Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A bottom-up view of antimicrobial resistance transmission in developing countries

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is tracked most closely in clinical settings and high-income countries. However, resistant organisms thrive globally and are transmitted to and from healthy humans, animals and the environment, particularly in many low- and middle-income settings. The overall public health and clinical significance of these transmission opportunities remain to be completely clarified. There is thus considerable global interest in promoting a One Health view of AMR to enable a more realistic understanding of its ecology. In reality, AMR surveillance outside hospitals remains insufficient and it has been very challenging to convincingly document transmission at the interfaces between clinical specimens and other niches. In this Review, we describe AMR and its transmission in low- and middle-income-country settings, emphasizing high-risk transmission points such as urban settings and food-animal handling. In urban and food production settings, top-down and infrastructure-dependent interventions against AMR that require strong regulatory oversight are less likely to curtail transmission when used alone and should be combined with bottom-up AMR-containment approaches. We observe that the power of genomics to expose transmission channels and hotspots is largely unharnessed, and that existing and upcoming technological innovations need to be exploited towards containing AMR in low- and middle-income settings.

Main

The ability of microbes to resist the effect of antimicrobials meant to inhibit their growth or kill them currently threatens humans with a dark age where common minor infections could be potentially deadly. The fallout of bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) impacts heavily on global mortality, morbidity and economy, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where uncontrolled access to potentially life-saving drugs is expanding1. In 2019, bacterial antimicrobial resistance was associated with an estimated 4.95 million deaths globally1. Annual treatment costs arising from antimicrobial resistance are estimated at US$4.6 billion in the United States alone2. As a recent study1 on the global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019 showed, the AMR burden in that year was highest in sub-Saharan Africa and higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in East Asia, Australasia and Western Europe, with species of One Health importance in their transmission accounting for the highest attributable mortality. Rising selective pressure from judicious and injudicious use, as well as from disposal of antimicrobial waste, underpins much of the AMR crisis but is only one evolutionary driver. Bacteria carrying resistance genes on mobile genetic elements, which are capable of transposition within and between bacterial species, can be selected by other forces and are difficult to contain when their transmission is assured. The contribution of transmission to the evolution of resistance has received scant attention as the focus is often on the very visible impact of AMR in human clinical settings. However, outside health facilities, resistant organisms rarely move directly from one sick person to another. Instead, they circulate undetected among healthy and sick humans, domesticated and wild animal populations, and the environment3,4,5,6. In all these niches, some of which are hotspots of varied selective pressures due to the accumulation of antimicrobial waste, new resistant clones evolve and resistance genes and elements are disseminated among co-habiting species7. In this review, we examine AMR across the human-animal-environment continuum in LMIC settings. We overview the scope of the problem, highlight instances where resistance transmission has and has not been evidenced, and make a case for interrogating transmission in LMICs using genomic approaches. We also outline interventions that might be especially valuable for containing AMR spread.

Transmission of resistant bacteria among humans is rife and worsening

Low-income settings with poor access to antimicrobials and dense transmission networks have recorded AMR prevalence rates greater than 50%8. Rapid population growth and urbanization in LMICs can promote resistance by increasing bacterial transmission and access to antimicrobials9. In these informal and unplanned urban settings, subsistence strategies that maximize resource extraction, as well as shortfalls in regulatory oversight for water and sanitation10 converge to amplify the transmission risk among humans, animals and their environment (Fig. 1). Eliminating resistance reservoirs and breaking transmission chains will stem the spread of pathogens, thereby reducing the need for antimicrobials11. Resistant bacteria and mobile elements selected in people, livestock, pets or pests are transferred among individuals or voided into sewage systems, underground soak-aways, pit latrines, drains or open spaces from where they can be acquired by wildlife or seep into irrigation, household and even drinking water, thereby creating hotspots for the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Few studies examine these One Health niches or their connections, but worryingly high resistance levels have been recorded in all of them12,13,14. For example, only three Medline-indexed studies – all sampling ≤100 latrines – published before December 2021 reported antimicrobial resistance in pit latrines, a sanitation system predominant in many LMIC settings. In all three studies, >75% of the Escherichia coli isolates were resistant to at least one antimicrobial, while >45% were resistant to three or more of the tested antimicrobials; the two studies that searched for isolates carrying extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes found them15,16,17.

Fig. 1: Common practices in low-resource settings that can exacerbate the transmission of antimicrobial resistance.
figure 1

Shortfalls in water, sanitation and hygiene, unregulated food production and economic pressures to maximize extraction from limited resources promote practices that exacerbate faeco-oral transmission of resistant organisms and resistance genes in many LMIC settings.

AMR in LMIC food-animal-related bacteria

While there are several published LMIC meta-analyses on resistant bacteria from humans18,19,20, there is less synthesized information from non-human niches. Perhaps the most comprehensive systematic review is the study of Van Boeckel et al.21 and its accompanying database (https://resistancebank.org/), which focuses on food animals. Food animals are hosts to resistant bacteria from other animals, their human handlers and the environment, and can potentially disseminate these bacteria to human consumers22,23.

Van Boeckel and colleagues21 used point surveillance data from 901 LMIC-based studies from 2000 to 2018 to report global trends of AMR in animals in LMICs for common indicator pathogens such as E. coli, Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp. and S. aureus. These species are important not only in AMR in animal production but also in human infections24. The study revealed a 173% increase in the proportion of antimicrobials with resistance rates greater than 50% (P50) in chickens (0.15 to 0.41), including a 161.5% and 91.7% increase in P50 in pigs (0.13 to 0.34) and cattle (0.12 and 0.23). Hotspots of AMR (P50 > 0.4) were reported in parts of Asia (India, China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Vietnam), South America (Brazil, Mexico) and Africa (Egypt, South Africa), whereas AMR emergence was reported in Kenya, Morocco, Uruguay, southern Brazil, central India and southern China. Commonly used antimicrobials in animal rearing, such as penicillins, sulfonamides and tetracyclines, recorded the highest resistance rates. For instance, the study reported quinolone and gentamicin resistance to be between 20–60% among E. coli, and 5–38% among Salmonella spp. The highest resistance rates to antimicrobials in Campylobacter were reported for tetracyclines and quinolones (both 60%). In S. aureus, the highest resistance rates were associated with penicillins (40–80%), whereas it was between 20–60% for tetracyclines, oxacillins and erythromycin antimicrobials. These findings emphasize the rapid increase in antimicrobial resistance in the food-animal sector in LMICs and highlight it as a sector deserving closer attention due to its high importance and sensitive position as a critical crossover point for resistance transmission.

Animal–human routes of AMR spread

An estimated 60% of all human pathogens and 75% of emerging diseases affecting humans are zoonotic (https://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665.1/13654/9789290618171-eng.pdf). Human–animal interactions are increasing, raising the risk for zoonotic infections25,26 and the subsequent emergence of resistant pathogens. In many LMICs, antimicrobials, which are poorly stewarded and easily obtained over the counter, are introduced as food additives for disease prophylaxis, metaphylaxis and growth promotion in aquaculture, poultry and livestock27,28,29. The quantity of antimicrobials used in animal production is predicted to increase by 11.5% between 2017 and 203030. However, there are few or no reports on the sale of veterinary antimicrobials in African countries30 despite indiscriminate and high usage of antimicrobials in animals in LMICs31.

Since initial discovery in animal and human isolates in southern China in 2015, and coincident with intense colistin use in agriculture, ten mobile colistin resistance (mcr) gene variants have been described in over 40 countries across five continents32,33,34. Also, the recently reported existence of the mobile tet(X3) and tet(X4) genes among isolates from food animals and humans in China and elsewhere further limits the efficacy of last-resort antibiotics and underscores the imminent global health threat35,36. Existing reports predominantly highlight the dissemination of resistance from animals to humans, but humans also represent reservoirs for the transmission of AMR to animals26. For instance, Lowder et al.37 described a single human-to-avian jump of S. aureus CC5, which acquired mutations adaptive to the avian niche and was subsequently disseminated around the world in poultry. Following the first report of the human mcr-1 gene in Algeria, the gene was soon detected in Barbary macaques38. Similarly, the human epidemic ST22 methicillin-resistant S. aureus SCCmec IV clone is concurrently occurring in swine and primates39. The exposure of animals to human waste and the poor sanitation and hygiene associated with food-animal handlers in farms, retail shops and slaughterhouses are important contributors to the spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens among animals40.

In animal production operations in LMICs, sanitation, antimicrobial usage, animal overcrowding, lack of human protective gear and other farm management practices are important risk factors29,41,42. Moser et al.43 reported that 429 (69.3%) birds from small-scale farms in Ecuador yielded multidrug-resistant isolates, compared with 58 (15.3%) birds in non-production villages. In that study, the increased prevalence of phenotypic antibiotic resistance and mobile genetic element markers in small-scale and household poultry in Ecuador were associated with confined spacing of birds and lacing of animal feed with antibiotics. Cleaning and wiping down farm equipment and sanitary disposal of dead birds were protective against Salmonella in farms, whereas a high bird density increased the risk of Salmonella detection in two Colombian state departments for poultry farming42.

Disposal of human and animal waste close to human residences and farms is common and, indeed, inevitable in resource-limited settings with inadequate or unsafe sanitation41. This practice allows bacteria, including resistant ones, to filter into groundwater or onto produce. It also attracts insects such as houseflies and cockroaches, which are efficient carriers of multidrug-resistant bacteria44,45. In addition, without intervention, antimicrobials used in agricultural practices invariably run off into other soil and water ecosystems, eventually reaching human populations and scavenging wildlife46,47,48. Thus, even among wildlife, AMR is usually reflective of human anthropogenic activities49,50. Close interaction among the animal-human-environment tripod facilitates varied heterogeneous routes of AMR spread and can foster the amplification of novel AMR hotspots.

Genomic approaches for mapping transmission across the One Health continuum

There are multiple retrospective records of cross-species or cross-niche bacterial lineages37,51,52. However, recent studies that have set out to prospectively compare lineages from animals with those from humans have found surprisingly few common clones, engendering the suspicion that concerns about transmission of resistance among humans, animals and the environment may be overblown3,51,53,54,55. Why is this? Successful bacterial transfer across species could be uncommon overall but become significant and visible in the face of selective advantage or when there are numerous crossover opportunities52. Alternatively, carriage by some species disseminating resistant organisms may be common but transient, but not without consequence, and therefore difficult to detect in the mainly cross-sectional surveys unless further adaptive evolution follows56. Many studies focus on hypotheses defining the movement of resistant bacteria towards humans and assume short paths of transfer, and therefore bias study design accordingly. However, more open multidirectional or circular models of transmission involving one or more intermediate hosts may be in play. Moreover, the transfer of bacterial lineages may be less significant than the movement of mobile elements and genes, which is harder to detect and confirm57.

The probability of any of these scenarios occurring in LMIC settings is probably higher than elsewhere, but fewer investigations have been conducted outside Europe and North America, and LMIC studies need to use methods more likely to detect transmission when it is uncommon. Methods based on whole-genome sequencing provide the necessary granularity to rule in or out the inter-host transmission or other niche-entry events52,53. With falling sequencing costs and improved methods for designing and interpreting metagenomic studies, approaches that could identify crossover points and determine their frequency may now be within reach. However, One Health genomic studies are few and far between in LMICs; the often large and diverse specimen collections needed for this type of study preclude the helicopter and postal research approaches that accounted for most of the LMIC-derived bacterial genomes at the turn of the century58. Today, the higher cost of sequencing overall in these resource-limited settings continues to present challenges to implementing a study sensitive enough to determine whether, when and how resistant organisms, elements or genes cross from one niche to another. However, as summarized in Box 1, when transmission is intensively occurring, the potential for capturing informative snapshots is high.

LMIC-specific features of the livestock industry exacerbating resistance transmission

In LMICs, the variety of livestock production systems generate much greater contact between humans, animals and the natural environment than in high-income countries (HICs). Agricultural employment represents less than 5% of total employment in HICs but reached 23% in the Philippines, 30% in Ecuador, 54% in Kenya, and up to 86% in Burundi in 2019 (https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/employment_in_agriculture/). Urban subsistence farming is rare in HICs but common in LMIC settings, including informal settlements. Biosecurity measures that mitigate sanitary risks in high-income settings require capital expenditure and higher technical skills, and are often not implemented in LMICs, particularly in smallholder/subsistence farming systems, which represent up to 80% of the production in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_SMALLHOLDERS.pdf). Larger contacts between livestock and humans in LMICs than in HICs can be evidenced along the entire food system value chain, as illustrated by the central place that live and wet markets play in the commercialization of livestock and the access to food in Asia and Africa59 (Fig. 1).

Informal livestock trade in LMICs exacerbates the risk of resistance transmission. Informal trade cannot, by definition, be easily and precisely assessed; however, some evidence-based evaluations suggested that the proportion of informal livestock trade in LMICs is significant. For example, informal trade in live cattle from India to Bangladesh was estimated at US$620 to 660 million per year in 2018, and the year before that, 70% of frozen chicken trade in Nigeria was assessed as informal60. Similarly, an evaluation by the Colombian Federation of Cattle producers (FEDEGAN) found that 62% of the national cattle production in 2018 was commercialized through informal channels (https://www.fedegan.org.co/noticias/ganaderia-colombiana-hoja-de-ruta-2018-2022). On one hand, informal livestock trade in LMICs offers small-to-medium benefits such as improved food security, reduced price instability, employment opportunities and avoidance of large, multiregional foodborne outbreaks. On the other hand, it undermines the possibility of sanitary inspections and the overall effective governance of value chains11.

The third critical LMIC pattern that exacerbates the risks of resistance transmission from livestock is limited access to veterinary services. In a recent survey in five African countries (Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe)61, the veterinarian-to-livestock ratio was shown to be on average 20 times lower than in HICs such as Denmark, France, Spain and the United States. The World Organization for Animal Health, formerly the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), has launched a global initiative to assess and improve the level of performance of national veterinary services (https://www.oie.int/app/uploads/2021/03/2019-pvs-tool-final.pdf). Poor animal health services stemming from inadequate access to veterinary resources are precursors to the misuse of antimicrobials for prophylaxis or as feed additives, including the poor institution of proper farm biosecurity and other animal health infrastructures in animal rearing62 (https://www.oie.int/app/uploads/2021/03/en-oie-amrstrategy.pdf). On the other hand, even when veterinary services are available, the high reliance on cultural and historical perspectives in animal rearing practices by animal handlers, as with the Maasai pastoralists in Tanzania, may mean that veterinary professionals are not consulted or are consulted only as a last resort63.

The importance of country-owned and developed national action plans to combat AMR using appropriately tailored interventions cannot be overstated. Indeed, the typical practice of modelling LMIC action plans on HIC templates may account for the understatement, or in many cases complete absence of key transmission-blocking interventions, such as water sanitation and hygiene (WASH)64. In our opinion, many other National Action Plan (NAP) pillars under-exploit opportunities for impact because they prioritize top-down interventions aimed at combatting resistance in high-income settings that may not always be suitable for or effective in other parts of the world (Table 1). In HICs, the top-down implementation of One Health AMR interventions has the benefits of speed, leverage and scale within specific socio-economic and regulatory environments65. In the complex systems of livestock sectors in LMICs, a top-down approach is less likely to succeed. The multitude of contacts between animals and humans, the large informal livestock trade and the deficiency of veterinary services require integrated top-down and bottom-up national action planning and implementation of interventions that may be less prone to failure where regulation is not strong61.

Table 1 The principal NAP pillars remain to be exploited in ways that could address LMIC transmission, particularly in One Health contexts

AMR is a complex problem, and its development has the characteristics of nonlinearity, emergence, positive and negative feedback, and adaptation that are particularly prominent in LMICs. The stakes for resistance are higher and the value chain is uncertain in LMICs. These, combined with the high uncertainty from limited surveillance and the urgent need to avoid catastrophe from resistance, necessitate a post-normal science approach66 for addressing resistance in a One Health context.

Technological tools with promise for addressing resistance transmission

There is considerable academic interest but a lack of general appreciation and clear translational paths for promising technologies for preventing resistance transmission. Given that the development of new antibiotics has stalled globally in the last few decades67 and new drugs are typically only available in LMIC settings after a lag, anti-transmission tools and approaches deserve serious consideration. Technological tools with the potential to contain the spread of resistance, such as bottom-up approaches to directly prevent transmission, may have greater potential in LMIC settings.

Infection control and prevention measures present arguably the most feasible and cost-effective approaches to limiting the evolution and spread of antibiotic-resistant microbes in any setting68. With reduced prevalence of infections, antimicrobial use can be limited, consequently reducing the selection pressure and evolution of resistant organisms. Vaccines do exactly this; they are typically administered prophylactically to prevent microbial infections in humans and animals. Although vaccines also exert selective pressure on microorganisms, there is a reduced risk of evolution of resistance to vaccines compared with antibiotics69. Additionally, when vaccine resistance does occur, public health benefits such as herd immunity and reduced prevalence of infectious organisms are often sustained. In addition to lowering infectious burden and the need for antimicrobials, vaccines can also directly address resistance and, in particular, the contribution that transmission makes to resistance spread, by preferentially targeting resistant lineages of bacteria (as with polyvalent pneumococcal vaccines, which are the textbook example of how vaccines can temper resistance) or by specifically targeting antigens associated with AMR70.

Vaccine development has seen a recent resurgence, with more and newer technologies applied71. A bioconjugate vaccine (ExPEC4V) against extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC), which are among the leading causes of life-threatening invasive drug-resistant infections in humans72, is currently under development by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. This vaccine has been shown in clinical trials to be well-tolerated, safe and capable of eliciting robust immunological responses against all tested ExPEC serotypes, many of which are antimicrobial resistant73,74. ExPEC are disseminated faeco-orally and are also reservoirs for resistance genes that can be transmitted to other pathogens in the guts of humans and animals, as well as in the environment. Therefore, ExPEC vaccines in development may have beneficial effects on the prevalence of resistance, although yet to be demonstrated, and existing vaccines targeting organisms that colonize animate and inanimate niches could offer similar benefits (Box 2).

Antimicrobial misuse is driven by ineffective diagnostic stewardship75. Lack of access to essential diagnostics, shortage of skilled laboratory personnel, and high cost and long turn-around times exacerbate diagnostic insufficiency in LMICs76,77. The common practice for the management of infections in low-resource settings involves symptom-based and endemicity-guided diagnosis, and the subsequent prescription of broad-spectrum antimicrobials for unconfirmed infections76,78. A recent study in a tertiary health facility in Nigeria found that under 25% of the patients who received prescribed antibiotics had confirmed bacterial infections79. The proportion of patients for whom antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is conducted is often lower. Culture-based AST, the cornerstone of bacterial infection and resistance detection, works well in many settings but its turn-around time is long and some LMIC institutions caring for infected patients lack the requisite personnel and infrastructure. However, culture-based AST is critical to identifying novel mechanisms of resistance, which are periodically reported from LMICs with better surveillance. Cases in point are the discovery of mobile elements conferring resistance against reserve antimicrobials, noteworthily including mcr-1 and tetX alleles in China32,33,35, and NDM-1 in India80, all of which have subsequently been shown to be globally disseminated. The development of rapid point-of-care pathogen detection and AST platforms to increase access and affordability, lower the skill barrier for diagnostic stewardship and decrease turn-around times would greatly limit the empirical administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics and also reduce transmission of resistant bacteria from undiagnosed patients81. New clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas-based diagnostic technology appears to be promising for the development of rapid point-of-care pathogen detection82.

Non-antibacterial approaches to eliminating pathogenic and non-pathogenic resistant bacteria are needed and could be used in humans, animals and even the environment. Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies have been explored, albeit with modest results83. Promising lower-cost therapeutic approaches include the use of bacteriophages, probiotics, synthetic peptides and nanostructured polymeric materials. Metal nanoparticles are being explored for use as self-sterilizing coatings for medical devices, as well as for controlled antibiotic and antibody release for treatment and prevention of biofilm- and medical device-associated infections84. Phage therapy has the advantages of being highly specific to the target bacteria, non-toxic to the host and can be administered in small doses. This may be desirable in LMICs where the use of unprescribed, non-targeted antimicrobials is common, thus reducing transmission and evolution of resistance. Although phage therapies are also amenable to bacterial phage resistance71,85 and require diagnostic proficiency to sub-type level, the approach still offers the potential for propagative effects outside the sick host that could help stem transmission, something that probiotics might also offer.

Alternative growth promoters and feed additives such as probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics86, lactic acid bacteria and bacteriocins87, organic acids88, vitamins and minerals89 have been recommended to greatly improve food-animal health and production. For example, probiotics and prebiotics stimulate commensal flora growth and improve animal health and immune status86,90. Probiotics aid the neutralization of enterotoxins and necrotizing enterocolitis86. Varying levels of success have been reported for these feed additives and more research is required to support their use as alternatives to antibiotics. These could augment sanitary interventions in animal production facilities in LMICs to reduce the underappreciated impact of animal faeces as an AMR vehicle and reduce threats to human health not covered by conventional WASH programmes91. The potential that probiotics could offer for human health is under investigation, but their impact on resistance does not appear to have been intensively studied. It is also worth hypothesizing, albeit as yet untested, that probiotic or other non-antimicrobial tools could offer an alternative to mass drug administration for child survival92, indirectly ameliorating the potential abuse of antimicrobials.

Antimicrobials proffer strong selective pressure by killing the bacteria they attack or at least inhibiting their growth. Compounds that inhibit virulence or colonization factors would presumably have a lower selection for resistance and a few are in development93. As with many anti-transmission technologies, questions remain about how they could be used therapeutically. Potentially useful tools against resistant bacteria might not be able to scale a non-inferiority clinical trial against an antimicrobial, posing a regulator barrier to their use67. It has been proposed that anti-virulence agents be trialled in combination with existing antibiotics. However, anti-colonization factors, in particular, could have the added benefit of dislodging resistance reservoirs, and the design of studies that include resistance reduction endpoints is worthy of consideration. Also, the use of anti-transmission approaches outside clinical medicine will not require clinical trials. Other technological tools that could impact the transmission of resistance and therefore have potential applications in the settings we have described include agents that inhibit horizontal gene transfer. These include but are not limited to anti-conjugation factors. CRISPR technology has been used to target resistance genes in enterococci94. Similarly, there is experimental work in progress aimed at blocking the transmission of conjugative elements95. The translational pathway for such agents is even more unclear. As the specific application of tools with the potential to stem the transmission of resistance in HIC clinical medicine is somewhat elusive, development and deployment for proof of concept might be applicable in a One Health transmission context, particularly in a setting where inter-individual contact is high and drug use and transmission controls are low.

Conclusion

Resistant bacterial variants evolve continuously but are selected when antimicrobials are applied and can be transmitted among humans, animals and their environments. Surveillance of resistance is improving and increasingly incorporating genomic approaches, but many intervention points for stemming the flow of resistant organisms and genes remain under-exploited or unknown. In LMIC settings where humans and animals converge at high density with insufficient sanitation and biosecurity infrastructure, the risks of selection of resistant bacterial variants and their transmission among humans, animals and the environment are high, and patterns of transmission are likely to be different. The relative importance of the numerous risk factors needs to be further investigated in specific LMIC settings to develop the most appropriate responses to the development of antibiotic resistance.

Significant modifications of One Health approaches optimized for HICs should combine top-down approaches with appropriate bottom-up actions for LMIC settings to compensate for institutional weaknesses. There may also be a role for technical disruption of transmission. The promise of recent innovations and technologies that could accomplish this may vary with landscape and thus require independent evaluations by LMIC scientists and actors who may be better served by engaging directly in early-stage innovation rather than merely adapting their uses in HIC to LMIC conditions.

References

  1. Murray, C. J. et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet 399, 629–655 (2022).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nelson, R. E. et al. National estimates of healthcare costs associated with multidrug-resistant bacterial infections among hospitalized patients in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis. 72, S17–S26 (2021).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ludden, C. et al. One Health genomic surveillance of Escherichia coli demonstrates distinct lineages and mobile genetic elements in isolates from humans versus livestock. mBio 10, e02693-18 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gouliouris, T. et al. Genomic surveillance of Enterococcus faecium reveals limited sharing of strains and resistance genes between livestock and humans in the United Kingdom. mBio 9, e01780-18 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Labar, A. S. et al. Regional dissemination of a trimethoprim-resistance gene cassette via a successful transposable element. PLoS ONE 7, e38142 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lamikanra, A. et al. Rapid evolution of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli in Nigeria is temporally associated with fluoroquinolone use. BMC Infect. Dis. 11, 312 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kunhikannan, S. et al. Environmental hotspots for antibiotic resistance genes. MicrobiologyOpen 10, e1197 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sulis, G., Sayood, S. & Gandra, S. Antimicrobial resistance in low- and middle-income countries: current status and future directions. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 20, 147–160 (2022).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Okeke, I. N. & Nwoko, E. in Urban Crisis and Management in Africa: A Festschrift (eds Albert, I. O. & Mabogunje, A.) 125–148 (Pan-African Univ. Press, 2019).

  10. Doron, A. & Jeffrey, R. Waste of a Nation: Garbage and Growth in India (Harvard Univ. Press, 2018).

  11. Nadimpalli, M. L. et al. Urban informal settlements as hotspots of antimicrobial resistance and the need to curb environmental transmission. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 787–795 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Okeke, I. & Lamikanra, A. A study of the effect of the urban/rural divide on the incidence of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli. Biomed. Lett. 55, 91–97 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aijuka, M., Charimba, G., Hugo, C. J. & Buys, E. M. Characterization of bacterial pathogens in rural and urban irrigation water. J. Water Health 13, 103–117 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hendriksen, R. S. et al. Global monitoring of antimicrobial resistance based on metagenomics analyses of urban sewage. Nat. Commun. 10, 1124 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mahmud, Z. H. et al. Presence of virulence factors and antibiotic resistance among Escherichia coli strains isolated from human pit sludge. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries 13, 195–203 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beukes, L. S., King, T. L. B. & Schmidt, S. Assessment of pit latrines in a peri-urban community in KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) as a source of antibiotic resistant E. coli strains. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 220, 1279–1284 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang, H., Gao, Y. & Chang, W. Comparison of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli isolates from drinking well water and pit latrine wastewater in a rural area of China. Biomed. Res. Int. 2016, 4343564 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Nji, E. et al. High prevalence of antibiotic resistance in commensal Escherichia coli from healthy human sources in community settings. Sci. Rep. 11, 3372 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramblière, L., Guillemot, D., Delarocque-Astagneau, E. & Huynh, B. T. Impact of mass and systematic antibiotic administration on antibiotic resistance in low- and middle-income countries? A systematic review. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 58, 106396 (2021).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hlashwayo, D. F. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that Campylobacter spp. and antibiotic resistance are widespread in humans in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS ONE 16, e0245951 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Boeckel, T. P. et al. Global trends in antimicrobial resistance in animals in low- and middle-income countries. Science 365, eaaw1944 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Argudín, M. A. et al. Genotypes, exotoxin gene content, and antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureus strains recovered from foods and food handlers. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 2930–2935 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sivagami, K., Vignesh, V. J., Srinivasan, R., Divyapriya, G. & Nambi, I. M. Antibiotic usage, residues and resistance genes from food animals to human and environment: an Indian scenario. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8, 102221 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wall, B. A. et al. Drivers, Dynamics and Epidemiology of Antimicrobial Resistance in Animal Production (FAO, 2016).

  25. Hassani, A. & Khan, G. Human–animal interaction and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 6, e22117 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Madoshi, B. P. et al. Characterisation of commensal Escherichia coli isolated from apparently healthy cattle and their attendants in Tanzania. PLoS ONE 11, e0168160 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Guetiya Wadoum, R. E. et al. Abusive use of antibiotics in poultry farming in Cameroon and the public health implications. Br. Poult. Sci. 57, 483–493 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rousham, E. K., Unicomb, L. & Islam, M. A. Human, animal and environmental contributors to antibiotic resistance in low-resource settings: integrating behavioural, epidemiological and One Health approaches. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, 20180332 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jibril, A. H., Okeke, I. N., Dalsgaard, A. & Olsen, J. E. Association between antimicrobial usage and resistance in Salmonella from poultry farms in Nigeria. BMC Vet. Res. 17, 234 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tiseo, K., Huber, L., Gilbert, M., Robinson, T. P. & Van Boeckel, T. P. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals from 2017 to 2030. Antibiotics 9, 918 (2020).

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schar, D., Sommanustweechai, A., Laxminarayan, R. & Tangcharoensathien, V. Surveillance of antimicrobial consumption in animal production sectors of low- and middle-income countries: optimizing use and addressing antimicrobial resistance. PLoS Med. 15, e1002521 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu, Y. Y. et al. Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: a microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 16, 161–168 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sun, J., Zhang, H., Liu, Y. H. & Feng, Y. Towards understanding MCR-like colistin resistance. Trends Microbiol. 26, 794–808 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang, C. et al. Identification of novel mobile colistin resistance gene mcr-10. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 9, 508–516 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. He, T. et al. Emergence of plasmid-mediated high-level tigecycline resistance genes in animals and humans. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1450–1456 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sun, C. et al. Plasmid-mediated tigecycline-resistant gene tet(X4) in Escherichia coli from food-producing animals, China, 2008–2018. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 8, 1524–1527 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lowder, B. V. et al. Recent human-to-poultry host jump, adaptation, and pandemic spread of Staphylococcus aureus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19545–19550 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bachiri, T. et al. First report of the plasmid-mediated colistin resistance gene mcr-1 in Escherichia coli ST405 isolated from wildlife in Bejaia, Algeria. Microb. Drug Resist. 24, 890–895 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Roberts, M. C. et al. The human clone ST22 SCCmec IV methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from swine herds and wild primates in Nepal: is man the common source? FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 94, fiy052 (2018).

    PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Aliyu, A. B., Saleha, A. A., Jalila, A. & Zunita, Z. Risk factors and spatial distribution of extended spectrum β-lactamase-producing-Escherichia coli at retail poultry meat markets in Malaysia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 16, 699 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Alam, M. U. et al. Human exposure to antimicrobial resistance from poultry production: assessing hygiene and waste-disposal practices in Bangladesh. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 222, 1068–1076 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Donado-Godoy, P. et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Salmonella from commercial broiler farms in two important poultry-producing regions of Colombia. J. Food Prot. 75, 874–883 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Moser, K. A. et al. The role of mobile genetic elements in the spread of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli from chickens to humans in small-scale production poultry operations in rural Ecuador. Am. J. Epidemiol. 187, 558–567 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Songe, M. M., Hang’ombe, B. M., Knight-Jones, T. J. D. & Grace, D. Antimicrobial resistant enteropathogenic Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. in houseflies infesting fish in food markets in Zambia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, (2017).

  45. Alves, T. S., Lara, G. H. B., Maluta, R. P., Ribeiro, M. G. & Leite, D. S. Carrier flies of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli as potential dissemination agent in dairy farm environment. Sci. Total Environ. 633, 1345–1351 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Allen, H. K. et al. Call of the wild: antibiotic resistance genes in natural environments. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 251–259 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hasan, B. et al. Antimicrobial drug–resistant Escherichia coli in wild birds and free-range poultry, Bangladesh. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 18, 2055–2058 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Blanco, G. Supplementary feeding as a source of multiresistant Salmonella in endangered Egyptian vultures. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 65, 806–816 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Matias, C. A. R. et al. Frequency of zoonotic bacteria among illegally traded wild birds in Rio de Janeiro. Braz. J. Microbiol. 47, 882–888 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Brealey, J. C., Leitão, H. G., Hofstede, T., Kalthoff, D. C. & Guschanski, K. The oral microbiota of wild bears in Sweden reflects the history of antibiotic use by humans. Curr. Biol. 31, 4650–4658.e6 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu, C. M. et al. Escherichia coli ST131-H22 as a foodborne uropathogen. mBio 9, e00470-18 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Randad, P. R. et al. Transmission of antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clonal complex 9 between pigs and humans, United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 27, 740–748 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Jørgensen, S. L. et al. Diversity and population overlap between avian and human Escherichia coli belonging to sequence type 95. mSphere 4, e00333-18 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ludden, C. et al. A One Health study of the genetic relatedness of Klebsiella pneumoniae and their mobile elements in the east of England. Clin. Infect. Dis. 70, 219–226 (2020).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Thorpe, H. et al. One Health or Three? Transmission modelling of Klebsiella isolates reveals ecological barriers to transmission between humans, animals and the environment. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.05.455249 (2021).

  56. Ingham, A. C. et al. Dynamics of the human nasal microbiota and Staphylococcus aureus cc398 carriage in pig truck drivers across one workweek. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 87, e0122521 (2021).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hickman, R. A. et al. Exploring the antibiotic resistance burden in livestock, livestock handlers and their non-livestock handling contacts: a One Health perspective. Front. Microbiol. 12, 65161 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Okeke, I. N. African biomedical scientists and the promises of ‘big science’. Can J. Afr. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2016.1266677 (2017).

  59. Nadimpalli, M. L. & Pickering, A. J. A call for global monitoring of WASH in wet markets. Lancet Planet. Health 4, e439–e440 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Grace, D. & Little, P. Informal trade in livestock and livestock products. Rev. Sci. Tech. 39, 183–192 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Caudell, M. A. et al. Towards a bottom-up understanding of antimicrobial use and resistance on the farm: a knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey across livestock systems in five African countries. PLoS ONE 15, e0220274 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Adekanye, U. O. et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of veterinarians towards antimicrobial resistance and stewardship in Nigeria. Antibiotics 9, 453 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Mangesho, P. E. et al. ‘We are doctors’: drivers of animal health practices among Maasai pastoralists and implications for antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance. Prev. Vet. Med. 188, 105266 (2021).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Essack, S. Water, sanitation and hygiene in national action plans for antimicrobial resistance. Bull. World Health Organ. 99, 606–608 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Aarestrup, F. M. et al. Effect of abolishment of the use of antimicrobial agents for growth promotion on occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci from food animals in Denmark. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45, 2054–2059 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J. in Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research (eds Hadorn, G. H. et al.) 361–368 (Springer, 2008); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3

  67. Theuretzbacher, U., Outterson, K., Engel, A. & Karlén, A. The global preclinical antibacterial pipeline. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 185, 275–285 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Lacotte, Y., Årdal, C. & Ploy, M. C. Infection prevention and control research priorities: what do we need to combat healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance? Results of a narrative literature review and survey analysis. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 9, 142 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Kennedy, D. A. & Read, A. F. Why the evolution of vaccine resistance is less of a concern than the evolution of drug resistance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 12878 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Vekemans, J. et al. Leveraging vaccines to reduce antibiotic use and prevent antimicrobial resistance: a World Health Organization action framework. Clin. Infect. Dis. 73, E1011–E1017 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Micoli, F., Bagnoli, F., Rappuoli, R. & Serruto, D. The role of vaccines in combatting antimicrobial resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 195, 287–302 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Massella, E. et al. Antimicrobial resistance profile and ExPEC virulence potential in commensal Escherichia coli of multiple sources. Antibiotics 10, 351 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Huttner, A. et al. Safety, immunogenicity, and preliminary clinical efficacy of a vaccine against extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli in women with a history of recurrent urinary tract infection: a randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 17, 528–537 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Frenck, R. W. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a vaccine for extra-intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ESTELLA): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, 631–640 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Patel, R. & Fang, F. C. Diagnostic stewardship: opportunity for a laboratory-infectious diseases partnership. Clin. Infect. Dis. 67, 799–801 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Okeke, I. N. Divining Without Seeds: The Case for Strengthening Laboratory Medicine in Africa (Cornell Univ. Press, 2011).

  77. Loosli, K., Davis, A., Muwonge, A. & Lembo, T. Addressing antimicrobial resistance by improving access and quality of care—a review of the literature from East Africa. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 15, e0009529 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Chokshi, A., Sifri, Z., Cennimo, D. & Horng, H. Global contributors to antibiotic resistance. J. Glob. Infect. Dis. 11, 36–42 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Adedapo, A. D. & Akunne, O. O. Patterns of antimicrobials prescribed to patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital: a prescription quality audit. Cureus 13, e15896 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Kumarasamy, K. K. et al. Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: a molecular, biological, and epidemiological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 10, 597–602 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Davenport, M. et al. New and developing diagnostic technologies for urinary tract infections. Nat. Rev. Urol. 14, 298–310 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. van Dongen, J. E. et al. Point-of-care CRISPR/Cas nucleic acid detection: recent advances, challenges and opportunities. Biosens. Bioelectron. 166, 112445 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Nielsen, T. B. et al. Monoclonal antibody therapy against Acinetobacter baumannii. Infect. Immun. 89, e0016221 (2021).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Dwivedi, P., Narvi, S. S. & Tewari, R. P. Application of polymer nanocomposites in the nanomedicine landscape: envisaging strategies to combat implant associated infections. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 11, 129–142 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Song, M., Wu, D., Hu, Y., Luo, H. & Li, G. Characterization of an Enterococcus faecalis bacteriophage vB_EfaM_LG1 and its synergistic effect with antibiotic. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 11, 636 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Dhama, K. et al. Growth promoters and novel feed additives improving poultry production and health, bioactive principles and beneficial applications: the trends and advances—a review. Int. J. Pharmacol. 10, 129–159 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Vieco-Saiz, N. et al. Benefits and inputs from lactic acid bacteria and their bacteriocins as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters during food-animal production. Front. Microbiol. 10, 57 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Ng, W. K. & Koh, C. B. The utilization and mode of action of organic acids in the feeds of cultured aquatic animals. Rev. Aquac. 9, 342–368 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Mattioli, G. A. et al. Effects of parenteral supplementation with minerals and vitamins on oxidative stress and humoral immune response of weaning calves. Animals 10, 1298 (2020).

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Mwangi, S., Timmons, J., Fitz-Coy, S. & Parveen, S. Characterization of Clostridium perfringens recovered from broiler chicken affected by necrotic enteritis. Poult. Sci. 98, 128–135 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Prendergast, A. J. et al. Putting the ‘A’ into WaSH: a call for integrated management of water, animals, sanitation, and hygiene. Lancet Planet. Health 3, e336–e337 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Martinelli, M. et al. Probiotics’ efficacy in paediatric diseases: which is the evidence? A critical review on behalf of the Italian Society of Pediatrics. Ital. J. Pediatr. 46, 104 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Rasko, D. A. & Sperandio, V. Anti-virulence strategies to combat bacteria-mediated disease. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 117–128 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Rodrigues, M., McBride, S. W., Hullahalli, K., Palmer, K. L. & Duerkop, B. A. Conjugative delivery of CRISPR–Cas9 for the selective depletion of antibiotic-resistant enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 63, e01454-19 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Casu, B., Arya, T., Bessette, B. & Baron, C. Fragment-based screening identifies novel targets for inhibitors of conjugative transfer of antimicrobial resistance by plasmid pKM101. Sci. Rep. 7, 14907 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Denyer Willis, L. & Chandler, C. Quick fix for care, productivity, hygiene and inequality: reframing the entrenched problem of antibiotic overuse. BMJ Glob. Health 4, e001590 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Wilkinson, A., Ebata, A. & Macgregor, H. Interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing in LMICs: a scoping review of evidence from human and animal health systems. Antibiotics 8, 2 (2018).

  98. Torres, N. F., Chibi, B., Middleton, L. E., Solomon, V. P. & Mashamba-Thompson, T. P. Evidence of factors influencing self-medication with antibiotics in low and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review. Public Health 168, 92–101 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Potgieter, N., Banda, N. T., Becker, P. J. & Traore-Hoffman, A. N. WASH infrastructure and practices in primary health care clinics in the rural Vhembe District municipality in South Africa. BMC Fam. Pract. 22, 8 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Humphreys, G. Reinventing the toilet for 2.5 billion in need. Bull. World Health Organ. 92, 470–471 (2014).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Yam, P., Fales, D., Jemison, J., Gillum, M. & Bernstein, M. Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program in a rural hospital. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 69, 1142–1148 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Sartelli, M. et al. Antibiotic use in low and middle-income countries and the challenges of antimicrobial resistance in surgery. Antibiotics 9, 497 (2020).

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Büdel, T. et al. On the island of Zanzibar people in the community are frequently colonized with the same MDR Enterobacterales found in poultry and retailed chicken meat. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 75, 2432–2441 (2020).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Finch, M. J., Morris, J. G., Kaviti, J., Kagwanja, W. & Levine, M. M. Epidemiology of antimicrobial resistant cholera in Kenya and East Africa. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 39, 484–490 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Mutreja, A. et al. Evidence for several waves of global transmission in the seventh cholera pandemic. Nature 477, 462–465 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Weill, F. X. et al. Genomic history of the seventh pandemic of cholera in Africa. Science 358, 785–789 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Opintan, J. A., Newman, M. J., Nsiah-Poodoh, O. A. & Okeke, I. N. Vibrio cholerae O1 from Accra, Ghana carrying a class 2 integron and the SXT element. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 62, 929–933 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Garbern, S. C. et al. Clinical and socio-environmental determinants of multidrug-resistant Vibrio cholerae 01 in older children and adults in Bangladesh. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 105, 436–441 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Mintz, E. D. & Guerrant, R. L. A lion in our village—the unconscionable tragedy of cholera in Africa. N. Engl. J. Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0810559 (2009).

  110. Gibani, M. M. et al. The impact of vaccination and prior exposure on stool shedding of Salmonella typhi and Salmonella paratyphi in 6 controlled human infection studies. Clin. Infect. Dis. 68, 1265–1273 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We were supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through Global Health Award 16/136/111: NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Genomic Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance. I.N.O. is a Calestous Juma Science Leadership Fellow supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The funders had no role in the content, crafting or submission of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iruka N. Okeke.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Microbiology thanks Kate Baker, Susanna Dunachie, Gagandeep Kang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ikhimiukor, O.O., Odih, E.E., Donado-Godoy, P. et al. A bottom-up view of antimicrobial resistance transmission in developing countries. Nat Microbiol 7, 757–765 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-022-01124-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-022-01124-w

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing