4.7 Article

In vitro antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia pachydermatis from dogs with and without skin lesions

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 155, 期 2-4, 页码 395-398

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.09.008

关键词

Dog; Malassezia pachydermatis; Antifungal susceptibility; CLSI reference broth microdilution method

资金

  1. University of Bari

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Canine Malassezia dermatitis is frequently treated with systemic ketoconazole (KTZ) and itraconazole (ITZ). However, no information is available on the antifungal susceptibility to azoles and allilamine of Malassezia pachydermatis isolates from dogs with or without skin lesions. The present study was designed to evaluate the in vitro antifungal susceptibility of M. pachydermatis strains from dogs with or without skin lesions to KTZ, ITZ, miconazole (MICO), fluconazole (FLZ), posaconazole (POS), voriconazole (VOR) and terbinafine (TER) using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference Broth Microdilution Method (CLSI M27-A2). The association between the susceptibility to antifungal compounds and the origin of M. pachydermatis, from skin with or without lesions has been also assessed. A total of 62 M. pachydermatis strains from healthy dogs (i.e., Group A = 30) or with skin lesions (i.e., Group B = 32) were tested. ITZ, KTZ and POS showed the highest activity against M. pachydermatis strains, whereas MICO TER and FLZ the lowest. A higher number of Malassezia resistant strains were registered among isolates from Group B than those from Group A. This study indicates that M. pachydermatis strains were susceptible to ITZ, KTZ, and POS. However, dogs with lesions may harbour strains with low susceptibility to antifungal agents and displaying cross-resistance phenomena to azole. The antifungal therapy in Malassezia infections requires careful appraisal of choice of drugs especially in cases of unresponsiveness to antifungal treatment or recurrent infections. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据