Evidence Hub

Nasal Staphylococcus aureus and S. pseudintermedius carriage in healthy dogs and cats: a systematic review of their antibiotic resistance, virulence and genetic lineages of zoonotic relevance

Abdullahi IN, Zarazaga M, Campaña-Burguet A, Eguizábal P, Lozano C, Torres C

Journal of applied microbiology, 2022

32 citations

Abstract

The molecular ecology of Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and their methicillin-resistant strains in healthy dogs and cats could serve as good models to understand the concept of bacterial zoonosis due to animal companionship. This study aims to provide insights into pooled prevalence, genetic lineages, virulence and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among healthy dogs and cats. Original research and brief communication articles published from 2001 to 2021 that reported the nasal detection of S. aureus and S. pseudintermedius in healthy dogs and cats in the community, homes and outside veterinary clinics were examined and analysed. Forty-nine studies were eligible and included in this systematic review. The pooled prevalence of nasal carriage of S. aureus/methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in healthy dogs and cats were 10.9% (95% CI: 10.1-11.9)/2.8% (95% CI: 2.4-3.2) and 3.2% (95% CI: 1.9-4.8)/0.5% (95% CI: 0.0-1.1), respectively. Conversely, the pooled prevalence of S. pseudintermedius/methicillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius (MRSP) in healthy dogs and cats were 18.3% (95% CI: 17.1-19.7)/3.1% (95% CI: 2.5-3.7) and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.6-2.4)/1.2% (95% CI: 0.6-2.3), respectively. Although highly diverse genetic lineages of S. aureus were detected in healthy dogs and cats, MSSA-CC1/CC5/CC22/CC45/CC121/CC398 and MRSA-CC5/CC93/CC22/CC30 were mostly reported in dogs; and MSSA-CC5/CC8/CC15/CC48 and MRSA-CC22/CC30/CC80 in cats. Of note, MSSA-CC398 isolates…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free