Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Topical treatments tested for drug-resistant dog skin infections
By Clark, S M et al.·Published in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy·2015·Department of Clinical Sciences and Services, United Kingdom·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Susceptibility in vitro of canine methicillin-resistant and -susceptible staphylococcal isolates to fusidic acid, chlorhexidine and miconazole: opportunities for topical therapy of canine superficial pyoderma.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study found that topical treatments like fusidic acid, chlorhexidine, and miconazole could be effective against skin infections in dogs caused by resistant bacteria. Specifically, these treatments showed good activity against Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and Staphylococcus aureus, which are common culprits in canine skin infections. The combination of miconazole and chlorhexidine worked particularly well together, suggesting it could be a promising option for treating superficial pyoderma (a type of skin infection). Further testing in real-life situations is needed to confirm how well these treatments work for dogs with these infections.
People also search for: dog skin infection treatment · miconazole for dog pyoderma · chlorhexidine for dog skin problems
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Increasing multidrug resistance amongst canine pathogenic staphylococci has renewed interest in topical antibacterial therapy for skin infections in the context of responsible veterinary prescribing. We therefore determined the activity in vitro of three clinically relevant topical agents and synergism between two of them against Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and Staphylococcus aureus. METHODS: The MICs of fusidic acid (n = 199), chlorhexidine (n = 198), miconazole (n = 198) and a 1:1 combination of miconazole/chlorhexidine (n = 198) were determined for canine isolates [50 MRSA and 49 methicillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius (MRSP), 50 MSSA and 50 methicillin-susceptible S. pseudintermedius (MSSP)] collected from the UK and Germany using an agar dilution method (CLSI VET01-A4). Fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) indices were calculated to assess the interaction of miconazole with chlorhexidine. RESULTS: MICs of each drug/combination were significantly (P < 0.0005) higher for S. aureus when compared with S. pseudintermedius. Most strains (n = 172) had an MIC of fusidic acid of ≤0.03 mg/L (MIC ≥64 mg/L, n = 5 MRSA). All strains had MICs of chlorhexidine of 0.5-4 mg/L, except for one MRSA (MIC = 8 mg/L). All but four strains had MICs of miconazole of 1-4 mg/L (MIC = 16 mg/L, n = 3; MIC = 256 mg/L, n = 1). Miconazole/chlorhexidine (1:1 ratio) had a synergistic effect against 49/50 MRSA, 31/50 MSSA, 12/49 MRSP and 23/49 MSSP. CONCLUSIONS: Since the majority of these staphylococci, including methicillin-resistant isolates, had MICs that should be readily exceeded by topical skin application of these agents, their therapeutic efficacy for canine superficial pyoderma should be assessed. The synergistic interaction shown in vitro supports further clinical evaluation of miconazole/chlorhexidine combination therapy for staphylococcal infection.
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/25749003/