ref. | Sampling Period | Geographic Region a | Local (n) | Isolate (n) | Antimicrobial Resistanceb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta-lactam | Tetracycline | Quinolone | Sulfonamide | Aminoglycoside | Others | |||||
| Salmonella sp. | ||||||||||
| Kich et al., 2011 [81] | 2007 | S | various | 8 serotypes (572) | Amc: 1.0% Amp: 46.6% Cfl: 5.0% Cfo: 1.0% |
Tet: 79.0% | Nal: 5.0% | Sul: 23.0% Sut: 10.0% |
Gen: 39.0% Kn: 41.0% Str: 35.0% |
Clo: 10.0% |
| Morales et al., 2012 [88] | – | – | swine herds | S. enterica (124) | – | – | – | – | – | Col: 21.0% |
| Lopes et al., 2015 [80] | 2008–2011 | S | slaughterhouses (1)/ intestinal content and carcasses | 28 serotypes (225) | Amp: 29.8% | Tet: 54.5% | Cip: 0.9% Nal: 33.3% |
Sul: 39.6% Str: 33.7% Tri: 8.0% |
Gen: 10.7% Kn: 14.7% |
Clo: 14.2% |
| Almeida et al., 2016 [83] | 2000–2012 | S | various | S. Typhimurium (22) | Amp: 81.4% | Tet: 62,9% | Cip, Lev: 3.0% Nal: 59.0% |
Sut: 66.6% | – | Clo: 74.0% |
| Souto et al., 2017 [84] | 2011–2014 | SE | fecal samples | Salmonella sp. (39) | Amo: 89.7% Amp: 82.0% Cfo: 2.6 % |
Tet: 97.4% | Nal: 33.3% Nor: 2.6 % | Sut: 53.8% | Gen: 87.1% | – |
| Rau et al., 2018 [95] | 2011–2017 | S | animal products (40) | Salmonella sp. (40) | – | – | v | – | Col: 1 isolate (mcr-1 positive) | |
| Viana et al., 2019 [85] | – | – | pork production chain | 25 serotypes (280) | Amp: 81.0% Caz, Cfo: 4.8% |
Tet: 88.1% | Cip: 50.0% | Sut: 19.0% | Gen: 16.7%Str: 90.5% | Clo: 71.4% |
| E. coli | ||||||||||
| Morales et al., 2012 [88] | – | – | swine herds | ETEC (126) | – | – | – | – | – | Col: 6.3% |
| Silva et al., 2016 [87] | 2012 | – | swine herds | E. coli (267) | Ctf: eight isolates (CTX-M-15-producing) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Kiefer et al., 2018 [89] | – | – | swine herd (126) | colistin-resistant E. coli (8) | – | – | – | – | – | Col: colistin-resistant E. coli |
| Spindola et al., 2018 [86] | – | SE | swine urine (300) | E. coli (186) | Amc: 1.1% Amp: 80.1% Cfo: 1.1% Ctf: 2.6% |
Tet: 91.9% | Cip: 22.5% Eno: 33.3% Nal: 66.1% Nor: 21.5% |
Sul: 94.6% Sut: 54.6% |
Gen: 2.6% Spe: 11.2% Str: 52.6% |
Flo: 83.3% |
| Yersinia enterocolitica | ||||||||||
| Ruzak et al., 2014 [92] | 2005–2011 | SE, NE, S | various | Y. enterocolitica (60) | Amp: 100% Cfl: 97.0% Cfo: 13.0% |
Tet: 8.0% | – | Sul: 68.0% Sut: 10.0% Tri: 12.0% |
Ami: 2.0% | - |
| Frazão et al., 2017 [93] | 1979–2012 | – | various | Y. enterocolitica (39) | Amc: 55.8% Cfo, Cfz: 100% Amp, Tic: 94.0% |
– | – | – | – | - |
| Martins et al., 2018 [91] | – | SE | Pig farm (2/20 samples); slaughterhouse (1/960 samples |
Y. enterocolitica (16) |
Amo, Amp, Ipm: 100% | Tet: 12.5% | Nal: 100.0% | Sul: 100.0% | Gen: 37.5 Neo: 100% Str: 100% |
|
a Geographic Region: S (South), SE (Southeast) and MW (Midwest); b Ami: amikacin; Amc: amoxicillin + clavulanic acid; Amo: amoxicillin; Amp: ampicillin; Caz: ceftazidime; Cip: ciprofloxacin; Cfo: cefoxitin; Cfl: cephalothin; Cfz: ceftazidime; Clo: chloramphenicol; Col: colistin; Ctf: ceftiofur; Eno: enrofloxacin; florfenicol; Gen: gentamicin; Ipm: imipenem; Kn: kanamycin; Lev: levofloxacin; Nal: nalidixic acid; Neo: neomycin; Nor: norfloxacin; Nit: nitrofurantoin; Rif: rifampicin; Spe: spectinomycin; Str: streptomycin; Sul: sulfonamide; Sut: sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim; Tet: tetracycline; Tic: ticarcillin; Tri: trimethoprim.