PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Rapid test to choose antibiotics for dog skin infections

By Pirolo, M et al.·Published in Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997)·2024·Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: A LAMP point-of-care test to guide antimicrobial choice for treatment of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius pyoderma in dogs.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A dog with skin infections caused by Staphylococcus pseudintermedius was tested using a new quick test to identify the bacteria and determine the best antibiotics for treatment. This test, which can provide results in about 90 minutes, showed great promise in the lab, but when used by veterinary staff in practice, it had some accuracy issues. If improved, this test could help vets choose the right antibiotics faster, reducing the chances of treatment not working and ensuring better care for dogs with skin problems.

People also search for: dog skin infection treatment · Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in dogs · quick test for dog pyoderma

Abstract

Staphylococcus pseudintermedius is the most common cause of pyoderma in dogs. We validated a point-of-care (PoC) test based on colorimetric loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for rapid S. pseudintermedius identification and susceptibility testing for first line antimicrobials for systemic treatment of canine pyoderma, i.e., lincosamides, first generation cephalosporins and amoxicillin clavulanate. Newly designed LAMP primers targeting clinically relevant resistance genes were combined with a previously validated set of primers targeting spsL for species identification. After laboratory validation on 110 clinical isolates, we assessed the performance of the test on 101 clinical specimens using routine culture and susceptibility testing as a reference standard. The average hands-on and turnaround times for the PoC test were 30 and 90 min, respectively. The assay showed sensitivity and specificity near 100% for both species identification and susceptibility testing when performed on bacterial cultures or clinical specimens in the laboratory. However, the PoC test yielded less accurate results when performed on-site by clinical staff (92% sensitivity and 64% specificity for species identification, 67% sensitivity and 96% specificity for β-lactam susceptibility, and 83% sensitivity and 71% specificity for lincosamide susceptibility). These results indicate that the PoC test should be adapted to a user-friendly technology to facilitate performance and interpretation of results by clinical staff. If properly developed, the test would allow veterinarians to gain rapid information on antimicrobial choice, limiting the risk of treatment failure and facilitating adherence to antimicrobial use guidelines in small animal veterinary dermatology.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38547963/