FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Intra-articular administration of antibiotics in horses: Jus...
Equine veterinary journal2021; 54(1); 24-38; doi: 10.1111/evj.13502

Intra-articular administration of antibiotics in horses: Justifications, risks, reconsideration of use and outcomes.

Abstract: Antibiotics have been injected intra-articularly by equine veterinarians for decades, either prophylactically when other drugs are administered for osteoarthritis or therapeutically to treat septic arthritis. This route of administration has also more recently gained attention in human orthopaedic clinical practice, particularly as an alternative to systemic antibiotic administration to treat infections following prosthetic arthroplasty. While the rationale for injecting antibiotics intra-articularly has been largely focused on achieving high local drug concentrations, there has been relatively little focus on pharmacokinetic parameters of antibiotics administered by this route, or on the potential for local toxicity. The increasing incidence of antibiotic resistance in veterinary and human medicine prompts reconsideration of off-label antibiotic usage and evaluation of evidence-based dosing strategies. The purpose of this review was to summarise the current literature describing intra-articular antibiotic usage, including specific studies where pharmacokinetics, potential safety and toxicity have been evaluated. This review will advance practitioners' understanding of the use of intra-articularly administered antibiotics, including the overall pros and cons of the approach.
© 2021 EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-09-21 PubMed ID: 34459027DOI: 10.1111/evj.13502Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Review

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research paper reviews the use of antibiotics injected directly into joints, known as intra-articular administration, in horses for prophylaxis and treatment of arthritis, highlighting the overall method, pros, cons, and attention to pharmacokinetics and toxicity.

Background and Purpose

  • The use of intra-articular antibiotic administration in horses has been a common practice among veterinarians for decades, used either as preventative measures or as targeted therapy for septic arthritis – a severe inflammation of the joint caused by a bacterial infection.
  • Recently, this method of antibiotic administration has gained attention in human orthopaedic clinical practices, especially as an alternative to conventional systemic antibiotic delivery to treat infections following orthopaedic surgeries – particularly prosthetic joint surgeries.
  • The rationality behind using this method is mainly to achieve high local drug concentrations. However, unfortunately, there has been relatively little attention given to the study of pharmacokinetic parameters (how the drug moves within the body) & potential for local toxicity when these antibiotics are administered in this way.
  • Given the increased incidence of antibiotic resistance in both veterinary and human medicine, this paper aims to review the off-label use of antibiotics, and evaluate evidence-based dosage strategies.

Study Method

  • The researchers performed an extensive literature review focusing on the topics of intra-articular antibiotic usage, including specific studies where aspects such as antibiotic pharmacokinetics, potential safety & toxicity have been evaluated.

Major Findings and Conclusions

  • While the paper does not provide direct conclusions or findings, it aims to promote the understanding of veterinary practitioners on the use of intra-articular antibiotics, emphasizing the benefits and drawbacks of this technique. This knowledge acquisition can help improve their decision-making skills on when to use this method effectively and safely.

Cite This Article

APA
Pezzanite LM, Hendrickson DA, Dow S, Stoneback J, Chow L, Krause D, Goodrich L. (2021). Intra-articular administration of antibiotics in horses: Justifications, risks, reconsideration of use and outcomes. Equine Vet J, 54(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13502

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 54
Issue: 1
Pages: 24-38

Researcher Affiliations

Pezzanite, Lynn M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Hendrickson, Dean A
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Dow, Steven
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
  • Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Stoneback, Jason
  • Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Chow, Lyndah
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Krause, Danielle
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Goodrich, Laurie
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / adverse effects
  • Horse Diseases / drug therapy
  • Horses
  • Humans
  • Injections, Intra-Articular / veterinary
  • Osteoarthritis / drug therapy
  • Osteoarthritis / veterinary
  • Veterinarians

Grant Funding

  • Carolyn Quan and Porter Bennett
  • NIH/NCATS CCTSI CTSA 5TL1TR002533-02
  • NIH 5T32 OD010437-19
  • Colorado State University Young Investigator Grant in Companion Animal Studies

References

This article includes 96 references
  1. Ferris DJ, Frisbie DD, McIlwraith CW, Kawcak CE. Current joint therapy usage in equine practice: a survey of equine veterinarians 2009. Equine Vet J. 2011;43:530-5.
  2. Gillespie CC, Adams SB, Moore GE. Methods and variables associated with the risk of septic arthritis following intra-articular injections in horses: a survey of veterinarians. Vet Surg 2016;45:1071-6.
  3. Steel CM, Pannirselvam RR, Anderson GA. Risk of septic arthritis after intra-articular medication: a study of 16,624 injections in Thoroughbred racehorses. Aust Vet J 2013;91:268-73.
  4. Bohlin AM, Kristoffersen M, Toft N. Infectious arthritis following intra-articular injection in horses not receiving prophylactic antibiotics: a retrospective cohort study of 2833 medical records. Proc Am Assoc Equine Practnrs 2014;60:255-6.
  5. Smith LCR, Wylie CE, Palmer L, Ramzan PHL. Synovial sepsis is rare following intrasynovial medication in equine ambulatory practice. Equine Vet J 2019;51:595-9.
  6. Krause D, Pezzanite L, Griffenhagen G, Hendrickson D. Comparison of equine synovial sepsis rate following intrasynovial injection in ambulatory versus hospital settings. Equine Vet J. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13485
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13485google scholar: lookup
  7. Adams SB, Moore GE. Effect of needle size and type, reuse of needles, insertion speed, and removal of hair on contamination of joints with tissue debris and hair after arthrocentesis. Vet Surg 2010;39:667-73.
  8. Sabino CV, Weese JS. Contamination of multiple-dose vials in a veterinary hospital. Can Vet J 2006;47:779-82.
  9. Zubrod CJ, Farnsworth KD, Oaks JL. Evaluation of arthrocentesis site bacterial flora before and after 4 methods of preparation in horses with and without evidence of skin contamination. Vet Surg 2004;33:525-30.
  10. Hague BA, Honnas CM, Simpson RB, Peloso JG. Evaluation of skin bacterial flora before and after aseptic preparation of clipped and nonclipped arthrocentesis sites in horses. Vet Surg 1997;26:121-5.
  11. Waxman SJ, Adams SB, Moore GE. Effect of needle brand, needle bevel grind, and silicone lubrication on contamination of joints with tissue and hair debris after arthrocentesis. Vet Surg 2015;44:373-8.
  12. Walmsley EA, Anderson GA, Muurlink MA, Whitton RC. Retrospective investigation of prognostic indicators for adult horses with infection of a synovial structure. Aust Vet J 2011;89:226-31.
  13. Lapointe JM, Laverty S, Lavoie JP. Septic arthritis in 15 Standardbred racehorses after intra-articular injection. Equine Vet J 1992;24:430-4.
  14. Schneider RK, Bramlage LR, Moore RM, Mecklenburg LM, Kohn CW, Gabel AA. A retrospective study of 192 horses affected with septic arthritis/tenosynovitis. Equine Vet J 1992;24:436-42.
  15. Wright IM, Smith MRW, Humphrey DJ, Eaton-Evans TCJ, Hillyer MH. Endoscopic surgery in the treatment of contaminated and infected synovial cavities. Equine Vet J 2003;35:613-9.
  16. Taylor AH, Mair TS, Smith LJ, Perkins JD. Bacterial culture of septic synovial structures of horses: does a positive bacterial culture influence prognosis?. Equine Vet J 2010;42:213-8.
  17. Milner PI, Bardell DA, Warner L, Packer MJ, Senior JM, Singer ER. Factors associated with survival to hospital discharge following endoscopic treatment for synovial sepsis in 214 horses. Equine Vet J 2014;46:701-5.
  18. Richardson DW, Stewart S. Synovial and osseous infection. 2019. p. 1458-70.
  19. Lloyd KC, Stover SM, Pascoe JR. Synovial fluid pH, cytologic characteristics, and gentamicin concentration after intra-articular administration of the drug in an experimental model of infectious arthritis in horses. Am J Vet Res 1990;51:1363-9.
  20. Mills ML, Rush BR, St. Jean G, Gaughan EM, Mosier D, Gibson E. Determination of synovial fluid and serum concentrations, and morphologic effects of intraarticular ceftiofur sodium in horses. Vet Surg 2000;5:398-406.
  21. Taintor J, Schumacher J, DeGraves F. Comparison of amikacin concentrations in normal and inflamed joints of horses following intra-articular administration. Equine Vet J 2006;38:189-91.
  22. Stewart AA, Goodrich LR, Byron CR, Evans RB, Stewart MC. Antimicrobial delivery by intrasynovial catheterization with systemic administration for equine synovial trauma and sepsis. Aust Vet J 2010;88:115-23.
  23. Lescun TB, Vasey JR, Ward MP, Adams SB. Treatment with continuous intrasynovial antimicrobial infusion for septic synovitis in horses: 31 cases (2000-2003). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;228:1922-9.
  24. Parker RA, Clegg PD, Taylor SE. The in vitro effects of antibiotics on cell viability and gene expression of equine bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. Equine Vet J 2012;44:355-60.
  25. Sanders WE, Sanders CC. Toxicity of antibacterial agents: mechanism of action on mammalian cells. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1979;19:53-83.
  26. Bohannon LK, Owens SD, Walker NJ, Carrade DD, Galuppo LD, Borjesson DL. The effects of therapeutic concentrations of gentamicin, amikacin, and hyaluronic acid on cultured bone marrow derived equine mesenchymal stem cells. Equine Vet J 2013;45:732-6.
  27. Chang Y, Goldberg VM, Caplan AI. Toxic effects of gentamicin on marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;454:242-9.
  28. Esposito S. Is single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis sufficient for any surgical procedure?. J Chemother 1999;11:556-64.
  29. Southwood L. Principles of antimicrobial therapy: what should we be using?. Vet Clin Equine 2006;22:279-96.
  30. Davenport CLM, Boston RC, Richardson DW. Effects of enrofloxacin and magnesium deficiency on matrix metabolism in equine articular cartilage. Am J Vet Res 2001;62:160-6.
  31. Egerbacher M, Edinger J, Tschulenk W. Effects of enrofloxacin and ciprofloxacin hydrochloride on canine and equine chondrocytes in culture. Am J Vet Res 2001;62:704-8.
  32. Bolt DM, Ishihara A, Weisbrode SE, Bertone AL. Effects of triamcinolone acetonide, sodium hyaluronate, amikacin sulfate, and mepivacaine hydrochloride, alone and in combination, on morphology and matrix composition of lipopolysaccharide-challenged and unchallenged equine articular cartilage explants. Am J Vet Res 2008;69:861-7.
  33. Mochal-king CA, Rashmir AM, Fortuno LV, Grzanna MW, Au AY, Dougherty J. Mitigation of antibiotic-induced toxicity in equine chondrocytes by soybean/glucosamine/chondroitin combination. Vet Comp Orthop Traum 2019;2:e16-24.
  34. Pezzanite L, Chow L, Soontararak S, Phillips J, Goodrich L, Dow S. Amikacin induces rapid dose-dependent apoptotic cell death in equine chondrocytes and synovial cells in vitro. Equine Vet J 2020;52(5):715-24.
  35. Pezzanite L, Chow L, Piquini G, Griffenhagen G, Ramirez D, Dow S. Use of in vitro assays to identify antibiotics that are cytotoxic to normal equine chondrocytes and synovial cells. Equine Vet J 2021;53(3):579-89.
  36. Sanchez Teran AF, Rubio-Martinez LM, Villarino NF, Sanz MG. Effects of repeated intra-articular administration of amikacin on serum amyloid A, total protein and nucleated cell count in syno- vial fluid from healthy horses. Equine Vet J 2012;44(Suppl 43):12-6.
  37. Stover SM, Pool RR. Effect of intra-articular gentamicin sulfate on normal equine synovial membrane. Am J Vet Res 1985;46:2485-91.
  38. Lescun TB, Adams SB, Wu CC, Bill RP, Van Sickel DC. Effects of continuous intra-articular infusion of gentamicin on synovial membrane and articular cartilage in the tarsocrural joint of horses. Am J Vet Res 2002;63:683-7.
  39. Newman JC, Prange T, Jennings S, Barlow BM, Davis JL. Pharmacokinetics of tobramycin following intravenous, intramuscular and intra-articular administration in healthy horses. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2013;36:532-41.
  40. Pezzanite L, Dow S, Chow L, Piquini G, Phillips J, Lunghofer P. Intra-articular amikacin induces dose-dependent increases in pro-inflammatory biomarkers and cartilage degradation products in an equine model. Frontiers Vet Sci 2021.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.676774google scholar: lookup
  41. Gustafson SB, McIlwraith CW, Jones RL. Comparison of the effect of polysulfated glycosaminoglycan, corticosteroids, and sodium hyaluronate in the potentiation of a subinfective dose of Staphylococcus aureus in the midcarpal joint of horses. Am J Vet Res 1989;50:2014-7.
  42. Gustafson SB, McIlwraith CW, Jones RL, Dixon-White HE. Further investigations into the potentiation of infection by intra-articular injection of polysulfated glycosaminoglycan and the effect of filtration and intra-articular injection of amikacin. Am J Vet Res 1989;50:2018-22.
  43. Haerdi-Landerer C, Suter MM, Steiner A. Intra-articular administration of doxycycline in calves. Am J Vet Res 2007;68:1324-31.
  44. Perez-Nogues M, Encinas T, Lopez-SanRoman J. Pharmacokinetics and local tolerance of cefovecin sodium after intra-articular administration in horses. J Vet Pharmacol Therap 2017;40:28-34.
  45. Werner LA, Hardy J, Bertone AL. Bone gentamicin concentration after intra-articular or regional intravenous perfusion in the horse. Vet Surg 2003;32:559-65.
  46. Lloyd KC, Stover SM, Pascoe JR, Baggot JD, Kurpershoek C, Hietala S. Plasma and synovial fluid concentrations of gentamicin in horses after intra-articular administration of buffered and unbuffered gentamicin. Am J Vet Res 1988;49:650-7.
  47. Whiteside LA, Peppers M, Nayfeh TA, Roy M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in TKA treated with revision and direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:26-33.
  48. Whiteside LA, Roy ME, Nayfeh TA. A direct approach to treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016;98:31-6.
  49. Whiteside LA, Roy ME. One-stage revision with catheter infusion of intra-articular antibiotics successfully treats infected THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017;475:419-29.
  50. Perry CR, Hulsey RE, Mann FA, Miller GA, Pearson RL. Treatment of acutely infected arthroplasties with incision, drainage, and local antibiotics delivered via an implantable pump. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;281:216-23.
  51. Roy ME, Peppers MP, Whiteside LA, LaZear RM. Vancomycin concentration in synovial fluid: direct injection into the knee vs. intravenous infusion. Journal of Arthoplasty 2014;29:564-8.
  52. Peppers MP, Whiteside LA, Lazear RM, Roy ME. Vancomycin injected in the knee achieved high synovial fluid concentration with a half-life of 3.4 hours. Proc Orthop Res Soc 2011;1567.
  53. Bjerke-Kroll BT, Christ AB, McLawhorn AS, Sculco PK, Jules-Elysee KM, Sculco TP. Periprosthetic joint infections treated with two-stage revision over 14 years: an evolving microbiology profile. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:877-82.
  54. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:984-91.
  55. Springer BD, Cahue S, Etkin CD, Lewallen DG, McGrory BJ. Infection burden in total hip and knee arthroplasties: an international registry-based perspective. Arthroplast Today 2017;3:137-40.
  56. Antoci V, Adams CS, Hickok NJ, Shapiro IM, Parvizi J. Antibiotics for local delivery systems cause skeletal cell toxicity in vitro. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;462:200-6.
  57. Dogan M, Isyar M, Yilmaz I, Bilir B, Sirin DY, Cakmak S. Are the leading drugs against Staphylococcus aureus really toxic to cartilage?. J Infect Public Health 2016;9:251-8.
  58. Shaw JA. The use of long-term indwelling catheters for local antibiotic administration into infected joints: a concept report. J Orthop Tech 1995;3:181-4.
  59. Davenport K, Traina S, Perry C. Treatment of acutely infected arthroplasty with local antibiotics. J Arthoplasty 1991;6:179-83.
  60. Whiteside LA, Nayfeh TA, LaZear R, Roy ME. Reinfected revised TKA resolves with an aggressive protocol and antibiotic infusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:236-43.
  61. Amato-Gauci A, Ammon A. The first european communicable disease epidemiological report. Proceedings European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Stockholm, Sweden: 2007.
  62. Herdan CL, Acke E, Dicken M, Archer RM, Forsyth SF, Gee EK. Multi-drug resistant Enterococcus spp. as a cause of non-responsive septic synovitis in three horses. NZ Vet J 2012;60:297-304.
  63. Loncaric I, Kunzel F, Licka T, Simhofer H, Spergser J, Rosengarten R. Identification and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Austrian companion animals and horses. Vet Microbiol 2014;168:381-7.
  64. Maddox TW, Clegg PD, Williams NJ, Pinchbeck GL. Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from horses: epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance. Equine Vet J 2015;47:756-65.
  65. Mallardo K, Nizza S, Fiorito F, Pagnini U, De Martino L, Donnarumma G. A comparative evaluation of methicillin-resistant staphylococci isolated from harness racing-horses, breeding mares and riding horses in Italy. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2013;3:169-73.
  66. Singh BR. Prevalence of vancomycin resistance and multiple drug resistance in enterococci in equids in North India. J Infect Dev Ctries 2009;3:498-503.
  67. Slater JD. MRSA: an emerging equine problem?. Equine Vet J 2005;37:490-2.
  68. Spijk JN, Schmitt S, Schoster A. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria in an equine hospital (2012-2015). Equine Vet Educ 2019;31:653-8.
  69. Theelen MJ, Wilson WD, Edman JM, Magdesian KG, Kass PH. Temporal trends in prevalence of bacteria isolated from foals with sepsis: 1979-2010. Equine Vet J 2014;46:169-73.
  70. Van den Eede A, Martens A, Linpinska U, Struelens M, Deplano A, Denis O. High occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphyloccocus aureus ST398 in equine nasal samples. Vet Microbiol 2009;133:138-44.
  71. Van den Eede A, Hermans K, Van den Abeele A, Flore K, Dewulf J, Vanderhaeghen W. Methicillin-resistant Staphyloccous aureus (MRSA) on the skin of long-term hospitalized horses. Vet J 2012;193:408-11.
  72. Perez-Jorge C, Gomez-Barrena E, Horcajada J, Puig-Verdie L, Esteban J. Drug treatments for prosthetic joint infections in the era of multidrug resistance. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2016;17:1233-46.
  73. Motwani G, Mehta R, Aroojis A, Vaidya S. Current trends of microorganisms and their sensitivity pattern in paediatric septic arthritis: a prospective study from tertiary care level hospital. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2017;8:89-92.
  74. Ben-Chetrit E, Zamir A, Natsheh A, Nesher G, Wiener-Well Y, Breuer G. Trends in antimicrobial resistance among bacteria causing septic arthritis in adults in a single center: a 15-year retrospective analysis. Intern Emerg Med 2020;15:655-61.
  75. Rosteius T, Jansen O, Fehmer T, Baecker H, Citak M, Schildhauer T. Evaluating the microbial pattern of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. J Med Microbiol 2018;67:1608-13.
  76. Habboush Y, Guzman N. Antibiotic resistance. StatPearls [Internet] 2020.
  77. Gilbertie JM, Schnabel LV, Stefanovski D, Kelly D, Jacob M, Schaer TP. Gram-negative multi-drug resistant bacteria influence survival to discharge for horses with septic synovial structures: 206 Cases (2010-2015). Vet Micro 2018;226:64-73.
  78. Gilbertie JM, Schnabel LV, Hickok NJ, Jacob ME, Conlon BP, Shapiro IM. Equine or porcine synovial fluid as a novel ex vivo model for the study of bacterial free- floating biofilms that form in human joint infections. PLoS One 2019;14:e0221012.
  79. Gilbertie JM, Schaer TP, Schubert AG, Jacob ME, Menegatti S, Lavoie RA. Platelet-rich plasma lysate displays antibiofilm properties and restores antimicrobial activity against synovial fluid biofilms in vitro. J Orthop Res 2020;38(6):1365-74.
  80. Pezzanite L, Chow L, Johnson V, Impastato R, Dow S, Goodrich L. TLR activation of equine mesenchymal stromal cells enhances antibacterial activity and immunomodulatory cytokine secretion. Vet Surg 2021;50:858-71.
  81. Harman R, Yang S, He M, Van de Walle G. Antimicrobial peptides secreted by equine mesenchymal stromal cells inhibit the growth of bacteria commonly found in skin wounds. Stem Cell Res Ther 2017;8:157.
  82. Cortes-Araya Y, Amilon K, Rink B, Black G, Lisowski Z, Donadeu F. Comparison of antibacterial and immunological properties of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells from equine bone marrow, endometrium, and adipose tissue. Stem Cells Dev 2018;27:1518-25.
  83. Boswell SG, Cole BJ, Sundman EA, Karas V, Fortier LA. Platelet-rich plasma: a milieu of bioactive factors. Arthos-J Arthosc Relat Surg 2012;28:429-39.
  84. Moojen DJF, Everts PAM, Schure RM. Antimicrobial activity of platelet-leukocyte gel against Staphylococcus aureus. J Orthop Res 2008;26:404-10.
  85. Lopez C, Carmona JU, Giraldo CE, Alvarez M. Bacteriostatic effect of equine pure platelet-rich plasma and other blood products against methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. An in vitro study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014;27:372-8.
  86. Lopez C, Alvarez ME, Carmona JU. Temporal bacteriostatic effect and growth factor loss in equine platelet components and plasma cultured with methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a comparative in vitro study. Vet Med Int 2014;2014:525826-8.
  87. Rozalski MI, Micota B, Sadowska B, Paszkiewicz M, Wieckowska-Szakiel M, Rozalska B. Antimicrobial/antibiofilm activity of expired blood platelets and their released products. Postepy Hig Med Dosw 2013;67:321-5.
  88. Tyrnenopoulou P, Diakakis N, Karayannopoulou M, Savvas I, Koliakos G. Evaluation of intra-articular injection of autologous platelet lysate (PL) in horses with osteoarthritis of the distal interphalangeal joint. Vet Q 2016;36:56-62.
  89. Liesenborghs L, Verhamme P, Vanassche T. Staphylococcus aureus, master manipulator of the human hemostatic system. J Thromb Haemost 2018;16:441-54.
  90. Gilbertie JM, Schaer TP, Jacob ME, Seiler GS, Deddens BL, Stowe DM, Schubert AG, Frink AG, Schnnabel LV. Use of platelet-rich plasma lysate improves bacterial load and outcomes of S. aureus infectious arthritis in horses. Paper presented at: American College of Veterinary Surgeons Surgery Summit; October 25-27; Phoenix, Arizona.
  91. Chow L, Johnson V, Impastato R, Coy J, Strumpf A, Dow S. Antibacterial activity of human mesenchymal stem cells mediated directed by constitutively secreted factors and indirectly by activation of innate immune effector cells. Stem Cells Transl Med 2020;9:235-49.
  92. Johnson V, Webb T, Dow S. Activated mesenchymal stem cells amplify antibiotic activity against chronic Staphylococcus aureus infection. J Immunol 2013;190:11.
  93. Johnson V, Webb T, Norman A, Coy J, Kurihara J, Regan D. Activated mesenchymal stem cells interact with antibiotics and host innate immune responses to control chronic bacterial infections. Sci Rep 2017;29:9575.
  94. Bussche L, Harman RM, Syracuse BA, Plante EL, Lu Y, Curtis TM. Microencapsulated equine mesenchymal stromal cells promote cutaneous wound healing in vitro. Stem Cell Res Ther 2015;6:66.
  95. Harman RM, Bihun IV, Van de Walle GR. Secreted factors from equine mesenchymal stromal cells diminish the effects of TGF-ß1 on equine dermal fibroblasts and alter the phenotype of dermal fibroblasts isolated from cutaneous fibroproliferative wounds. Wound Rep Reg 2017;25:234-47.
  96. Marx C, Gardner S, Harman RM, Van de Walle GR. The mesenchymal stromal cell secretome impairs methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms via cysteine protease activity in the equine model. STEM CELLS Transl Med 2020;9:746-57.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Zhao N, Curry D, Evans RE, Isguven S, Freeman T, Eisenbrey JR, Forsberg F, Gilbertie JM, Boorman S, Hilliard R, Dastgheyb SS, Machado P, Stanczak M, Harwood M, Chen AF, Parvizi J, Shapiro IM, Hickok NJ, Schaer TP. Microbubble cavitation restores Staphylococcus aureus antibiotic susceptibility in vitro and in a septic arthritis model.. Commun Biol 2023 Apr 17;6(1):425.
    doi: 10.1038/s42003-023-04752-ypubmed: 37069337google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.