OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the virulence determinants and antimicrobial resistance in S. Brancaster isolated from chickens in Malaysia.
METHODS: One hundred strains of archived S. Brancaster isolated from chicken cloacal swabs and raw chicken meat from 2017 to 2022 were studied. Two sets of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were conducted to identify eight virulence genes associated with pathogenicity in Salmonella (invasion protein gene [invA], Salmonella invasion protein gene [sipB], Salmonella-induced filament gene [sifA], cytolethal-distending toxin B gene [cdtB], Salmonella iron transporter gene [sitC], Salmonella pathogenicity islands gene [spiA], Salmonella plasmid virulence gene [spvB], and inositol phosphate phosphatase gene [sopB]). Antimicrobial susceptibility assessment was conducted by disc diffusion method on nine selected antibiotics for the S. Brancaster isolates. S. Brancaster, with the phenotypic ACSSuT-resistance pattern (ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, sulphonamides, and tetracycline), was subjected to PCR to detect the corresponding resistance gene(s).
RESULTS: Virulence genes detected in S. Brancaster in this study were invA, sitC, spiA, sipB, sopB, sifA, cdtB, and spvB. A total of 36 antibiogram patterns of S. Brancaster with a high level of multidrug resistance were observed, with ampicillin exhibiting the highest resistance. Over a third of the isolates displayed ACSSuT-resistance, and seven resistance genes (β-lactamase temoneira [blaTEM], florfenicol/chloramphenicol resistance gene [floR], streptomycin resistance gene [strA], aminoglycoside nucleotidyltransferase gene [ant(3″)-Ia], sulfonamides resistance gene [sul-1, sul-2], and tetracycline resistance gene [tetA]) were detected.
CONCLUSION: Multidrug-resistant S. Brancaster from chickens harbored an array of virulence-associated genes similar to other clinically significant and invasive non-typhoidal Salmonella serovars, placing it as another significant foodborne zoonosis.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additional articles were located through cross-checking of the references list and bibliography citations of the included studies and previous review papers. We included intervention studies with controlled or baseline comparison groups that were conducted in primary care practices or the community, targeted at adult populations (randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials with controlled groups and pre- and post-intervention studies). The interventions were targeted either at individuals, communities, health care professionals or the health-care system. The main outcome of interest was the relative risk (RR) of screening uptake rates due to the intervention.
RESULTS: We included 21 studies in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias for randomization was low to medium in the randomized controlled trials, except for one, and high in the non-randomized trials. Two analyses were performed; optimistic (using the highest effect sizes) and pessimistic (using the lowest effect sizes). Overall, interventions were shown to increase the uptake of screening for CVD risk factors (RR 1.443; 95% CI 1.264 to 1.648 for pessimistic analysis and RR 1.680; 95% CI 1.420 to 1.988 for optimistic analysis). Effective interventions that increased screening participation included: use of physician reminders (RR ranged between 1.392; 95% CI 1.192 to 1.625, and 1.471; 95% CI 1.304 to 1.660), use of dedicated personnel (RR ranged between 1.510; 95% CI 1.014 to 2.247, and 2.536; 95% CI 1.297 to 4.960) and provision of financial incentives for screening (RR 1.462; 95% CI 1.068 to 2.000). Meta-regression analysis showed that the effect of CVD risk factors screening uptake was not associated with study design, types of population nor types of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions using physician reminders, using dedicated personnel to deliver screening, and provision of financial incentives were found to be effective in increasing CVD risk factors screening uptake.