Suscetibilidade antimicrobiana de Staphylococcus spp. isolados de cães com pioderma superficial

Foram obtidas 154 amostras de lesões cutâneas de cães com pioderma superficial atendidos no Serviço de Dermatologia Veterinária do Hospital Veterinário Universitário (HVU) da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), com o objetivo de determinar a suscetibilidade antimicrobiana de isolados de Staphylococcus spp. e avaliar a presença de multirresistência. Após isolamento e identificação, as cepas foram submetidas ao teste de sensibilidade aos antimicrobianos, cujos resultados evidenciaram menores percentuais de resistência à associação amoxicilina e ácido clavulânico (1,9%), cefadroxil (1,9%), cefalexina (1,9%) e vancomicina (0,6%). Os maiores percentuais de resistência foram frente à amoxicilina (60,4%) e penicilina G (60,4%). A multirresistência foi detectada em 23,4% e a resistência à meticilina em 5,8% das amostras. Pode-se concluir que os isolados de Staphylococcus spp. apresentam elevada suscetibilidade aos antimicrobianos comumente utilizados no tratamento dos piodermas superficiais em cães atendidos no HVU-UFSM, como a cefalexina e a amoxicilina associada ao ácido clavulânico, confirmando a eleição desses fármacos para o tratamento de cães com esta afecção. A suscetibilidade diminuída das cepas frente às fluoroquinolonas, também recomendadas pela literatura para o tratamento de pioderma, permite sugerir que estes fármacos não devem mais ser considerados na seleção empírica. A identificação de Staphylococcus spp. multirresistentes na população canina estudada justifica análises bacteriológicas periódicas e regionais de lesões cutâneas de cães com pioderma superficial, a fim de minimizar a seleção de bactérias resistentes, possíveis falhas terapêuticas e também motiva a antimicrobianoterapia prudente

12,500+ and counting: biodiversity of the Brazilian Pampa

Knowledge on biodiversity is fundamental for conservation strategies. The Brazilian Pampa region, located in subtropical southern Brazil, is neglected in terms of conservation, and knowledge of its biodiversity is fragmented. We aim to answer the question: how many, and which, species occur in the Brazilian Pampa? In a collaborative effort, we built species lists for plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi that occur in the Brazilian Pampa. We included information on distribution patterns, main habitat types, and conservation status. Our study resulted in referenced lists totaling 12,503 species (12,854 taxa, when considering infraspecific taxonomic categories [or units]). Vascular plants amount to 3,642 species (including 165 Pteridophytes), while algae have 2,046 species (2,378 taxa) and bryophytes 316 species (318 taxa). Fungi (incl. lichenized fungi) contains 1,141 species (1,144 taxa). Animals total 5,358 species (5,372 taxa). Among the latter, vertebrates comprise 1,136 species, while invertebrates are represented by 4,222 species. Our data indicate that, according to current knowledge, the Pampa holds approximately 9% of the Brazilian biodiversity in an area of little more than 2% of Brazil’s total land. The proportion of species restricted to the Brazilian Pampa is low (with few groups as exceptions), as it is part of a larger grassland ecoregion and in a transitional climatic setting. Our study yielded considerably higher species numbers than previously known for many species groups; for some, it provides the first published compilation. Further efforts are needed to increase knowledge in the Pampa and other regions of Brazil. Considering the strategic importance of biodiversity and its conservation, appropriate government policies are needed to fund studies on biodiversity, create accessible and constantly updated biodiversity databases, and consider biodiversity in school curricula and other outreach activities

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline