Comparative study of a commercial formula containing natural antimicrobials versus oral cephalexin or topical chlorhexidine‐miconazole therapies for treating superficial pyoderma in dogs

Abstract Background Chronic and recurrent pyoderma in dogs is driving a growing interest in natural antimicrobial products that offer minimal adverse effects and avoid antibiotic resistance. Objectives Evaluate the safety and efficacy of dermatological products with antimicrobial peptides and plant extracts, comparing them to chlorhexidine + miconazole and cephalexin therapy for superficial pyoderma in dogs. Materials and Methods Forty‐five dogs with superficial pyoderma underwent clinical, cytopathological and microbiological diagnosis, and were randomly assigned to Group 1 (G1) treated with shampoo (two weekly baths) and lotion (twice daily on the affected areas) containing natural antimicrobials; Group 2 (G2) treated with two weekly baths using a therapeutic shampoo containing 2% chlorhexidine and 2.5% miconazole; or Group 3 (G3) treated with oral cephalexin 30 mg/kg twice daily. Staphylococcus spp. strains were identified using matrix‐assisted laser desorption ionisation–time of flight mass spectrometry and pruritus Visual Analog Scale (PVAS)/lesion scores were evaluated on Day (D)0, D7, D14, D21 and D28. Results Statistical differences ( p < 0.05) were noted between D0 and D28 in PVAS values and lesion scores for all groups. G1 had lower PVAS scores than other groups on D7 and D14 ( p < 0.05) and lower lesion scores than G3 on D7. By D28, G1 and G3 had lower lesion scores than G2. Notably, G1 and G2 had no adverse effects, while 26% of G3 patients experienced gastrointestinal issues during therapy. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance This preliminary investigation of the new product (G1) suggests that it is effective, safe and a promising topical treatment for managing superficial pyoderma in dogs, offering an alternative to systemic antibiotics and topical antiseptic treatments.