The widespread and indiscriminate use of antimicrobials in food animals is a key contributor to antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial residue, which have become a growing public and animal health concern in developing countries such as Bangladesh. This study was aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) of large-animal farmers towards antimicrobial use (AMU), antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and antimicrobial residue (AR) with their correlation. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a structured and pretested questionnaire in the Mymensingh division of Bangladesh. A total of 212 large-animal farmers (dairy, beef fattening, buffalo, sheep, and goat farmers) were surveyed. Results showed that most of the farmers are male (85.8%) and belong to the 18–30 age group (37.3%). About 20.3% had no formal education, and nearly half of the participants (48.1%) received training regarding antibiotic use and resistance. Penicillin is the most common class of antibiotic used (61.8%) in the study area, followed by other antimicrobials. Only 37.7% of the farmers used antimicrobials on the recommendation of their veterinarian. Overall, 41.5%, 42.5%, and 21.7% of farmers possess adequate knowledge and a satisfactory attitude and perform desirable practices, respectively. Farmers in the 31–40 age group have adequate knowledge, attitude, and ability to implement desired practices compared to farmers in the 18–30 age group. Farmers having a graduate or post-graduate degree scored better in relation to knowledge, attitude, and practice than other farmers. Analysis revealed that farmers who received training on AMU and AMR had 10.014 times (OR = 10.014, 95% CIs: 5.252–19.094), 9.409 times (OR = 9.409, 95% CIs: 4.972–17.806), and 25.994 times (OR = 25.994, 95% CIs: 7.73–87.414) better knowledge, attitude, and performance, respectively, compared to their counterparts. A significant proportion of farmers (97.2%) dispose of leftover antibiotics inappropriately. The findings of the present study will be used to intervene in the education and training of the farmers, which will help to limit the indiscriminate and irrational use of antimicrobials, leading to reducing the chances of developing AMR.

The poultry industry has grown so fast alongside the irrational use of antibiotics to maximize profit and make the production cost-effective during the last few decades. The rising and indiscriminate use of antibiotics might result in the deposition of residues in poultry food products and in the development of resistance to these drugs by microorganisms. Therefore, many diseases are becoming difficult to treat both in humans and animals. In addition, the use of low-dose antibiotics as growth enhancer results in antibiotic residues in food products, which have detrimental effects on human health. On the other hand, many studies have shown that antibiotics administered to poultry and livestock are poorly absorbed through the gut and usually excreted without metabolism. These excreted antibiotics eventually accumulate in the environment and enter the human food chain, resulting in the bioaccumulation of drug residues in the human body. In this regard, to find out alternatives is of paramount importance for the production of safe meat and egg. Therefore, in recent years, much research attention was disarticulated toward the exploration for alternatives to antibiotic as in-feed growth enhancers after its ban by the EU. As a result, probiotics, prebiotics, phytobiotics, spirulina, symbiotic, and their combination are being used more frequently in poultry production. Feed additives therefore gained popularity in poultry production by having many advantages but without any residues in poultry products. In addition, numerous studies demonstrating that such biological supplements compete with antimicrobial resistance have been conducted. Therefore, the purpose of this review article was to highlight the advantages of using biological products instead of antibiotics as poultry in-feed growth enhancers to enhance the production performance, reduce intestinal pathogenic bacteria, and maintain gut health, potentiating the immune response, safety, and wholesomeness of meat and eggs as evidence of consumer protection, as well as to improve the safety of poultry products for human consumption.

Many of the Vibrio spp. are major public health concerns globally. Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio parahaemolyticus are the etiology of pandemic and epidemic diarrhea and foodborne illness, respectively. Poultry has the potential to harbor pathogenic Vibrio spp., which can have a detrimental impact on public health if they are transmitted to humans. We, therefore, screened 54 cloacal swab samples from healthy chickens (broiler=27, backyard= 27) to detect V. cholerae and V. parahaemolyticus. Vibrio spp. were isolated and identified by culturing, biochemical tests, PCR, and antibiogram profiles were determined by disk diffusion method. By PCR, 29.63% (16/54; 95% CI: 19.14-42.83%) samples were positive for Vibrio spp., where backyard chickens had a significantly higher (p< 0.05) occurrence (44.44%; 27.59-62.69%) than broilers (14.82%; 95% CI: 5.92-32.48%). V. parahaemolyticus was found in 22.22% (6/27; 95% CI: 10.61-40.76%) of backyard chicken samples, which was significantly dominant (p< 0.05) than in broilers (0/27, 0%, 95% CI: 0.00-12.46%). In addition, V. cholerae was positive in 7.41% (2/27; 95% CI: 1.32-23.37%) of broiler, and 14.82% (4/27; 95% CI: 5.92-32.48%) of backyard chicken samples. The toxR gene was found in all V. cholerae isolates, suggesting the presence of other virulence genes, whereas no isolates of V. parahaemolyticus contained the tdh gene. Isolated Vibrio spp. had high to moderate resistance to tetracycline, azithromycin, erythromycin, and streptomycin. The occurrence of antibiotic-resistant V. cholerae and V. parahaemolyticus in broiler and backyard chickens is of public health concern because of the possibility of food chain contamination

Background: From May to December 2021, Bangladesh experienced a major surge in the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. The earlier rollout of several vaccines offered the opportunity to evaluate vaccine effectiveness against this variant. Methods: A prospective, test-negative case-control study was conducted in five large hospitals in Dhaka between September and December 2021. The subjects were patients of at least 18 years of age who presented themselves for care, suffering COVID-like symptoms of less than 10 days’ duration. The cases had PCR-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2, and up to 4 PCR test-negative controls were matched to each case, according to hospital, date of presentation, and age. Vaccine protection was assessed as being the association between the receipt of a complete course of vaccine and the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 disease, with symptoms beginning at least 14 days after the final vaccine dose. Results: In total, 313 cases were matched to 1,196 controls. The genotyping of case isolates revealed 99.6% to be the Delta variant. Receipt of any vaccine was associated with 12% (95% CI: −21 to 37, p = 0.423) protection against all episodes of SARS-CoV-2. Among the three vaccines for which protection was evaluable (Moderna (mRNA-1273); Sinopharm (Vero Cell-Inactivated); Serum Institute of India (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19)), only the Moderna vaccine was associated with significant protection (64%; 95% CI: 10 to 86, p = 0.029). Protection by the receipt of any vaccine against severe disease was 85% (95% CI: 27 to 97, p = 0.019), with protection estimates of 75% to 100% for the three vaccines. Conclusions: Vaccine protection against COVID-19 disease of any severity caused by the Delta variant was modest in magnitude and significant for only one of the three evaluable vaccines. In contrast, protection against severe disease was high in magnitude and consistent for all three vaccines. Because our findings are not in complete accord with evaluations of the same vaccines in more affluent settings, our study underscores the need for country-level COVID-19 vaccine evaluations in developing countries.

No abstract