A pilot study investigating the in vitro efficacy of sucralfate against common veterinary cutaneous pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Cicalfate® (Avene), a commercially available skin cream, or its active ingredient - sucralfate - demonstrate in vitro antimicrobial effect against common veterinary cutaneous pathogens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective study assessing in vitro susceptibility of standardised and clinical strains of common veterinary cutaneous pathogens to titrated concentrations of sucralfate in either saline solution (range 0∙2 to 200 mg/mL) or in Cicalfate® restorative cream solubilised in DMSO (range 0∙002 to 1 mg/mL). Minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined by broth dilution in accordance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. RESULTS: Both solutions demonstrated in vitro inhibitory effects against strains of Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis. Minimum inhibitory concentration ranges for susceptible bacteria tested in Cicalfate® solution and sucralfate solution were 0∙06 to 0∙25 mg/mL and 25 to 50 mg/mL, respectively. Sucralfate solution did not demonstrate antimicrobial effects against laboratory strains of S. aureus and E. faecalis and neither solution demonstrated antimicrobial effects against the clinical strain of P. aeruginosa. For organisms inhibited by sucralfate, Cicalfate® solution inhibited growth at lower sucralfate concentrations than sucralfate solution. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results of this pilot study suggest that Cicalfate® and sucralfate demonstrate in vitro antibacterial activity. Further in vitro and clinical studies are warranted to confirm these observations and determine their clinical utility in the treatment of superficial pyoderma.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".