Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial‐resistant Escherichia coli in dogs and cats, horses, swine, poultry, cattle, sheep and goats

Abstract

Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial‐resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for dogs and cats, horses, swine, poultry, cattle, sheep and goats in previous scientific opinions. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR E. coli can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–66% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Categories A, B, C and D; 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–33% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Section 5 (Category E, 33–66% probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for AMR E. coli according to Article 8 criteria include mammals, birds, reptiles and fish.

Swine Colibacillosis: Global Epidemiologic and Antimicrobial Scenario

“…Therefore, this review is focused on ETEC due to its high pathogenicity in porcine, being the one responsible for the most cases, in number and severity, of swine enteric colibacillosis. Besides that, ETEC was classified as the most important multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria in pig production by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [ 7 ]. Hence, in the following subchapter, the mechanisms of virulence and the pathogenesis for ETEC are detailed.…”

“…E. coli is both a harmless commensal bacterium in the intestines of several mammals, as well as a dangerous pathogen [ 5 ]. Still, a small proportion of strains are pathogenic and can cause severe to life-threatening intestinal and extra-intestinal infections in humans and animals [ 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. The pathogenicity of the strains is characterized by the presence of certain virulence factor combinations in particular adhesins and toxin secretions.…”

“…Enteric colibacillosis in swine is related to high morbidity and mortality [ 1 , 14 ]. It has been reported that mortality can reach up to 70% in neonatal piglets with severe watery diarrhea, 1.5–2% in post-weaned and/or grow-finish pigs with moderate diarrhea, and up to 25% in untreated pigs with severe to moderate diarrhea [ 1 , 7 ]. In fact, this remarkable swine infection is widespread, taking place in both industrialized and developing countries and in temperate, subtropical, and tropical climates [ 1 , 14 ].…”

“…Interestingly, it was already shown that ETEC strains were present in 16.6% of non-diarrhoeic pigs during the piglets’ suckling period, 66% in the nursery phase, and 17.3% in the finisher population. Furthermore, ETEC strains can be shed in the feces of healthy pigs [ 2 , 7 ].…”

Dog Owners’ Attitude toward Veterinary Antibiotic Use and Antibiotic Resistance with a Focus on Canine Diarrhea Management

“…Resistance is problematic in many pathogens and commensals of canine origin, including staphylococci, enterococci, Escherichia coli , and Salmonella [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. For instance, in a study performed by Elnageh et al [ 8 ], 13 out of 38 staphylococci isolated from 151 pets were identified as methicillin-resistant.…”