Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) colonisation and infection among livestock workers and veterinarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectivesMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an increasing public health concern worldwide. The objective of this study was to calculate a summary odds ratio (OR) of livestock-associated MRSA colonisation and infection in humans, and to determine specific risk factors in livestock production contributing to MRSA colonisation.MethodsWe screened PubMed and Embase for studies published from 2005 to 2019 inclusive, reporting livestock-associated (LA)-MRSA colonisation and infection among livestock workers/veterinarians, their families, and community members not regularly exposed to livestock. The primary outcome of interest was the OR of LA-MRSA colonisation comparing exposed and control groups. Quality was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was conducted to calculate a pooled OR. The heterogeneity in the meta-analysis was assessed using the I² method, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots.ResultsA total of 3490 studies were identified by the search, with 37 studies including 53 matched exposed-control groups and 14 038 participants eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled OR for LA-MRSA among livestock workers and veterinarians is 9.80 (95% CI 6.89 to 13.95; p=0.000; I2=73.4), with no significant publication bias (Egger’s p=0.66). The OR for swine workers was highest at 15.41 (95% CI 9.24 to 25.69), followed by cattle workers (11.62, 95% CI 4.60 to 29.36), veterinarians (7.63, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.74), horse workers (7.45, 95% CI 2.39 to 23.25), livestock workers (5.86, 95% CI 1.14 to 30.16), poultry workers (5.70, 95% CI 1.70 19.11), and industrial slaughterhouse workers (4.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 20.0).ConclusionsLivestock workers, particularly swine farmers, are at significantly higher risk for LA-MRSA colonisation and subsequent infection. These results support the need for preventive practices to reduce LA-MRSA risk among those who handle and treat livestock.Trial registration numberCRD42019120403.

Beyond CC398: Characterisation of Other Tetracycline and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Genetic Lineages Circulating in Spanish Hospitals

“…During the last decade, livestock have been considered to be a great reservoir of MRSA with high potential of zoonotic transmission to humans [ 3 ]. It has been observed that the spread of LA-MRSA from animals to humans occurs frequently and that livestock workers present a high risk for LA-MRSA colonisation and subsequent infection [ 4 ]. The abusive use of antimicrobials like tetracycline in food production animals leads to the selective pressure of tetracycline-resistant (Tet R ) LA-MRSA isolates [ 5 ].…”

First Report of a Methicillin-Resistant, High-Level Mupirocin-Resistant Staphylococcus argenteus

“…S. argenteus with different antibiotic resistance genes have been reported ( Aung et al., 2021 ; Eshaghi et al., 2021 ), including an isolate with elevated MIC (4µg/ml) to daptomycin and vancomycin in the United States ( Hao et al., 2020 ). Recent studies from China ( Chen and Wu, 2020 ) and Japan ( Wakabayashi et al., 2021 ) have also identified S. argenteus from retail foods and an emerging bovine mastitis pathogen in Thailand ( Pumipuntu, 2019 ). We could not ascertain if the study individual received mupirocin or not.…”

Antiviral Efficacy of Metal and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles against the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus

“…As a final element to this study, the utility of the selected AVNP was assessed further by evaluating their activity against the bacterium S. aureus . Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) occurs widely in pig populations globally, and while colonization alone does not cause disease in pigs, it is of great public health importance [ 35 , 36 ]. AVNP2, CuNP, and CuONP all showed bactericidal activity against the three S. aureus strains tested, whilst WCNP showed no bactericidal effect at any of the concentrations tested.…”