Opportunities for topical antimicrobial therapy: permeation of canine skin by fusidic acid

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcal infection of the canine epidermis and hair follicle is amongst the commonest reasons for antimicrobial prescribing in small animal veterinary practice. Topical therapy with fusidic acid (FA) is an attractive alternative to systemic therapy based on low minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs, commonly <0.03 mg/l) documented in canine pathogenic staphylococci, including strains of MRSA and MRSP (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and S. pseudintermedius). However, permeation of canine skin by FA has not been evaluated in detail. This study aimed to define the degree and extent of FA permeation in canine skin in vitro from two sites with different hair follicle density following application of a licensed ophthalmic formulation that shares the same vehicle as an FA-betamethasone combination product approved for dermal application in dogs. Topical FA application was modelled using skin held in Franz-type diffusion cells. Concentrations of FA in surface swabs, receptor fluid, and transverse skin sections of defined anatomical depth were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography and ultraviolet (HPLC-UV) analysis. RESULTS: The majority of FA was recovered by surface swabs after 24 h, as expected (mean ± SEM: 76.0 ± 17.0%). FA was detected within 424/470 (90%) groups of serial sections of transversely cryotomed skin containing follicular infundibula, but never in 48/48 (100%) groups of sections containing only deeper follicular structures, nor in receptor fluid, suggesting that FA does not permeate beyond the infundibulum. The FA concentration (mean ± SEM) in the most superficial 240 μm of skin was 2000 ± 815 μg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Topically applied FA can greatly exceed MICs for canine pathogenic staphylococci at the most common sites of infection. Topical FA therapy should now be evaluated using available formulations in vivo as an alternative to systemic therapy for canine superficial bacterial folliculitis.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Factors affecting the outcome of surgically treated non-iatrogenic traumatic cervical esophageal perforation: 28 years experience at a single center

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We reviewed our experience with non-iatrogenic traumatic cervical esophageal perforations, paying particular attention to factors affecting the outcome of such cases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In total, 30 patients treated surgically between 1980 and 2008 for non-iatrogenic traumatic cervical esophageal perforation in our clinic were reviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 25 male and 5 female patients with a median age of 27.5 years. The type of injury was external trauma in 21 (70%) patients and endoluminal injury in the remaining 9 (30%) patients. The mechanism of injury was gunshot in 16 patients, stabbing in 4, falling in 1 (extraluminal injury), and foreign body in 9 (endoluminal injuries). The overall mortality rate was 16.6% (5/30). The mortality rate for extraluminal injuries was 19%, and for endoluminal injuries was 11.1%. Mortality in patients treated within 24 h of sustaining injury was substantially less than in those for whom diagnosis and treatment were delayed (12.5 and 21.4%, respectively). The mortality rate was 33.3% (3/9) for patients with tracheal injuries and 9.5% (2/21) for those without tracheal injuries.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A treatment delay greater than 24 h, the presence of tracheal injury, or extraluminal perforation significantly affected the outcome of surgically treated non iatrogenic traumatic cervical esophageal perforation.</p

Death, treatment decisions and the permanent vegetative state: evidence from families and experts

Some brain injured patients are left in a permanent vegetative state, i.e., they have irreversibly lost their capacity for consciousness but retained some autonomic physiological functions, such as breathing unaided. Having discussed the controversial nature of the permanent vegetative state as a diagnostic category, we turn to the question of the patients’ ontological status. Are the permanently vegetative alive, dead, or in some other state? We present empirical data from interviews with relatives of patients, and with experts, to support the view that the ontological state of permanently vegetative patients is unclear: such patients are neither straightforwardly alive nor simply dead. Having defended this view from counter-arguments we turn to the practical question as to how these patients ought to be treated. Some relatives and experts believe it is right for patients to be shifted from their currently unclear ontological state to that of being straightforwardly dead, but many are concerned or even horrified by the only legally sanctioned method guaranteed to achieve this, namely withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. A way of addressing this distress would be to allow active euthanasia for these patients. This is highly controversial; but we argue that standard objections to allowing active euthanasia for this particular class of permanently vegetative patients are weakened by these patients’ distinctive ontological status