<i>In vitro</i>antimicrobial activity of miconazole and polymyxin B against canine meticillin‐resistant<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>and meticillin‐resistant<i>Staphylococcus pseudintermedius</i>isolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) infections are increasingly reported in dogs, and these bacteria may be isolated from ear infections. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: The main aim of the present study was to investigate the in vitro antimicrobial activity of miconazole, polymyxin B and a combination of both against 24 canine MRSA and 50 canine MRSP isolates. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of 12 other antimicrobial agents were also determined. METHODS: All MIC values were determined according to a broth microdilution assay. RESULTS: Acquired resistance was found to all tested agents, except for linezolid, miconazole and polymyxin B. The MIC values for miconazole and polymyxin B against MRSA were in the range of 4-8 and 8-64 μg/mL, respectively, while the MIC values for miconazole and polymyxin B against MRSP were in the range of 1-2 and 0.25-4 μg/mL, respectively. Using a combination of miconazole and polymyxin B, there was no evidence for enhanced in vitro activity of the combination (i.e. synergy) of both products. Nevertheless, MIC(90) values of the combination of these antimicrobial agents and of a commercial product containing both agents were at least 1000 times lower than the concentration present in the commercial product. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: These results indicate that the topical use of a combination of miconazole and polymyxin B in a 43.5:1 ratio may have potential for the treatment of MRSA-mediated and MRSP-associated otitis externa in dogs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".