Inguinal panniculitis in a young Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) caused byMycobacterium mageritense

Susceptibility of rapidly growing mycobacteria isolated from Australian cats to ivermectin, moxidectin, ceftiofur and florfenicol

OBJECTIVES

Rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM) infections in cats typically manifest as a panniculitis, requiring long-term antimicrobial therapy for resolution. The search for novel antimicrobial therapies to reduce treatment duration and improve the rate of clinical resolution is imperative. Accordingly, RGM isolates underwent susceptibility testing to some avermectins and other antibacterial drugs currently available.

METHODS

Five Mycobacterium fortuitum and six Mycobacterium smegmatis isolates obtained from Australian cats underwent susceptibility testing by microbroth dilution to ivermectin, moxidectin, ceftiofur and florfenicol.

RESULTS

All isolates were resistant to the highest concentrations of ivermectin, moxidectin and ceftiofur tested (1024 µg/ml, 256 μg/ml and 32 μg/ml, respectively). All isolates of M fortuitum were resistant to the highest concentration of florfenicol tested (128 µg/ml). The minimum inhibitory concentration range of florfenicol that inhibited growth of M smegmatis isolates was 32-64 µg/ml.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

All drugs appear to have no efficacy in vitro for the treatment of RGM infections.

In vitro interaction of some drug combinations to inhibit rapidly growing mycobacteria isolates from cats and dogs and these isolates' susceptibility to cefovecin and clofazimine

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether selected drug combinations used to treat rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM) have drug-drug interactions that affect efficacy and to investigate each isolate's susceptibility to cefovecin and clofazimine, individually.

DESIGN

In vitro susceptibility testing of bacterial isolates.

METHODS

Initially, five feline isolates and one canine isolate from both Mycobacterium fortuitum and M. smegmatis clusters (n = 12) underwent microbroth susceptibility testing to individual drugs to establish minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of cefovecin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, clofazimine, doxycycline, enrofloxacin, trimethoprim and sulfanilamide (the latter two as a combination). Checkerboard assays were then performed for susceptible M. smegmatis isolates for the following combinations: clarithromycin (one isolate only) versus enrofloxacin, clarithromycin vs doxycycline, clarithromycin vs trimethoprim/sulfanilamide; enrofloxacin vs doxycycline (six isolates); enrofloxacin vs trimethoprim/sulfanilamide (six isolates). Susceptible M. fortuitum isolates were tested against enrofloxacin versus doxycycline (four isolates only).

RESULTS

All six M. fortuitum isolates were susceptible to enrofloxacin, but only four of six were susceptible to doxycycline. All six M. smegmatis isolates were susceptible to doxycycline, enrofloxacin and trimethoprim/sulfanilamide. A single isolate from the 12, a M. smegmatis isolate, was susceptible to clarithromycin. The fractional inhibitory concentration of each drug ranged from 0.64 to 1.84, indicating that neither synergism nor antagonism was evident. All 12 isolates were resistant to cefovecin. The clofazimine MIC50 to inhibit isolate growth was approximately 3.3 μg/mL for both strains.

CONCLUSION

Drugs commonly used for treatment of RGM, when tested as combinations, do not appear to antagonise one another in vitro. Cefovecin is not efficacious for treatment of RGM infections.