BackgroundL-theanine is an aminoacid found in tea leaves which has relaxing effects in humans and animals. It is a structural analogue of glutamate which can bind glutamate receptors. Although the relaxing action of L-theanine has been shown in humans, laboratory animals and dogs, it has never been published in cats. The goal of this open-label, multicentre and prospective trial was to determine whether an L-theanine based oral supplement (Anxitane®, Virbac, France) could attenuate manifestations of stress in cats under field conditions.Case presentationThirty-three privately owned cats presenting signs associated with stress or fear (inappropriate urination/defecation, fear-induced aggressiveness, hypervigilance/tenseness or physical/functional manifestations of stress) for at least 1 month, were included in the study. They were given L-theanine (Anxitane®, 25 mg twice a day) for 30 days and 20 stress-related parameters were scored at Days 0, 15 and 30. The evolution of some parameters was also rated relative to Day 0. All median scores of the 20 parameters were significantly reduced at D30, and 30/33 cats (91%) had a reduced global score at the end of the study, including 21/33 with ≥50% score reduction. The median (IQR) global scores went from 18 (13–23) at D0 to 11 (8–13) at D15 and 5 (3–12) at D30 (p < 0.0001; Friedman test; significant reduction starting from D15). All the stress-related signs were significantly improved compared to D0, according to the owners, especially inappropriate elimination. Tablet palatability was judged good or very good in 94% of cases with spontaneous intake by cats when given by hand or in food. Tolerance was satisfactory as well, and no side effects were reported, so that most owners (27/33; 82%) were satisfied with the product.ConclusionsDespite the lack of a placebo group, it can be concluded that L-theanine (Anxitane®) helped to improve the undesirable manifestations of stress in cats in as soon as 15 days, though better results could be seen after 30 days of administration. These encouraging results show that L-theanine can help manage stress-related behaviour, but additional trials with a placebo group should be run to confirm this effect.

Background -Because of the increased incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, the use of disinfectants over antibiotics has been encouraged. However, the interactions between disinfectants and host local immunity are poorly understood.Objective -To assess the effects of chlorhexidine digluconate (Chx), with and without selected host defence peptides (HDPs), against MDR Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MDR-SP).Methods and materials -Ten clinical isolates of MDR-SP were tested, using a modified microbroth dilution method. Four two-fold dilutions of 2% Chx and 1 lg/mL the HDPs synthetic canine b-defensin 103 (cBD103) or cathelicidin (cCath) were tested alone or in combination. Colony counts after 5, 15, 30 and 60 min, and a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) after 24 h were recorded. Friedman followed by Dunn's multiple comparison tests with significance of P < 0.05 were used for statistical analysis. Synergy, additivity/neutrality or antagonism were calculated.Results -Growth was not inhibited by either HDP alone. An MIC of 0.312 lg/mL Chx was achieved for nine of the isolates. One isolate had an MIC of 0.078 lg/mL Chx. A MIC 90 (in nine of 10 isolates) of 0.312 µg/mL was seen for Chx in combination with either HDP. Synergy was seen in the combination Chx/cCath used at the highest concentrations of Chx (0.624 µg/mL and 0.312 µg/mL) after 30 and 60 min incubation. Additivity/neutrality was seen for most of the other concentrations and times of incubation.Conclusions and clinical importance -These results suggest a synergistic/additive effect between Chx and HDPs in dogs. Further studies evaluating the mechanisms behind this effect are needed.

Background: Staphylococcus spp., and Pseudomonas spp., including multidrug resistant staphylococci are frequent isolates from canine otitis externa and atopic dermatitis. Biofilm formation by these organisms may be important in otitis chronicity. With ear cleanser products commonly used to control microbial overgrowth, it is important to measure their antibiofilm effects. Six ear cleansers (EpioticⓇ SIS, EpioticⓇ Advanced, CleanauralⓇ, Otifree, PeptivetⓇ and SonotixⓇ) were evaluated against infection isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, methicillin resistant and sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. Antibiofilm activity was measured colorimetrically via the presence of viable cells as detected by the reduction of a thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide compound (MTT). Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of EpioticⓇ SIS and EpioticⓇ Advanced were measured using a broth micro-dilution assay to ascertain inhibition in planktonic phase. Results: EpioticⓇ (SIS and Advanced), CleanauralⓇ and PeptivetⓇ showed strong antibiofilm activity, with Otifree and SonotixⓇ showing moderate to low antibiofilm activity. Differences in inhibition between the methicillin resistant and sensitive staphylococcal isolates were also observed between the products with Otifree showing significantly less inhibition of the resistant isolate of S. aureus compared to the sensitive isolate. P. aeruginosa biofilms were less effectively disrupted by some ear cleansers compared to EpioticⓇ, and the MIC results indicated that less diluted solutions were required to inhibit this isolate compared to the staphylococci. Differences in the antibacterial effects between EpioticⓇ SIS and EpioticⓇ Advanced solutions could also be detected from the MIC assays suggesting differences in formulations can affect antimicrobial efficacy. Conclusions: Commonly used canine ear cleanser products showed activity against multidrug resistant and sensitive Staphylococcusspp. and P. aeruginosa isolates in both biofilm and planktonic phases. Differences between strains and cleansers were observed that should enable better targeted use of these products.