Progressive ulcerative keratitis in dogs in the United Kingdom: Microbial isolates, antimicrobial sensitivity, and resistance patterns.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to identify bacterial pathogens and their antimicrobial sensitivity profile associated with cases of canine progressive ulcerative keratitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of microbial culture and sensitivity results from dogs with progressive ulcerative keratitis presenting to a UK referral practice between December 2018 and August 2020. RESULTS: Positive bacterial cultures were obtained from 80/148 (54%) of the canine ulcers sampled with 99 bacterial isolates cultured. Streptococcus canis (n = 29), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 19), and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (n = 16) were the most common isolates. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was more likely to be isolated whether the ulcer was clinically malacic at the time of sampling (OR = 10.1, p < .001). Ulcers treated prior to culture with fusidic acid were 7.6 times more likely to be positive than those treated with any other antimicrobial(s). Bacterial isolates demonstrated resistance against neomycin (85%), fusidic acid (78%), and tetracycline (68%). Conversely, isolates were most likely to be sensitive to gentamicin (88%), ofloxacin (77%), ciprofloxacin (73%), and chloramphenicol (64%). Antimicrobial combinations of chloramphenicol or gentamicin with a fluoroquinolone (ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin) or chloramphenicol combined with gentamicin were the most effective on in vitro analysis (over 90% susceptibility of all isolates). CONCLUSION: The most common bacterial species associated with canine progressive ulcerative keratitis in a UK referral population were S. canis, P. aeruginosa, and S. pseudintermedius. Combination antimicrobial therapy is recommended pending culture and sensitivity results given the varied antimicrobial susceptibility profiles and significant bacterial in vitro resistance to antimicrobial monotherapy.

The politics of grief and continuing bonds with the dead: the cases of Maoist China and Wahhabi Islam.

The article is a contribution to a cross-cultural theory of grief. It examines the relationship between individual/family continuing bonds with the dead and cultural narratives that legitimize political power. The dead are collective representations (Dirkheim) that mediate the larger culture to individuals and to smaller communities and that reinforce social solidarity and identity. The political question is which collective--family, community, church, party, nation--owns the dead and controls the rituals by which bonds with the dead are maintained or relinquished? The article discusses one historical condition: times of rapid change in power arrangements. Bonds with the dead have a power in individual, family, or tribal life that can threaten the narrative that legitimizes the new political power holders. Ancestor rituals that support identity as a family or tribal member are surpressed and replaced by allegiance to collective representations of the new political order. Two historical examples are given: China under Chairman Mao and the Wahhabi reform in Arabic Islam.

Politics, religions, and grief: the cases of American spiritualism and the Deuteronomic reform in Israel.

The article is a contribution to the task of developing a cross-cultural model of grief. It shows that grief narratives can be complexly interwoven with the religious and political narratives of the culture. Two political reforms in which religious narratives figured prominently are given as case examples: 19th-century Spiritualism in North America and the Deuteronomic reform in 7th-century BCE Israel. Similarities and differences between the two are discussed. The article concludes that an adequate cross-cultural model of grief must be capable of explaining how a particular grief narrative relates to the politics and religious narratives in which it is set.