Abstract

Research Article

In vitro antimicrobial activity of a black currant oil based shampoo versus a chlorhexidine 4% shampoo on bacteria strains isolated from canine pyoderma: A comparative study

Antonio Corona*, Paola Persico, Antonella Vercelli, Alessandro Gramenzi and Luisa Cornegliani

Published: 14 April, 2020 | Volume 4 - Issue 1 | Pages: 014-017

Over the last few years, antimicrobial shampoo therapy has been increasingly used to treat skin infections in order to reduce systemic use of antibiotics. This study was aimed to compare the In vitro bactericidal effect of a black currant oil based shampoo (S1) to a chlorhexidine 4% shampoo (S2) against methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MSSP), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP), Staphylococcus aureus (SA), Escherichia coli (EC) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) isolates.

A collection of 50 bacterial strains from skin swabs of dogs with superficial recurrent pyoderma was selected: 10 MSSP, 10 MRSP, 10 SA, 10 EC and 10 PA. The two shampoos were blindly tested in duplicate with a microdilution plate method, with scalar concentrations from 1:2 to 1: 256. The MBC was performed for each dilution. A linear regression was used to detect a statistically significance between the two shampoos.

All isolates were completely killed at 1:2 up to 1:16 dilution of the two antiseptic products. At the 1:32 dilution the first bacterial growths were observed, in particular for 2 and 4 strains of MRSP by S1 and S2 respectively. The first lethal dilution for SA was at 1:64 for S1/S2 and only for S2 against SP. No significant difference was observed between the two shampoos according to the results of linear regression significant for: i) MRSP, PA and EC (p < 0.05); ii) MSSP and SA (p < 0.1).

This study showed that both black currant oil based shampoo and chlorhexidine 4% shampoo have a similar In vitro bactericidal activity.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.ivs.1001021 Cite this Article Read Full Article PDF

References

  1. Rosenkrantz W. Practical applications of topical therapy for allergic, infectious, and seborrheic disorders. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract. 2006; 21: 106–116.PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16933477  
  2. Guaguere E. Topical treatment of canine and feline pyoderma. Vet Dermatol. 1996; 7: 145–51.
  3. Layne EA. Can pyoderma in dogs be treated with fewer antibiotics? Vet Rec. 2019; 184: 736-738. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31197051  
  4. Bajwa J. Canine superficial pyoderma and therapeutic considerations. Can Vet J. 2016; 57: 204-206. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4713004/  
  5. Papadogiannakis E, Velonakis E, Vatopoulos A. Ever-increasing emergence of multi-drug resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in the dog and its zoonotic potentials. J Hellenic Vet Medical Soc. 2018; 67: 109-116.
  6. Miller WH, Griffin CE, Campbell KL. Dermatologic Therapy. In: Muller & Kirk’s Small Animal Dermatology. 7th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier, 2013; 108–183.
  7. Beco L, Guaguère E, Lorente Méndez C, Noli C, Nuttall T, et al. Suggested guidelines for using systemic antimicrobials in bacterial skin infections: part 2 antimicrobial choice, treatment regimens and compliance. Vet Rec. 2013; 19: 72–78. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23292948
  8. Hillier A, Lloyd DH, Weese JS, Blondeau JM, Boothe D, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and antimicrobial therapy of canine superficial bacterial folliculitis (Antimicrobial Guidelines Working Group of the International Society for Companion Animal infectious Dis- eases). Vet Dermatol. 2014; 25: 163–175. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24720433
  9. Hillier A, Alcorn JR, Cole LK, Kowalski JJ. Pyoderma caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in dogs: 20 cases. Vet Dermatol. 2006; 17: 432–439.  PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17083575
  10. Loeffler A, Linek M, Moodley A, Guardabassi L, Sung JM, et al. First report of multiresistant, mecA-positive Staphylococcus intermedius in Europe: 12 cases from a veterinary dermatology referral clinic in Germany. Vet Dermatol. 2007; 18: 412–421. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17991158
  11. Guardabassi L, Houser GA, Frank LA. Guidelines for antimicrobial use in small animals. In: Guardabassi L, Jensen LB, Hilde K. eds. Guide to Antimicrobial Use in Animals. Oxford: Blackwell Pub. 2008: 183–206.
  12. Scott DW. Clinical assessment of topical benzoyl peroxide in treatment of canine skin diseases. Vet Med Small Anim Clin. 1979; 74: 808–813. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/256688  
  13. Scott DW, Miller WH, Cayatte SM. A clinical study on the effect of two commercial veterinary benzoyl peroxide shampoos in dogs. Canine Practice 1994; 19: 7–10.
  14. Bond R, Rose JF, Ellis JW, Lloyd DH. Comparison of two shampoos for treatment of Malassezia pachydermatis associated seborrhoeic dermatitis in basset hounds. J Small Anim Pract. 1995; 36: 99–104. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7783442  
  15. Lloyd DH, Lamport AI.  Activity of chlorhexidine shampoos In vitro against Staphylococcus intermedius, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Malassezia pachydermatis. Vet Rec 1999; 144: 536–537. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378283
  16. Noli C, Carta G, Cordeddu L, Melis MP, Murru E, et al. Conjugated linoleic acid and black currant seed oil in the treatment of canine atopic dermatitis: a preliminary report. Vet J. 2007; 173: 413-421. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16495095
  17. Marchegiani A, Fruganti A, Spaterna A, Dalle Vedove E, Bachetti B, et al. Impact of Nutritional Supplementation on Canine Dermatological Disorders. Vet Sci. 2020; 7: E38.  PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32260299
  18. Devriese LA, Hermans K, Baele M, Haesebrouck F. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius versus Staphylococcus intermedius. Vet Microbiol. 2009; 133: 206-207. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760884   
  19. Clinical Laboratory and Standard Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals: approved standards – 4th edition. CLSI document VET01-A4. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2013.
  20. Horstmann C, Mueller RS, Straubinger RK, Werckenthin C.  Detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius with commercially available selective media.  Lett Appl Microbiol. 2012; 54: 26-31. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22023239  
  21. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012; 18: 268-281. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793988  
  22. Guardabassi L, Ghibaudo G, Damborg P. In vitro antimicrobial activity of a commercial ear antiseptic containing chlorhexidine and Tris–EDTA. Vet Dermatol. 2009; 21: 282-286. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20030799  
  23. Swinney A1, Fazakerley J, McEwan N, Nuttall T. Comparative In vitro antimicrobial efficacy of commercial ear cleaners. Vet Dermatol. 2008; 19: 373–379.     PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19055612  
  24. CLSI, Methods for Determining Bactericidal Activity of Antimicrobial Agents. Approved Guideline, CLSI document M26-A. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 950 West Valley Roadn Suite 2500, Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087, USA, 1998.
  25. Balouiri M, Sadiki M, Ibnsouda SK.  Methods for In vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. J Pharm Anal. 2016; 6: 71-79. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29403965  
  26. Swinney A, Fazakerley J, McEwan N et al. Comparative In vitro antimicrobial efficacy of commercial ear cleaners. Vet Dermatol 2008; 19: 373–379. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19055612  
  27. Lloyd DH, Lamport AI. Activity of chlorhexidine shampoos In vitro against Staphylococcus intermedius, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Malassezia pachydermatis. Vet Rec. 1999; 144: 536–537. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378283  
  28. Loeffer A, Lloyd DH. What has changed in canine pyoderma? A narrative review. Vet J. 2018; 235: 73-82. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29704943  
  29. Oliveira AMP, Devesa JSP, Hill PB. In vitro efficacy of a honey‐based gel against canine clinical isolates of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and Malassezia pachydermatis. Vet Dermatol. 2018; 29: 180-e65. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29569291  
  30. Widén C, Renvert S, Persson GR. Antibacterial activity of berry juices, an In vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015; 73: 539-543. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25727734  
  31. Miladinović B, Kostić M, Šavikin K, Đorđević B, Mihajilov-Krstev T, et al. Chemical profile and antioxidative and antimicrobial activity of juices and extracts of 4 black currants varieties (Ribes nigrum L). J Food Sci. 2014; 79: 2014. PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24506271
  32. Bourdeau P, Blumstein P, Marchand AM, Gardeyc L, Jasmin P, et al. An in vivo procedure to evaluate antifungals agents on Malassezia pachydermatis in dogs: example with a piroctone olamine containing shampoo. J de Mycologie Médicale. 2006; 16: 9-15.

Figures:

Figure 1

Figure 1

Similar Articles

Recently Viewed

Read More

Most Viewed

Read More