1. Introduction
Since their discovery, antibiotics have represented a powerful tool for the treatment of bacterial infections, with high incidence and significant lethality rates for humans and various animal species. The consumption of these drugs has continued to increase in the 21st century, thanks to the improved access to antibiotics by developing countries. Between 2000 and 2015, there was a 65% increase in the global consumption of antibiotics, which was inversely correlated with a decrease in deaths from infectious diseases [1].
Unfortunately, bacteria and other pathogens have always evolved in ways that can permit themselves to resist to the new drugs used in therapy. Indeed, antimicrobial resistance is defined as the ability of a microorganism to resist the effect of a normally active concentration of an antimicrobial agent. The result of this adaptive evolution has become a general problem and a serious threat to the treatment of infectious diseases in both human and veterinary medicine [2,3].
Many countries have started surveillance programs and are developing increasingly stringent decisions regarding the use of antibiotics in animals (mainly food-producing animals) [4]. Considering the European context, the legislation will be ever more stringent about the use of antibiotics in veterinary settings, and the application of these drugs will be regulated by the concept of rational and prudent use by means of a tailored approach to the patient and pathology [5,6,7]. This approach increasingly requires veterinarians to use diagnostic procedures that include microbiological testing for antibiotic use [6,8].
Furthermore, the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR) (isolates resistant to three or more antimicrobial categories) in companion animals is an increasing concern and it creates questions about the role of companion animals as potential reservoirs of resistant bacteria [9,10,11,12].
The available data for pets are limited compared to those collected for food-producing animals [4]. Most of the available information in the scientific literature is focused on the relationships existing among bacteria detected in companion animals and humans [12,13,14]. Pet-associated zoonoses are usually sporadic, and it is complicated to recognize the disease route of transmission (animal to human or vice versa) [12]. Therefore, the role of dogs and cats as potential sources of various zoonotic bacteria may not be ruled out considering that the transmission may occur via the oral–fecal route, wounds (e.g., dog bites and cat scratches), vectors (e.g., ticks), or environmental contamination [12,15,16].
An overview of antibiotic resistance profiles in pet infections is important not only due to the public health risk, but also in collecting data useful for the treatment of diseases in pets. This information may be functionally used to increase pet welfare, to decrease the risk of antibiotic resistance related to the misuse of antibiotics, and to reduce the economic cost of therapy by using short and tailored treatments [6,8,17].
Bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) are some of the most important indications for antimicrobial use in veterinary medicine, and they contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance [18,19]. Indeed, empiric antimicrobial treatments are often administrated in the presence of clinical signs of UTIs, as lower urinary tract symptoms (e.g., pollakiuria, strangury, hematuria, or a combination of these signs), along with urine cytological findings, are eventually followed by the urine culture test [19,20].
Cystitis and lower urinary tract infections are generally more common in dogs than in cats [18]. The highest frequency of affected animals is described in females and neutered males [17,21], and the most common bacteria related to UTIs are Escherichia coli (estimated at 70–75% of cases), followed by Staphylococci, Proteus spp., and Enterococci [22,23]. A similar distribution was also found in human medicine, where the most common causal agent remains the uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) [24,25,26].
Therefore, systematic surveillance activity covering the most frequent bacterial species responsible for UTIs in pets and their antimicrobial resistance profiles is often lacking in veterinary clinics and hospitals, making correct antibiotic stewardship more difficult [4].
In the present study, the results obtained by laboratory investigations carried out on dogs and cats with UTIs coming from veterinary clinics and practices in Central Italy are reported in order to provide additional data concerning the frequency of bacterial urinary pathogens and their antimicrobial resistance patterns in pets.
2. Results
2.1. Bacterial Isolates
Table 1 summarizes all recovered bacterial strains and their distributions in dogs and cats. A total of 635 isolates (540 Gram-negative and 95 Gram-positive bacteria) were collected from urine samples with a statistically significant difference between the Gram-negative and Gram-positive distributions between dogs and cats (p = 0.001). In detail, 406 Gram-negative and 44 Gram-positive bacteria were collected from dogs, and 134 Gram-negative and 51 Gram-positive bacteria were recovered from cats.
Escherichia coli was the most common species recovered from dogs and cats, followed by Proteus mirabilis in canine samples and Enterococcus spp. in feline samples. Additionally, significant differences in Pseudomonas luteola (p = 0.027), E. coli (p = 0.001), P. mirabilis (p = 0.001), Enterococcus faecalis (p = 0.001), and Staphylococcus aureus (p = 0.027) frequency were observed between dogs and cats.
2.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests
Based on the antimicrobial susceptibility results, 472/635 (74.3%) isolates were resistant to at least one antibiotic and 285/635 (44.8%) were classified as MDR (Tables S1 and S2). In detail, 318/450 (70.6%) isolates from dogs and 154/185 (83.2%) isolates from cats were resistant to at least one antibiotic, while the MDR strains equaled 194/450 (42.2%) in dogs and 91/185 (49.1%) in cats (Table 2).
A significant difference in resistant bacteria (p = 0.001) was described between dogs and cats, while no significant difference was reported for MDR bacteria. The most isolated MDR bacterial species were P. mirabilis and E. coli, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis. In detail, the MDR P. mirabilis isolates were mainly identified in dogs and MDR E. faecalis in cats (Table 2).
The statistical analysis showed a significant difference between dogs and cats for the Klebsiella spp. isolates’ resistance frequency against amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (p = 0.016), ceftiofur (p = 0.014), cefalexin (p = 0.014), cefpodoxime (p = 0.014), doxycycline (p = 0.01), enrofloxacin (p = 0.005), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (p = 0.004), tetracycline (p = 0.001), cefovecin (p = 0.016), and pradofloxacin (p = 0.021). Additionally, this difference was also reported for P. mirabilis isolates resistant to imipenem (p = 0.004) and for Enterococcus spp. isolates resistant to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (p = 0.001), nitrofurantoin (p = 0.001), tetracycline (p = 0.001), and neomycin (p = 0.001).
A univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to estimate risk factors associated with resistant and multidrug-resistant bacteria (Table 3). For dog isolates, the recurrent infections were significantly associated with resistant (OR: 2.36, 95%CI:1.16–4.81) and MDR bacteria (OR: 2.54, 95%CI: 1.46–4.43). Both dogs (OR: 2.55, 95%CI:1.4–4.65) and cats (OR: 3.72, 95%CI: 1.49–9.27) treated with antibiotic therapy had a higher risk of harboring MDR bacteria in comparison to animals that did not receive antibiotics. Finally, resistant bacteria in dogs and MDR bacteria in cats were more likely detected in females and sterilized females. Other variables were not significantly associated with the resistant and MDR bacteria (p > 0.05).
2.3. Antibiotic Susceptibility Test in Canine Bacteria
The main results of the antibiotic susceptibility test in canine isolates are reported in Figure 1. In detail, the E. coli isolates in dogs were mostly resistant to ampicillin (125/263; 47.5%), followed by cephalothin (102/263; 38.7%), cefalexin (83/263; 31.5%), and cefpodoxime (82/263; 31.1%). All isolates were susceptible to amikacin.
All isolates of Klebsiella spp. were found to be resistant to ampicillin (21/21;100%) and mainly resistant to nitrofurantoin (11/21; 52.3%). All isolates were sensitive to amikacin and imipenem.
Pseudomonas spp. isolates are intrinsically resistant to diverse antibiotics such as cephalosporines and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Additionally, the majority of isolates also showed resistance profiles to ampicillin (17/18; 94.4%), nitrofurantoin (17/18; 94.4%), and tetracycline (16/18; 88.8%). The susceptibility was reported for amikacin in all isolates and for doxycycline, gentamicin, and imipenem in 17/18 (94.4%) isolates.
The intrinsic resistance to ampicillin, cefazolin, tetracycline, and nitrofurantoin was confirmed for Proteus spp. isolates. Some of them were also resistant to imipenem (51/83; 61.4%), chloramphenicol (41/83; 49.3%), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (31/83; 37.3%), and enrofloxacin (19/83; 22.8%). The highest levels of susceptibility were detected for neomycin (83/83;100%) and amikacin (79/83; 95.1%).
Enterococcus spp. were found to be particularly resistant to cefovecin (26/47; 55.3%), erythromycin (17/47; 36.1%), and doxycycline (17/47; 36.1%), while they were susceptible to florfenicol (46/47; 97.8%), chloramphenicol (44/47; 93.6%), and nitrofurantoin (43/47; 91.4%).
Finally, Staphylococcus spp. isolates were mainly resistant to erythromycin (10/14; 71.4%) and benzylpenicillin (12/14; 85.7%) with susceptibility to amikacin (14/14; 100%), gentamicin (13/14; 92.8%), and neomycin (13/14; 92.8%).
2.4. Antibiotic Susceptibility Test in Feline Bacteria
The main outcomes of the antibiotic susceptibility test of feline bacteria are shown in Figure 2. In detail, E. coli isolates in cats were found to be mostly resistant to ampicillin (44/80; 55%), followed by cephalothin (34/80; 42.5%), cefalexin (25/80; 31.2%), and cefpodoxime (28/80; 35%). All isolates were susceptible to amikacin and imipenem.
Considering that Pseudomonas spp. are intrinsically resistant to diverse antibiotics such as cephalosporines and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, many isolates belonging to this species also showed resistance profiles to ampicillin (14/17; 82.3%), nitrofurantoin (12/17; 70.5%), and tetracycline (16/17; 94.1%). The susceptibility was reported for amikacin in all isolates and for gentamicin and imipenem in 15/17 (88.2%) isolates.
The Proteus spp. isolates, which are intrinsically resistant to ampicillin, cefazolin, tetracycline and nitrofurantoin, were also found to be resistant to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (5/16; 31.2%), chloramphenicol (6/16; 37.5%), and imipenem (8/16; 50%). The highest levels of susceptibility were detected for neomycin (16/16; 100%), gentamycin (16/16; 100%), and amikacin (15/16; 93.7%).
All isolates of Klebsiella spp. resulted resistant to ampicillin (8/8; 100%) and enrofloxacin (8/8; 100%). In addition, these isolates showed high levels of resistant to marbofloxacin (7/8; 87.5%), tetracycline (7/8; 87.5%), cephalothin (7/8; 87.5%), ceftiofur (7/8; 87.5%), cefalexin (7/8; 87.5%), and cefpodoxime (7/8; 87.5%). All isolates were susceptible to amikacin, gentamicin, imipenem, and neomycin.
The Enterococcus spp. isolates were particularly resistant to cefovecin (38/40; 95%), marbofloxacin (21/40; 52.5%), and doxycycline (17/40; 42.5%), while they were susceptible to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (36/40; 90%), benzylpenicillin (36/40; 90%) and nitrofurantoin (39/40; 97.5%).
Finally, the Staphylococcus spp. isolates were found to be mainly resistant to benzylpenicillin (9/11; 81.8%), erythromycin (7/11; 63.6%), enrofloxacin (6/11; 54.5%), marbofloxacin (6/11; 54.5%), and pradofloxacin (6/11; 54.5%) with susceptibility to amikacin (11/11; 100%), gentamicin (9/11; 81.8%), doxycycline (10/11; 90.9%), and neomycin (10/11; 90.9%).
3. Discussion
The aim of this study was to increase the knowledge on the antimicrobial resistance of pathogens associated with UTIs in dogs and cats from Central Italy. This study is an update of the available data considering that the last similar study was performed on isolates collected during 2013–2015 in Central Italy [27]. In the present study, a higher number of bacteria was collected and a full panel of antibiotics was applied for the antibiotic susceptibility test compared to the previous study [27]. Additionally, in our study, the highest frequency of Gram-negative isolates was obtained. The percentages of resistance to antibiotics such as amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cephalexin, doxycycline, gentamicin, and marbofloxacin observed in E. coli, Pseudomonas spp., Klebsiella spp., Proteus spp. and Enterobacter spp. were lower in both canine and feline bacteria compared to the previous investigation.
The risk factors for bacterial UTIs were previously investigated considering their age, breed, sex, urethral catheterization, hospital admission, year of sample collection, and concurrent disease (as neurologic pathology) [25,26]. In the present study, age, breed, sex, antibiotic therapy, concurrent diseases, and recurrent and chronic infections were assessed as potentially related determinants for resistant and MDR bacteria responsible for UTIs in dogs and cats. In particular, resistant bacteria in dogs and MDR bacteria in cats were more likely detected in females and sterilized females, as previously described by Thompson et al. [21] and Fonseca et al. [17]. In addition, the antibiotic treatments were linked to the occurrence of MDR bacteria in dogs and cats, confirming what previously reported from other studies in Brazil [25], Portugal [28], and France [29]. Finally, the recurrent diseases were significantly associated with resistant and MDR bacteria in dogs. A previous study also described as a risk factor of resistant bacteria in UTIs the chronic infections evaluated here, along with recurrent infections [25]. The choice to consider chronic and recurrent diseases as different variables in the present study may have affected this result, suggesting that the recurrent UTIs are associated with repeated therapies over time.
Overall, a predominance of Gram-negative bacteria over Gram-positive isolates was observed, even if a significant difference in distribution emerged between dogs and cats. Indeed, the highest frequency of Gram-positive isolates was detected in feline patients, as also described in a recent study by Fonseca et al. [17].
Escherichia coli is the most common bacteria responsible for UTIs in dogs and cats in Europe [22,23], the USA [19], Canada [30], and New Zealand [31]. The same result was reported in the most recent studies carried out in the USA [32,33], the UK [17], Spain [34], Italy [27], and Germany [35]. Cephalosporins resistance above 30% was detected in E. coli isolated from dogs and cats. In detail, the isolates were resistant to first-generation (cephalothin, cephalexin) or third-generation cephalosporin (cefpodoxime). These data agree with the abovementioned reports highlighting the need for the continuous monitoring of cephalosporins resistance and to enhance the antibiotic stewardship for these molecules [17,27].
Proteus mirabilis was the second most common Enteobacteriales isolated in dogs, as previously reported by other authors [17,23,36]. This species was widely investigated in different studies performed in Spain [34], the UK [17], Thailand [26], and the USA [33], or in retrospective studies of data collected in Europe [22,23]. This bacterium is of particular interest considering its intrinsic resistance to different antibiotics and its acquired fluoroquinolone resistance, as described several times in the abovementioned studies. In the present study, the resistant profile observed for P. mirabilis was also characterized by the resistance to imipenem, as recently reported in the USA [33]. These data raise concerns regarding the potential zoonotic role of UTI-related P. mirabilis strains isolated in the present study. Indeed, recent investigations described P. mirabilis strains recovered from pets as closely related to human strains [12,13].
Other Gram-negative bacteria have increased their antibiotic resistance profiles, becoming a significant concern for public health in human and veterinary medicine [37]. In this regard, Klebsiella spp. and Pseudomonas spp. revealed high resistance to ampicillin, cephalosporins, tetracycline, and fluoroquinolones, and similar patterns were described in Portugal [12], Spain [34], Thailand [26], and the USA [33].
As previously described by other authors [17,22,34], Enterococcus spp. was the second most frequent urinary pathogen in feline samples. The isolates of this study resulted resistant to doxycycline and fluroquinolones, as reported in other studies carried out in Italy [27], Portugal [38], the UK [17], Spain [34], and the USA [33]. Considering the intrinsic resistance of certain Enterococcus spp. (i.e., E. faecium and E. faecalis) [33], the acquired resistance to tetracycline and fluoroquinolones may reduce the chance of treatments for Enterococci-related infections. Indeed, in humans, these opportunistic pathogens cause a wide range of difficult-to-treat nosocomial infections [17,37].
Staphylococcus spp. isolates were detected in both dogs and cats in this study. In detail, S. pseudintermedius was the most isolated species, followed by S. lentus and S. aureus. Since 2006, S. aureus has represented a significant health problem in companion animals and a public health concern [37]. However, S. aureus strains isolated from companion animals were mainly related to different human-associated strains, while recent data about S. pseudintermedius suggested the role of animals as potential reservoirs and that zoonotic transmission is currently considered plausible [39,40,41]. Oxacillin resistance was identified in 12/14 Staphylococci isolates (85.7%), which also showed resistance to erythromycin, benzylpenicillin, and fluroquinolones. Similar profiles of resistance were described in a retrospective analysis performed in Europe during the period of 2008–2013 [22,23] and in recent studies carried out in Spain [34], the UK [17], and Central Italy [27]. On the other hand, the isolates in these studies showed the highest levels of susceptibility to gentamicin, amikacin, and neomycin, as compared to recent studies performed in Portugal [38], Northwest Italy [6], Thailand [26], and the USA [33]. As previously suggested by other authors, these differences in resistance profiles may be related to the geographical and time-associated variations in antimicrobial use practices [27,33]. In particular, the study carried out in Northwest Italy was performed in a veterinary teaching hospital, a reference center for complex clinical cases [6]. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the patients came from private clinics where they may have received antibiotic treatments with the potential selection of resistant strains [27,32]. Based on these considerations, the knowledge on the geographical distribution of the most common UTI pathogens and their antibiotic susceptibility is necessary to ensure adequate antibiotic therapy and to preserve the antibiotic efficacy [17].
Furthermore, in the present work it was possible to isolate bacteria not usually described in other studies of UTIs in pets, such as Pantoea dispersa, Raoultella ornithinolytica, and Pasteurella pneumotropica (also known as Rodentibacter pneumotropicus). In detail, two Pantoea dispersa isolates were obtained from urine samples of one dog and one cat. The feline isolate was found to be susceptible to all tested antibiotics, while the canine strain was resistant to tetracycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. This bacterium belongs to the genus Pantoea, which is included in the Erwiniaceae family, and it was frequently found in plants, soil, and water. Some P. dispersa isolates were related to nosocomial blood stream infections, rhinosinusitis, and hepatitis in human patients [42,43,44]. However, conventional analyses are considered ineffective in achieving the correct identification of this bacterium, resulting in the misdiagnosis and underestimation of P. dispersa-related infections [42,43,44].
The multidrug-resistant Raoultella ornithinolytica was recovered from canine urine samples in the present study. This bacterium was previously described in retail vegetables and meat [45,46], chicken products, poultry flock environments [47,48], and a septicemic calf [49]. Recently, it was isolated from feline urine in Austria, and it was evaluated as being MDR [50].
Finally, Pasteurella pneumotropica (also known as Rodentibacter pneumotropicus) was isolated in 2 dogs, showing susceptibility to all tested antibiotics. This bacterium has been previously described in the oral flora of dogs and cats [51] and has been related to infections in puppies and humans as a result of dog bites [52,53,54].
All of the unconventional isolates detected in this study were considered emerging Gram-negative bacteria and represent a major concern in view of their potential role as pathogens, including for humans.
Overall, gentamicin and amikacin had the highest activity levels both in canine and feline isolates in this study. As previously suggested by other authors, these results may be related to the careful dosing of this antibiotic in veterinary settings because of its toxicity [27,33]. More recent studies indicate that their use at different doses and with short duration therapies, as commonly applied in human medicine, may be a possible alternative approach for treating animals while preserving the efficacy of these antibiotics. However, more specific investigations are needed [8].
The retrospective evaluation of bacteria isolated from the urine samples of dogs and cats with UTIs and the assessment of their antibiotic resistance patterns may be useful for clinicians to choose a first-line drug to treat the patients. The International Society for Companion Animal Infectious Diseases (ISCAID) has published UTI treatment guidelines for dogs [8], suggesting that the first-line empirical drug choice should be based on the local prevalence of bacterial pathogens and their resistance profiles. Based on the available data for ISCAID, amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole are considered as the first empirical antimicrobial choices for UTI treatment, while nitrofurantoin, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins are only recommended if resistance to first-line antimicrobials is detected or the condition of the patient is serious [8].
However, it is important to consider that the European Medicines Agencies (EMA) has categorized antimicrobials according to the risk for public health and the need for their use in veterinary medicine [4]. Categories A and B include antimicrobials that are critically important in human medicine, whose use is limited in human medicine, and whose use is not authorized in the European Union (EU) in veterinary medicine for the treatment of production animals [55]. The highest-priority and most critically important antibiotics include molecules such as carbapenems, third-generation cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones, which are considered the last resources to threat MDR infections in human medicine [56,57]. Therefore, the resistance profiles to carbapenems, third-generation cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones described in this study, even in MDR bacteria, highlight the importance of investigations on UTI pathogens considering the important potential public health implications.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Selection Criteria and Data Sources
A retrospective study was carried out by collecting the urine culture results from dogs and cats provided by the private laboratory “CDVet Laboratorio Analisi Veterinarie” (Rome, Italy) from January 2020 to December 2020. The urine samples came from 54 first-opinion veterinary practices or 24 h clinics, mainly located in Central Italy. The anamnestic data, such as for the animal species, sex, age, breed, and sterilized status, as well as clinical details concerning concurrent diseases or antibiotic therapy, were registered. Additionally, a distinction between chronic (an infection that persists over time and is caused by the same etiological agent) and recurrent (an infection resolved in the past but recurring and caused by the same or a different etiological agent) infections was applied.
4.2. Identification of Isolated Bacteria and Susceptibility Testing
The urine samples were aerobically incubated at 35 ± 2 °C for 18–24 h using the ChromaticTMDetection Medium (Liofilchem®, Roseto degli Abruzzi, Italy) for the morphological identification of grown colonies, and the VITEK® system (Biomerieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France) was applied for the species identification of bacteria. In order to identify the therapeutic options, the antibiotic susceptibility tests were carried out using the VITEK® system (Biomerieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France) according to the guidelines of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the available veterinary clinical breakpoints from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [58,59].
Based on the bacterial strain identification, the panel of antimicrobial agents was used for antimicrobial susceptibility tests, including 26 drugs from 9 categories: aminoglycosides (amikacin, kanamycin, neomycin, and gentamicin); penicillins (ampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, benzylpenicillin, and oxacillin); carbapenems (imipenem); first-generation cephalosporins (cephalothin, cephalexin); third-generation cephalosporins (ceftiofur, cefovecin, cefpodoxime); fluoroquinolones (enrofloxacin, pradofloxacin, and marbofloxacin); tetracyclines (doxycycline, minocycline, and tetracycline); macrolides (erythromycin); lincosamides (clindamycin); phenolics (florfenicol and chloramphenicol); nitrofurantoin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole.
4.3. Data Analysis and Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis was performed using software packages in Stata [60]. The chi-square (χ2) or Fisher’s test was used to compare the frequency of resistant bacteria between animal species. The risk factors (sex, breed, age, concomitant diseases, recurrent or chronic infections, occurrence of antibiotic therapy) and resistant or MDR bacterial outcomes were assessed using logistic regression. The p values resulting from the statistical analysis were evaluated as significant when the values were less than 0.05.
5. Conclusions
The results of the present study provide further information on the antibiotic resistance profiles and risk factors of UTI-related pathogens in dogs and cats in Central Italy. The data collected highlight the relevant occurrence of E. coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Enterococcus spp., but also the possibility of identifying uncommon pathogens. The resistance profiles identified reveal a remarkable percentage of MDR bacteria. Additionally, the resistance profiles also include critically important antibiotics for human medicine and pathogens that have been previously related to infections in humans. Therefore, the monitoring of antibiotic resistance in the UTIs of pets should be continuously applied to preserve public health and to realize more effective therapies in clinical practice, tailored to different areas and based on data available in the literature.
Conceptualization, C.E.D.F., C.S. and G.E.; methodology, C.F., M.T. and F.M. (Francesca Messina); software, C.S.; validation, C.F., M.T. and F.M. (Francesca Messina); formal analysis, C.S. and G.E.; investigation, C.S. and G.E.; resources, C.F., M.T. and F.M. (Francesca Messina); data curation, C.S. and G.E.; writing—original draft preparation, C.E.D.F., C.S. and G.E.; writing—review and editing, C.E.D.F., C.S., G.E. and F.M. (Fulvio Marsilio).; supervision, C.E.D.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Antimicrobial resistance frequencies (% of resistant bacteria) detected in isolates from urine samples of dogs. The percentage values greater than or equal to 10% are reported. AK: amikacin; AMP: ampicillin; BEN: benzylpenicillin; LEX: cephalexin; INN: cefovecin; CEP: cephalothin; PX: cefpodoxime; C: chloramphenicol; DXT: doxycycline; ENR: enrofloxacin; E: erythromycin; FFC: florfenicol; IMI: imipenem; F: nitrofurantoin; TE: tetracycline; SXT: trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Antimicrobial resistance frequencies (% of resistant bacteria) detected in isolates from urine samples of cats. The percentage values greater than or equal to 10% are reported. AUG: amoxicillin/clavulanic acid; AMP: ampicillin; BEN: benzylpenicillin; LEX: cephalexin; INN: cefovecin; CEF: ceftiofur; CEP: cephalothin; PX: cefpodoxime; C: chloramphenicol; DXT: doxycycline; ENR: enrofloxacin; E: erythromycin; CN: gentamicin; IMI: imipenem; MAR: marbofloxacin; F: nitrofurantoin; PRA: pradofloxacin; TE: tetracycline; SXT: trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole.
Bacterial species isolated from urine samples of investigated dogs and cats.
| Bacterial Species | % in Dogs (N = 450) | % in Cats (N = 185) | Total | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter spp. | 0.22 (N = 1) | 1.08 (N = 2) | 3 | p = 0.204 |
| Enterobacter aerogenes/Klebsiella aerogenes | 0.66 (N = 3) | 0 | 3 | N/A |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | 2.21 (N = 10) | 5.4 (N = 10) | 20 | p = 0.066 |
| Enterococcus casseliflavus | 0.22 (N = 1) | 0.54 (N = 1) | 2 | p = 0.498 |
| Enterococcus faecalis | 3.11 (N = 14) | 18.91 (N = 35) | 49 | p = 0.001 |
| Enterococcus faecium | 2.44 (N = 11) | 1.08 (N = 2) | 13 | p = 0.365 |
| Enterococcus spp. | 0.88 (N = 4) | 1.08 (N = 2) | 6 | p = 1 |
| Escherichia coli | 58.84 (N = 263) | 43.24 (N = 80) | 343 | p = 0.001 |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 0.22 (N = 1) | 0.54 (N = 1) | 2 | p = 0.498 |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 4.44 (N = 20) | 3.78 (N = 7) | 27 | p = 0.707 |
| Pantoea dispersa | 0.22 (N = 1) | 0.54 (N = 1) | 2 | p = 0.498 |
| Pasteurella pneumotropica/Rodentibacterpneumotropicus | 0.44 (N = 2) | 0 | 2 | N/A |
| Proteus mirabilis | 19.11 (N = 86) | 8.64 (N = 16) | 102 | p = 0.001 |
| Pseudomonas aeuriginosa | 3.55 (N = 16) | 6.48 (N = 12) | 28 | p = 0.102 |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens | 0.22 (N = 1) | 0.54 (N = 1) | 2 | p = 0.498 |
| Pseudomonas luteola | 0.22 (N = 1) | 2.16 (N = 4) | 5 | p = 0.027 |
| Raoultella ornithinolytica | 0.22 (N = 1) | 0 | 1 | N/A |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 0.22 (N = 1) | 2.16 (N = 4) | 5 | p = 0.027 |
| Staphylococcus lentus | 1.11 (N = 5) | 0.54 (N = 1) | 6 | p = 0.677 |
| Staphylococcus pseudintermedius | 1.77 (N = 8) | 3.24 (N = 6) | 14 | p = 0.253 |
| Total | 450 | 185 | 635 | N/A |
N/A: not applicable.
Numbers of multidrug resistance bacteria in different strains isolated from urine samples of dogs and cats in Central Italy during January to December 2020. The percentage values are reported in brackets.
| MDR Bacterial Species | Dogs | Cats | Total | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter spp. | - | 1 (50%) | 1 | N/A |
| Escherichia coli | 59 (22.4%) | 18(22.5%) | 77 | p = 0.99 |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | 8 (80%) | 9 (90%) | 17 | p = 1 |
| Enterococcus casseliflavus | - | 1(100%) | 1 | N/A |
| Enterococcus faecalis | 7(50%) | 19(54.2%) | 26 | p = 0.785 |
| Enterococcus faecium | 9(81.8%) | 1(50%) | 10 | p = 0.423 |
| Enterococcus spp. | 2(50%) | 2(100%) | 4 | N/A |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | - | 1(100%) | 1 | N/A |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 9(45%) | 7(100%) | 16 | N/A |
| Proteus mirabilis | 73(84.8%) | 10(62.5%) | 83 | p = 0.034 |
| Pseudomonas aeuriginosa | 15(93.7%) | 12(100%) | 27 | p = 1 |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens | 1(100%) | 1(100%) | 2 | N/A |
| Pseudomonas luteola | - | 2(50%) | 2 | N/A |
| Raoultella ornithinolytica | 1(100%) | - | 1 | N/A |
| Staphylococcus aureus | - | 2(50%) | 2 | N/A |
| Staphylococcus lentus | 4(80%) | 1(100%) | 5 | N/A |
| Staphylococcus pseudintermedius | 6(75%) | 4(66.6%) | 10 | p = 1 |
| Total | 194 | 91 | 285 | p = 0.162 |
N/A: not applicable.
Univariable logistic regression analysis for variables associated with resistant and multidrug-resistant bacteria isolated from urine samples of dogs and cats in Central Italy during January–December 2020.
| Variables | Dog | Cats | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratios (95%CI) | Odds Ratios (95%CI) | |||
| Resistant Bacteria | MDR Bacteria | Resistant Bacteria | MDR Bacteria | |
| Age | ||||
| Puppy/kitten | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Subadult | 1.28 (0.73–2.24) | 1.05 (0.61–1.81) | 0.56 (1.17–1.82) | 0.79 (0.35–1.78) |
| Adult | 1.82 (0.98–3.38) | 1.3 (0.73–2.32) | 0.75 (0.22–2.56) | 1 (0.44–2.34) |
| Sex | ||||
| Castreted male | Reference | Reference | Reference | |
| Male | 1.73 (0.84–3.59) | 1.63 (0.76–3.47) | 1.66 (0.53–5.16) | 0.98 (0.44–2.17) |
| Sterilized female | 2.45 (1.15–5.21) | 1.94 (0.9–4.18) | 0.97 (0.38–2.5) | 0.27 (0.13–0.58) |
| Female | 2.28 (1.08–4.83) | 1.6 (0.74–3.44) | 0.58 (1.17–1.94) | 0.21 (0.06–0.66) |
| Breed | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | N/A | Reference |
| Yes | 0.93 (0.61–1.4) | 1.16 (0.79–1.69) | N/A | 0.59 (0.2–1.7) |
| Antibiotic therapy | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 1.42 (0.72–2.81) | 2.55 (1.4–4.65) | 6.37 (0.83–48.8) | 3.72 (1.49–9.27) |
| Concurrent diseases | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 0.93 (0.32–2.66) | 1.19 (0.45–3.15) | 3.19 (0.72–14.1) | 1.64 (0.38–7.1) |
| Recurrent infections | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 2.36 (1.16–4.81) | 2.54 (1.46–4.43) | 0.44 (0.15–1.26) | 1.43 (0.57–3.58) |
| Chronic infections | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 1.34 (0.67–2.66) | 1.49 (0.82–2.69) | 1.68 (0.36–7.71) | 1.7 (0.63–4.62) |
Note: 95%CI: 95% confidence interval; N/A: not applicable; bold values indicate p < 0.05.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Diallo, O.O.; Baron, S.A.; Abat, C.; Colson, P.; Chaudet, H.; Rolain, J.M. Antibiotic resistance surveillance systems: A review. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist.; 2020; 23, pp. 430-438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2020.10.009] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33176216]
2. Boerlin, P.; White, D.G. Antimicrobial Resistance and Its Epidemiology. Antimicrobial Therapy in Veterinary Medicine; Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 21-40.
3. Price, R. O’Neill report on antimicrobial resistance: Funding for antimicrobial specialists should be improved. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm.; 2016; 23, pp. 245-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2016-001013]
4. Marco-Fuertes, A.; Marin, C.; Lorenzo-Rebenaque, L.; Vega, S.; Montoro-Dasi, L. Antimicrobial Resistance in Companion Animals: A New Challenge for the One Health Approach in the European Union. Vet. Sci.; 2022; 9, 208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9050208]
5. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on Veterinary Medicinal Products and Repealing Directive 2001/82/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union; 2019; L4, pp. 43-167. Available online: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0006&from=EN%0Ahttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0006&qid=1552299700950&from=EN (accessed on 22 July 2022).
6. Vercelli, C.; Della Ricca, M.; Re, M.; Gambino, G.; Re, G. Antibiotic Stewardship for Canine and Feline Acute Urinary Tract Infection: An Observational Study in a Small Animal Hospital in Northwest Italy. Antibiotics; 2021; 10, 562. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10050562]
7. World Health Organization. Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS); Fourth Report WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240027336 (accessed on 22 July 2022).
8. Weese, J.S.; Blondeau, J.; Boothe, D.; Guardabassi, L.G.; Gumley, N.; Papich, M.; Jessen, L.R.; Lappin, M.; Rankin, S.; Westropp, J.L. et al. International Society for Companion Animal Infectious Diseases (ISCAID) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of bacterial urinary tract infections in dogs and cats. Vet. J.; 2019; 247, pp. 8-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2019.02.008]
9. Dotto, G.; Berlanda, M.; Pasotto, D.; Mondin, A.; Zambotto, G.; Menandro, M.L. Pets as potential carriers of multidrug- resistant Enterococcus faecium of significance to public health. New Microbiol.; 2018; 41, pp. 168-172.
10. Montgomery, M.P.; Robertson, S.; Koski, L.; Salehi, E.; Stevenson, L.M.; Silver, R.; Laughlin, M.E. Multidrug-Resistant Campylobacter jejuni Outbreak Linked to Puppy Exposure—United States, 2016–2018. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.; 2018; 67, pp. 1032-1035. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6737a3]
11. Veraldi, S.; Minuti, A. Severe Streptococcal Infection Following Cat Scratch. Wounds; 2018; 30, pp. 57-59.
12. Marques, C.; Menezes, J.; Belas, A.; Aboim, C.; Cavaco-Silva, P.; Trigueiro, G.; Telo Gama, L.; Pomba, C. Klebsiella pneumoniae causing urinary tract infections in companion animals and humans: Population structure, antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.; 2019; 74, pp. 594-602. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30535393][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dky499]
13. Schultz, E.; Haenni, M.; Mereghetti, L.; Siebor, E.; Neuwirth, C.; Madec, J.Y.; Cloeckaert, A.; Doublet, B. Survey of multidrug resistance integrative mobilizable ele- ments SGI1 and PGI1 in Proteus mirabilis in humans and dogs in France, 2010–2013. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.; 2016; 70, pp. 2543-2546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkv154] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26066582]
14. Johnson, J.R.; Clabots, C. Sharing of virulent Escherichia coli clones among household members of a woman with acute cystitis. Clin. Infect Dis.; 2006; 43, pp. e101-e108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/508541] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17051483]
15. Damborg, P.; Broens, E.M.; Chomel, B.B.; Guenther, S.; Pasmans, F.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Weese, J.S.; Wieler, L.H.; Windahl, U.; Vanrompay, D. et al. Bacterial zoonoses transmitted by household pets: State-of-the-Art and future perspectives for targeted research and policy actions. J. Comp. Pathol.; 2016; 155, (Suppl. S1), pp. S27-S40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2015.03.004]
16. Iannino, F.; Salucci, S.; Di Donato, G.; Badagliacca, P.; Vincifori, G.; Di Giannatale, E. Campylobacter and antimicrobial resistance in dogs and humans: “One health” in practice. Vet. Ital.; 2019; 30, pp. 203-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12834/VetIt.1161.6413.3]
17. Fonseca, J.D.; Mavrides, D.E.; Graham, P.A.; McHugh, T.D. Results of urinary bacterial cultures and antibiotic susceptibility testing of dogs and cats in the UK. J. Small Anim. Pract.; 2021; 62, pp. 1085-1091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13406]
18. Dorsch, R.; Teichmann-Knorrn, S.; Sjetne Lund, H. Urinary tract infection and subclinical bacteriuria in cats: A clinical update. J. Feline Med. Surg.; 2019; 21, pp. 1023-1038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098612X19880435]
19. Wong, C.; Epstein, S.E.; Westropp, J.L. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in urinary tract infections in dogs (2010–2013). J. Vet. Intern. Med.; 2015; 29, pp. 1045-1052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.13571] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26133165]
20. Westropp, J.L.; Sykes, J.E.; Irom, S.; Daniels, J.B.; Smith, A.; Keil, D.; Settje, T.; Wang, Y.; Chew, D.J. Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of High Dose Short Duration Enrofloxacin Treatment Regimen for Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Dogs. J. Vet. Intern. Med.; 2012; 26, pp. 506-512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2012.00914.x]
21. Thompson, M.F.; Litster, A.L.; Platell, J.L.; Trott, D.J. Canine bacterial urinary tract infections: New developments in old pathogens. Vet. J.; 2011; 190, pp. 22-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.11.013]
22. Marques, C.; Gama, L.T.; Belas, A.; Bergström, K.; Beurlet, S.; Briend-Marchal, A.; Broens, E.M.; Costa, M.; Criel, D.; Damborg, P. et al. European multicenter study on antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from companion animal urinary tract infections. BMC Vet. Res.; 2016; 12, 213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0840-3]
23. Moyaert, H.; Morrissey, I.; de Jong, A.; El Garch, F.; Klein, U.; Ludwig, C.; Thiry, J.; Youala, M. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Monitoring of Bacterial Pathogens Isolated from Urinary Tract Infections in Dogs and Cats Across Europe: ComPath Results. Microb. Drug Resist.; 2017; 23, pp. 391-403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/mdr.2016.0110]
24. Osugui, L.; de Castro, A.F.; Iovine, R.; Irino, K.; Carvalho, V.M. Virulence genotypes, antibiotic resistance and the phylogenetic background of extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from urinary tract infections of dogs and cats in Brazil. Vet. Microbiol.; 2014; 171, pp. 242-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.03.027]
25. Saputra, S.; Jordan, D.; Mitchell, T.; Wong, H.S.; Abraham, R.J.; Kidsley, A.; Turnidge, J.; Trott, D.J.; Abraham, S. Antimicrobial resistance in clinical Escherichia coli isolated from companion animals in Australia. Vet. Microbiol.; 2017; 211, pp. 43-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.09.014]
26. Amphaiphan, C.; Yano, T.; Som-In, M.; Kungwong, P.; Wongsawan, K.; Pusoonthornthum, R.; Salman, M.D.; Tangtrongsup, S. Antimicrobial drug resistance profile of isolated bacteria in dogs and cats with urologic problems at Chiang Mai University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Thailand (2012–2016). Zoonoses Public Health; 2021; 68, pp. 452-463. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zph.12832]
27. Rampacci, E.; Bottinelli, M.; Stefanetti, V.; Hyatt, D.R.; Sgariglia, E.; Coletti, M.; Passamonti, F. Antimicrobial susceptibility survey on bacterial agents of canine and feline urinary tract infections: Weight of the empirical treatment. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist.; 2018; 13, pp. 192-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2018.01.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29408407]
28. Leite-Martins, L.R.; Mahu, M.I.; Costa, A.L.; Mendes, A.; Lopes, E.; Mendonca, D.M.; Niza- Ribeiro, J.J.; de Matos, A.J.; da Costa, P.M. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in enteric Escherichia coli from domestic pets and assessment of associated risk markers using a generalized linear mixed model. Prev. Vet. Med.; 2014; 117, pp. 28-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.09.008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25294317]
29. Hernandez, J.; Bota, D.; Farbos, M.; Bernardin, F.; Ragetly, G.; Medaille, C. Risk factors for urinary tract infection with multiple drug-resistant Escherichia coli in cats. J. Feline Med. Surg.; 2014; 16, pp. 75-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098612X13504407] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24065707]
30. Ball, K.R.; Rubin, J.E.; Chirino-Trejo, M.; Dowling, P.M. Antimicrobial resistance and prevalence of canine uropathogens at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Teaching Hospital, 2002–2007. Can. Vet. J.; 2008; 49, pp. 985-990.
31. McMeekin, C.H.; Hill, K.E.; Gibson, I.R.; Bridges, J.P.; Benschop, J. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of bacteria isolated from canine urinary samples submitted to a New Zealand veterinary diagnostic laboratory between 2005–2012. N. Z. Vet. J.; 2017; 65, pp. 99-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2016.1259594] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842208]
32. KuKanich, K.; Lubbers, B.; Salgado, B. Amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate resistance in urinary Escherichia coli antibiograms of cats and dogs from the Midwestern United States. J. Vet. Intern. Med.; 2020; 34, pp. 227-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15674] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31777977]
33. Yudhanto, S.; Hung, C.C.; Maddox, C.W.; Varga, C. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Isolated From Canine Urine Samples Submitted to a Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Illinois, United States. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2022; 9, 867784. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.867784]
34. Darwich, L.; Seminati, C.; Burballa, A.; Nieto, A.; Durán, I.; Tarradas, N.; Molina-López, R.A. Antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial isolates from urinary tract infections in companion animals in Spain. Vet. Rec.; 2021; 188, e60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/vetr.60]
35. Teichmann-Knorrn, S.; Reese, S.; Wolf, G.; Hartmann, K.; Dorsch, R. Prevalence of feline urinary tract pathogens and antimicro- bial resistance over five years. Vet. Rec.; 2018; 183, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.104440]
36. Marques, C.; Belas, A.; Aboim, C.; Trigueiro, G.; Cavaco-Silva, P.; Gama, L.T.; Pomba, C. Clonal relatedness of Proteus mirabilis strains causing urinary tract infections in companion animals and humans. Vet. Microbiol.; 2019; 228, pp. 77-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.10.015]
37. Pomba, C.; Rantala, M.; Greko, C.; Baptiste, K.E.; Catry, B.; van Duijkeren, E.; Mateus, A.; Moreno, M.A.; Pyörälä, S.; Ružauskas, M. et al. Public health risk of antimicrobial resistance transfer from companion animals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.; 2017; 72, pp. 957-968. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkw481] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27999066]
38. Marques, C.; Belas, A.; Franco, A.; Aboim, C.; Gama, L.T.; Pomba, C. Increase in antimicrobial resistance and emergence of major international high-risk clonal lineages in dogs and cats with urinary tract infection: 16 year retrospective study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.; 2018; 73, pp. 377-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx401] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29136156]
39. Blondeau, L.D.; Rubin, J.E.; Deneer, H.; Kanthan, R.; Morrison, B.; Sanche, S.; Rypien, C.; Dueck, D.; Beck, G.; Blondeau, J. Persistent infection with Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in an adult oncology patient with transmission from a family dog. J. Chemother.; 2020; 32, pp. 151-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1120009X.2020.1735142]
40. Blondeau, L.D.; Deutscher, M.; Rubin, J.E.; Deneer, H.; Kanthan, R.; Sanche, S.; Blondeau, J.M. Urinary tract infection in a human male patient with Staphylococcus pseudintermedius transmission from the family dog. J. Chemother.; 2021; 34, pp. 133-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1120009X.2021.1995251]
41. Carroll, K.C.; Burnham, C.A.D.; Westblade, L.F. From canines to humans: Clinical importance of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. PLoS Pathog.; 2021; 17, e1009961. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1009961]
42. Ruan, X.L.; Qin, X.; Li, M. Nosocomial bloodstream infection pathogen Pantoea dispersa: A case report and literature review. J. Hosp. Infect; 2022; 127, pp. 77-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2022.06.011]
43. Su, Y.W.; Huang, W.H.; Yeh, C.F. Pantoea dispersa rhinosinusitis: Clinical aspects of a rare sinonasal pathogen. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.; 2022; 279, pp. 4389-4395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07266-1]
44. Yang, Y.; Hu, H.; Zhou, C.; Zhang, W.; Yu, Y.; Liu, Q.; Lu, T.; Zhang, Q. Characteristics and accurate identification of Pantoea dispersa with a case of spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma in China: A case report. Medicine; 2022; 101, e28541. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000028541] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35029210]
45. Lv, L.; Huang, X.; Wang, J.; Huang, Y.; Gao, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, J.; Guo, J.Y. et al. Multiple Plasmid Vectors Mediate the Spread of fosA3 in Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacterales Isolates from Retail Vegetables in China. mSphere; 2020; 5, e00507-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00507-20] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32669475]
46. Ballash, G.A.; Albers, A.L.; Mollenkopf, D.F.; Sechrist, E.; Adams, R.J.; Wittum, T.E. Antimicrobial resistant bacteria recovered from retail ground meat products in the US include a Raoultella ornithinolytica co-harboring blaKPC-2 and blaNDM-5. Sci. Rep.; 2021; 11, 14041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93362-x]
47. El-Shannat, S.M.; El-Tawab, A.A.A.; Hassan, W.M.M. Emergence of Raoultella ornithinolytica isolated from chicken products in Alexandria, Egypt. Vet. World; 2020; 13, pp. 1473-1479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2020.1473-1479]
48. Shah, D.H.; Board, M.M.; Crespo, R.; Guard, J.; Paul, N.C.; Faux, C. The occurrence of Salmonella, extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Escherichia coli and carbapenem resistant non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria in a backyard poultry flock environment. Zoonoses Public Health; 2020; 67, pp. 742-753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zph.12756] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32710700]
49. Pas, M.L.; Vanneste, K.; Bokma, J.; Van Driessche, L.; De Keersmaecker, S.C.J.; Roosens, N.H.; Haesebrouck, F.; Boyen, F.; Pardon, B. Case Report: Multidrug Resistant Raoultella ornithinolytica in a Septicemic Calf. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2021; 8, 631716. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.631716]
50. Loncaric, I.; Misic, D.; Szostak, M.P.; Künzel, F.; Schäfer-Somi, S.; Spergser, J. Broad-Spectrum Cephalosporin-Resistant and/or Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacterales Associated with Canine and Feline Urogenital Infections. Antibiotics; 2020; 7, 387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9070387]
51. Razali, K.; Kaidi, R.; Abdelli, A.; Menoueri, M.N.; Ait-Oudhia, K. Oral flora of stray dogs and cats in Algeria: Pasteurella and other zoonotic bacteria. Vet. World; 2020; 13, pp. 2806-2814. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2020.2806-2814]
52. Guillard, T.; Duval, V.; Jobart, R.; Brasme, L.; David, C.; de Champs, C.; Begin, M.; Dehoux, E. Dog bite wound infection by Pasteurella dagmatis misidentified as Pasteurella pneumotropica by automated system Vitek 2. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect Dis.; 2009; 65, pp. 347-348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2009.06.014] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765934]
53. Minton, E.J. Pasteurella pneumotropica: Meningitis following a dog bite. Postgrad. Med. J.; 1990; 66, pp. 125-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.66.772.125] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2349182]
54. Pintore, M.D.; Corbellini, D.; Chieppa, M.N.; Vallino Costassa, E.; Florio, C.L.; Varello, K.; Bozzetta, E.; Adriano, D.; Decaro, N.; Casalone, C. et al. Canine adenovirus type 1 and Pasteurella pneumotropica co-infection in a puppy. Vet. Ital.; 2016; 52, pp. 57-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12834/VetIt.270.934.1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27033531]
55. European Medicines Agency. Sales of Veterinary Antimicrobial Agents in 31 European Countries in 2019 and 2020; Eleventh Report An agency of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021; Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/sales-veterinary-antimicrobial-agents-31-european-countries-2019-2020-trends-2010-2020-eleventh_en.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2022).
56. World Health Organization. WHO List of Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human Medicine (WHO CIA List). Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241515528 (accessed on 30 September 2021).
57. Silva, J.M.D.; Menezes, J.; Marques, C.; Pomba, C.F. Companion Animals-An Overlooked and Misdiagnosed Reservoir of Carbapenem Resistance. Antibiotics; 2022; 11, 533. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11040533]
58. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Development of Quality Control Ranges, Breakpoints, and Interpretive Categories for Antimicrobial Agents Used in Veterinary Medicine, 4th ed. CLSI guideline VET02. Available online: https://clsi.org/media/u02pukia/vet02ed4_sample.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2022).
59. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters. 2021. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/eucast_news/news_singleview/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=416&cHash=0af950182d1dea8f854e2be8b11cbbe4 (accessed on 29 July 2022).
60. Stata Statistical Software; Release 16 StataCorp LLC.: College Station, TX, USA, 2019.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Evangelisti, Giulia 1
; Fani, Caterina 2 ; Marsilio, Fulvio 1
; Trotta, Michele 2 ; Messina, Francesca 2 ; Di Francesco, Cristina Esmeralda 1
1 Post-Graduation School of Animal Health, Breeding and Zootechnical Productions, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Teramo, Loc. Piano D’Accio, 64100 Teramo, Italy
2 CDVet Laboratorio Analisi Veterinarie, 00172 Rome, Italy