Veterinary Dermatology Antiseptic Prescribing

This briefing concerns veterinary prescribing rather than human dermatology. Investigators characterized nonantibiotic antimicrobial use among dogs, cats, and other small animal species treated at a university veterinary hospital in Colombia. The study focused on prescription patterns and prescription quality, including consultation type, pharmacological group, pharmaceutical form, administration route, and selected documentation and dosing features. Its dermatology-relevant result is therefore a comparison of prescribing frequency across consultation categories, not an assessment of a skin treatment’s effectiveness, safety, or clinical outcome. (pmid:42958867)

Evidence

The researchers conducted an observational cross-sectional study using retrospective data from a clinical database at a Colombian university veterinary hospital for small animals. Prescription data covered 1 January through 31 December 2022. The hospital database records approximately 10,000 annual admissions, and the reported common consultation reasons included dermatology visits alongside routine check-ups, laboratory sample collection, imaging, vaccination, orthopedic evaluation, feline medicine, nephrology, and follow-up visits. This setting defines the source population as animals seen at one university hospital rather than a population-based sample of companion animals. (pmid:42958867)

Sampling used the first four prescriptions recorded per day. This systematic approach yielded 1,460 prescriptions, of which 731 involved nonantibiotic antimicrobials. Animal characteristics, consultation type, and prescription details were extracted from the clinical database. The investigators classified nonantibiotic antimicrobials by pharmacological group, pharmaceutical form, and route of administration, then performed bivariate analyses to identify stewardship-relevant patterns. All analyses were performed in Stata version 19.5. (pmid:42958867)

Topical antiseptics accounted for 49.9% of the nonantibiotic antimicrobial prescriptions. The reported routes were predominantly cutaneous and oral, reflecting how the identified products were administered in this prescribing dataset. Chlorhexidine was identified as the most common active ingredient, while external and internal antiparasitics were also among the frequently used nonantibiotic antimicrobial classes. These descriptive results characterize the mix of products in sampled prescriptions; they do not identify an indication, response, or outcome for an individual animal. (pmid:42958867)

For the dermatology comparison, topical antiseptics were involved in 55.0% of dermatology consultations versus 45.5% in the reported comparison consultation category. The estimated odds ratio was 1.47, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.06–2.02. The study thus recorded a higher frequency of topical-antiseptic use in dermatology consultations within this hospital sample. The effect estimate describes the association between consultation category and the recorded prescription pattern; it does not establish that the consultation category caused topical-antiseptic prescribing. (pmid:42958867)

The investigators also assessed selected stewardship-related prescription features. They reported that 67.6% of treatments adhered to standard duration, whereas 38% matched recommended dosing. The abstract further described frequently missing prescription elements, including International Nonproprietary Names, concentration, and complete administration instructions. These measures concern conformity and documentation in the available prescription records, rather than microbiological activity, resistance outcomes, dermatologic resolution, adverse events, or animal-level benefit. (pmid:42958867)

The reported comparison involving internal antiparasitics provides context for how consultation type was analyzed. General consultations had higher odds of internal-antiparasitic use than dermatology consultations, with an odds ratio of 5.58 and 95% confidence interval of 2.93–10.62. This separate association indicates that the distribution of nonantibiotic antimicrobial classes differed by consultation category in the study data. It does not turn the dermatology result into a causal comparison or establish the appropriateness of any individual prescription. (pmid:42958867)

Analysis — Prescribing pattern interpretation

Within this retrospective cross-sectional sample, the dermatology association is an observed pattern consistent with the study’s consultation mix, systematic selection of the first four daily prescriptions, and classification of products from recorded prescriptions. Dermatology consultations had a greater recorded frequency of topical-antiseptic use than the comparison category, but the design does not distinguish whether this pattern reflected case mix, clinician preference, availability, severity, diagnostic information, or other unmeasured features of the consultation. The confidence interval describes uncertainty around the reported odds-ratio estimate, while statistical significance does not by itself establish clinical significance. Because the data concern animals at one Colombian university hospital, the result remains scoped to that veterinary setting and cannot directly establish implications for human skin disease. The documentation and dosing observations are stewardship-relevant record-based findings, not evidence of patient benefit or harm. (pmid:42958867)

Limitations

The retrospective design cannot establish causation. The study sampled prescriptions rather than following animals for clinical outcomes, and the available material does not provide a clinical outcome assessment for dermatology patients or animals. Selection bias may arise because the systematic sample comprised the first four prescriptions per day, while the single university-hospital setting and its particular consultation mix may not represent other veterinary practices or regions. The investigators also noted the need for hospital-wide caseload denominators for comparative inferences. (pmid:42958867)

A product-by-product classification of regulatory status as over-the-counter, veterinary-prescription-only, or compounded was not performed. Regulatory information was not consistently recorded in the medical chart, limiting retrospective classification. The study was conducted at one university veterinary hospital in Colombia, and the investigators identified broader geographic and institutional representation as a limitation to address in multicentre work. These constraints limit how far the observed prescription patterns can be generalized beyond the sampled setting. (pmid:42958867)