Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Introduction
Staphylococcus spp. are known to colonize the nasal mucosa of animals and human beings. However, they are also known to be pathogenic to numerous species of animals including humans (Abulreesh, 2011; Adegoke & Okoh, 2014). Staphylococcus spp. are often associated with community and hospital acquired infections affecting the skin, soft tissue, surgical sights, bones and joints in humans. In some cases, Staphylococcus spp. infections have been associated with life-threatening post-surgical toxic shock syndrome with high rates of morbidity and mortality (Shittu & Lin, 2006; Marais et al., 2009). In dogs, Staphylococcus spp. have been isolated in clinical conditions including pyoderma, otitis, and post-surgical infections (Frank et al., 2003; May et al., 2005; Kramer, Schwebke & Kampf, 2006; Cohn & Middleton, 2010; Ishihara et al., 2010; Kawakami et al., 2010; Weese & van Duijkeren, 2010). The majority of studies on the prevalence of staphylococci in dogs show that skin remains the main body site associated with Staphylococcus infections Blunt et al (2013).
A number of studies have demonstrated that transmission of Staphylococcus species from dogs to humans do occur. Therefore, exposure to carrier or infected dogs is a risk factor for staphylococcal infections in humans (Bagcigil et al., 2007; Boost, O’Donoghue & Siu, 2007; Faires, Tater & Weese, 2009; Frank et al., 2009; Pantosti, 2012). The zoonotic potential of Staphylococcus spp. is of great concern in developing countries where there is a high burden of communicable diseases and large proportions of immunocompromised individuals. Due to this risk, contact between infected animals and humans should be restricted, where possible, in order to mitigate the risk of infection and its associated public health concerns (Faires, Tater & Weese, 2009).
The presence of multi-drug resistant Staphylococcus spp. and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) often worsens the prognosis of affected human and animal patients. Unfortunately, resistance profiles of Staphylococcus spp. from clinical cases of dogs in South Africa have not been investigated and yet this information is important for patient prognosis. The only published study in South Africa on antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of Staphylococcus spp. in dogs was done by Blunt et al (2013). In that study, Blunt and co-workers reported increased resistance to ampicillin, tetracycline and potentiated sulphonamides relative to other antimicrobials. Other studies elsewhere have reported an increased prevalence of resistance to enrofloxacin, gentamycin, erythromycin and clindamycin compared to other antimicrobials (Prescott et al., 2002; Hauschild & Wójcik, 2007). There is a consensus among researchers that indiscriminate use of antimicrobial agents is among the main drivers of resistance in veterinary medicine.
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.2 Literature Review
1.2.1 Staphylococcal organisms and infections
1.2.1.1 Aetiology, pathogenesis and clinical signs
1.2.2 Diagnosis and treatment
1.2.3 Epidemiology of Staphylococcus infections
1.2.4 Antimicrobial resistance among staphylococci
1.3 References
CHAPTER 2 Burden and predictors of Staphylococcus aureus and S. pseudintermedius infections among dogs presented at an academic veterinary hospital in South Africa (2007-2012)
2.2 Abstract
2.3 Introduction
2.4 Materials and Methods .
2.5 Results
2.6 Discussion
2.7 Conclusions
2.8 Acknowledgement
2.9 References
CHAPTER 3 Patterns and predictors of antimicrobial resistance among Staphylococcus spp. from canine clinical cases presented at a veterinary academic hospital in SouthAfrica.
3.2 Abstract
3.3 Introduction .
3.4 Materials and Methods
3.5 Results
3.6 Discussion
3.7 Conclusion
3.8 References
CHAPTER 4 Geographic distribution of Staphylococcus spp. infections and antimicrobial resistance among dogs presented at a veterinary teaching hospital in South Africa.
4.2 Abstract
4.3 Introduction
4.4 Materials and Methods
4.5 Results
4.6 Discussions
4.7 Conclusions
4.8 References
CHAPTER 5 Summary, discussions and conclusions
