Prevalence and risk factors for multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli among poultry workers in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria

Mabel Kamweli Aworh; Jacob Kwaga; Emmanuel Okolocha; Nwando Mba; Siddhartha Thakur

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225379

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 9, 2019
6 Sep 2019 Decision Letter - Grzegorz Woźniakowski, Editor PONE-D-19-19300 Prevalence and Risk Factors for Multi-Drug Resistant Escherichia coli among Poultry Workers in the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria PLOS ONE Dear DR AWORH, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 21 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Grzegorz Woźniakowski, PhD ScD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 1. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available. 2. Please include copies of the survey questions or questionnaires used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if they have been published previously. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I think that this is a local issue not a global. English needs intensive revision. Authors should clearly mention the study hypothesis in the introduction. Reviewer #2: Page 4 Line 90: ESBL should be written in full Page 4 Lines 91-92. Authors should spell out the socioeconomic and public health implications Page 5 Line 116: Spell out FCT Page 5 Line 122: Census data from 2006 is too old. Needs an update Page 6 Sampling: the total number of individuals sampled should be stated here Page 7 Line 168 Delete (1.0g) Consistency is needed in referencing Oxiod UK throughout the text Authors should write in full the first time before using acronyms. A problem throughout the text: Page 8: Line 190 CLSI Statistical Analysis: Authors should remove the female record and reanalyze the data. Authors should address how antibiotics are used in poultry in Nigeria: As prophylaxis, treatment of diseases or growth promotion? What antibiotics are included in the feed if any? Conflict of interest from the authors were not declared Statement of availability of data was not made ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225379.r001
Revision 1
25 Oct 2019 Author Response 25 October 2019 The Academic Editor, PLOS ONE Journal. Dear Editor, This is to acknowledge the effort of the editorial team for their immense contributions towards transforming the manuscript to its present form. All the observations raised and the corrections as well as comments made by the reviewers are appreciated and have been addressed. Moreover, point-by-point response to reviewers’/editorial comments have been addressed as described in the appendix. Should you require additional information or if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I will be pleased to hear from you. Yours sincerely, Dr. Mabel K. Aworh (Corresponding author) mabelaworh@yahoo.com, maworh@ncsu.edu +234 -803 237 7831, 919 741 1749 Reviewer/Editorial Notes and Responses S/N Comments Authors’ response 1. Journal Requirements Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at: Many thanks for your feedback. This has been addressed and the manuscript has been revised to ensure it meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements using the templates provided. 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available We appreciate these comments of the editorial staff. This has been addressed in the Methods section with the following statements. This section now reads: This study was conducted in Abuja Municipal Area Council (9.0612° N, 7.4224° E) and Kuje Area Council (8° 52' 46.27" N, 7° 13' 39.22" E) with the largest poultry population of approximately 3.812,288 [18]. Kindly refer to page 6, lines 157 – 160. 3. Please include copies of the survey questions or questionnaires used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if they have been published previously. This comment by the editorial staff is noted. Based on the editorial staff’s comment, a copy of the questionnaire has been provided as supplemental file. Kindly refer to Supporting Information section, page 25, lines 631 – 632 4. Reviewer #1: I think that this is a local issue not a global. This is well received and has been addressed under Introduction section. This section now reads: In developing countries including Nigeria, many families depend on poultry production as a means of income and livelihood due to the increased consumption of poultry products [5]. Antimicrobial drugs are also readily available over the counter without prescription because access to veterinary drugs is presently not being regulated in the country, thereby encouraging the use of these drugs by poultry farmers indiscriminately in production. Poultry farmers continue to use antibiotics in poultry feed or water for prophylaxis, treatment of diseases and as growth promoters in Nigeria [6,7]. Commonly used antibiotics in poultry production in Nigeria include; oxytetracycline, neomycin, enrofloxacin, doxycycline, gentamicin, colistin, streptomycin, tylosin, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurans and chloramphenicol. This is similar to the practice in most countries [7]. Kindly refer to page 4, lines 99 – 108. 5. English needs intensive revision. This very important suggestion by the reviewer is appreciated. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. 6. Authors should clearly mention the study hypothesis in the introduction. We quite appreciate the reviewers for their comments in this regard. The introduction section has now been modified to reflect the hypothesis for this study. This section now reads: We hypothesized that poultry harboring drug resistant E. coli aids in the transmission of the pathogen to human workers who are exposed in farms and live bird markets. Kindly refer to page 5, lines 145 – 146. 7. Reviewer #2: Page 4 Line 90: ESBL should be written in full This is well received and has been addressed under Introduction section. Kindly refer to page 4, lines 111 - 112. 8. Page 4 Lines 91-92. Authors should spell out the socioeconomic and public health implications This is well received and has been addressed under Introduction section. This section now reads: Resistance to commonly used antibiotics has major socioeconomic and public health implications. The socioeconomic implications of AMR include increased cost and duration of treatment while the public health implications include decreased ability to treat common infections resulting in increased human suffering and ultimately death [9–11]. Kindly refer to page 4, lines 114 - 117. 9. Page 5 Line 116: Spell out FCT This is well received and has been addressed under Introduction section. Kindly refer to page 6, line 153. 10. Page 5 Line 122: Census data from 2006 is too old. Needs an update This is well received and has been addressed under Methods section. This section now reads: Based on data obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics, the population projection for FCT for 2019 is 4,464,785 people [17]. Kindly refer to page 6, lines 156 - 157. 11. Page 6 Sampling: the total number of individuals sampled should be stated here This is well received and has been addressed under Methods section. Kindly refer to page 7, line 188. 12. Page 7 Line 168 Delete (1.0g) This correction has been made. Kindly refer to page 8, line 210. 13. Consistency is needed in referencing Oxiod UK throughout the text This correction has been made. Kindly refer to page 9, line 238. 14. Authors should write in full the first time before using acronyms. A problem throughout the text: Page 8: Line 190 CLSI This is well received and has been addressed under Methods section, page 9, line 240 -241. 15. Statistical Analysis: Authors should remove the female record and reanalyze the data. This is well received and has been addressed under Results section This section now reads: Of the 122 poultry workers we sampled, 99.2% (n=121) were male. The analysis presented in the results section was based on 121 males whose ages ranged from 18 to 67 years. The mean age of study participants was 30.6 + 9.7years. The majority of workers were married: 54.6% (n=66), had secondary education: 57.9% (n=70) and worked on a poultry farm: 62.0% (n=75) (Table 1). Prevalence of Multidrug Resistant E. coli among poultry workers A total of 48 (39.7%) individuals tested positive for MDR E. coli. A majority of these, 62.5% (n=30) resided in Abuja Municipal Area Council (Fig 1). The highest prevalence was among farm-workers (POR = 2.7, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] =1.3 – 5.7; p = 0.01) when compared to poultry-sellers. Kindly refer to pages 10 and 11, lines 282 - 294. 16. Authors should address how antibiotics are used in poultry in Nigeria: As prophylaxis, treatment of diseases or growth promotion? This is well received and has been addressed under Introduction section This section now reads: Poultry farmers continue to use antibiotics in poultry feed or water for prophylaxis, treatment of diseases and as growth promoters in Nigeria [6,7]. Commonly used antibiotics in poultry production in Nigeria include; oxytetracycline, neomycin, enrofloxacin, doxycycline, gentamicin, colistin, streptomycin, tylosin, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurans and chloramphenicol. This is similar to the practice in most countries [7]. In 2018, Nigeria’s National Agency for Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) issued a ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feeds. Kindly refer to pages 4, lines 104 - 110. 17. What antibiotics are included in the feed if any? This is well received and has been addressed under Introduction section This section now reads: Commonly used antibiotics in poultry production in Nigeria include; oxytetracycline, neomycin, enrofloxacin, doxycycline, gentamicin, colistin, streptomycin, tylosin, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurans and chloramphenicol. This is similar to the practice in most countries [7]. Kindly refer to page 4, lines 105 - 108. 18. Conflict of interest from the authors were not declared Statement of availability of data was not made This is well received and has been addressed. These sections now read: Competing interests The authors have declared that there are no competing interests. Data Availability Statement All relevant data are within the paper and also available as supporting information (S2 Appendix). Kindly refer to, page 20, lines 492 – 493 (Competing Interests) and lines 495 – 497 (Statement of Availability of Data) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225379.r002
5 Nov 2019 Decision Letter - Grzegorz Woźniakowski, Editor Prevalence and Risk Factors for Multi-Drug Resistant Escherichia coli among Poultry Workers in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria PONE-D-19-19300R1 Dear Dr. AWORH, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Grzegorz Woźniakowski, PhD ScD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: No further comments, Authors have addressed all of my comments. I recommend accepting the paper in its current form. Reviewer #2: The author have revised the manuscript according to the recommendations made. The language is clear and concise. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225379.r003
Formally Accepted
12 Nov 2019 Acceptance Letter - Grzegorz Woźniakowski, Editor PONE-D-19-19300R1 Prevalence and Risk Factors for Multi-Drug Resistant Escherichia coli among Poultry Workers in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria Dear Dr. AWORH: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Grzegorz Woźniakowski Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225379.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .