A pilot study on the comparative minimum inhibitory and mutant prevention concentration values for moxifloxacin and pradofloxacin against canine and human isolates of <i>Staphylococcus pseudintermedius</i> and <i>S. schleiferi</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moxifloxacin is a fourth-generation fluoroquinolone (FQ) that is approved for use in people to treat a variety of infections. Some veterinary microbiology laboratories report moxifloxacin in culture and sensitivity profiles for Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and S. schleiferi albeit using Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints for S. aureus. Previous studies have shown that S. aureus breakpoints can mischaracterize S. pseudintermedius susceptibility to various drugs. Pradofloxacin is a third generation veterinary FQ with a similar mechanism of action and spectrum of activity to moxifloxacin; however, the dose format (25 mg/mL solution) available in the USA may limit its practical use in large dogs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), mutant prevention concentration (MPC) and mutant selection window (MSW) of moxifloxacin and pradofloxacin for isolates of S. pseudintermedius and S. schleiferi. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was performed to establish that each bacterial isolate selected for testing represented an unique strain. The MIC, MPC and MSW for moxifloxacin and pradofloxacin were determined from 60 strains of S. pseudintermedius and seven strains of S. schleiferi. RESULTS: The MIC and MPC ranges of moxifloxacin and pradofloxacin for meticillin-susceptible S. pseudintermedius were similar. However, MIC and MPC ranges were much wider and resistance to both drugs was more common for meticillin-resistant strains of S. pseudintermedius and S. schleiferi. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The narrow MSW of these drugs may reduce the risk of selecting for antibiotic-resistant subpopulations. Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety studies are needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".