Vetrimax® products are backed by clinical evidence and current research.

Clinical Studies

Vetrimax® products are backed by clinical evidence and current research.

UTid+ Results Validation Study

Stephen Cole, MS, VMD, et al. 

Urinary tract infections (UTI) commonly affect dogs and cats and are one of the most common reasons for antimicrobial therapies in companion animals. The most common UTIs manifest by a bacterial infection of the bladder implying in clinical signs such as dysuria, pollakiuria, and/or increased urgency of urination along with presence of bacteria in urine (Warrenet al., 1999). Improper antimicrobial administrations are often attributed to erroneous diagnosis of the pathogens present in the urinary tract and it can lead to failure to resolve infection, antimicrobial resistance, and economic losses. Proper and timely diagnosis of UTI pathogens is crucial to a successful treatment. The correct diagnosis allows the proper decision of the antimicrobial, increasing the chances of solving the case.


Valerie A. Fadok, DVM, PhD, DACVD, Katherine Irwin, DVM, DACVD

The emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius has increased the interest in topical therapy for treating canine pyoderma. Shampooing with chlorhexidine followed by dilute bleach rinses are often recommended, but household bleach can dry the skin and is unpleasant to use. A shampoo formulated with sodium hypochlorite, salicylic acid, and moisturizing ingredients was evaluated as sole therapy for dogs with superficial pyoderma associated with S. pseudintermedius, including methicillin-resistant strains without drying of the skin.


Frane Banovic*† , Thierry Olivry†, Wolfgang Baumer € ‡, Judy Paps†, Jessica Stahl§, Ana Rogers¶ and Megan Jacob¶

With the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria, antiseptics have gained popularity as an alternative to antibiotics. Diluted bleach (sodium hypochlorite, hereafter referred to as hypochlorite) represents an inexpensive and widely available topical antiseptic. It is commonly used as part of the treatment regimens for recurrent skin and soft tissue infections in human dermatology, with recommended therapeutic concentrations varying between 0.005 and 0.016% of hypochlorite.1,2 For the treatment of skin infections due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), household bleach (8.15% sodium hypochlorite) diluted to 0.008% hypochlorite has been recommended for application for 15 min twice weekly.1 One review proposed use of 0.016% hypochlorite for the treatment of human patients with atopic dermatitis and recurrent MRSA skin infections.3 Dilute bleach baths (approximate concentration of 0.005% hypochlorite) have been shown to remarkably reduce the severity of infected atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.


Given the concern about increasing bacterial resistance, some human clinicians are currently recommending diluted sodium hypochlorite (bleach) baths as an adjuvant treatment for local bacterial skin infections, especially in atopic eczema patients with heavily colonized skin.1 In several studies, the recommended diluted bleach concentrations for use varied from 0.004 to 0.016%, with a contact time of 5–10 min and administration frequency of twice weekly for several months.1 Although all the authors of these studies concluded that diluted bleach had a good efficacy, the studies had several limitations, because most of them were open, nonblinded studies.1 A concentration of ~0.005% diluted sodium hypochlorite has been recommended and safely used for children.2 While there is anecdotal evidence of the use of topical sodium hypochlorite products in veterinary medicine, there is inadequate information regarding the susceptibility of canine skin pathogenic micro-organisms. The goal of our study was to assess the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of diluted commercial sodium hypochlorite against Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Malassezia pachydermatis from dogs at two different contact times.


Manfred H. Wolff, 1 Syed A. Sattar, 2 Olusola Adegbunrin 2, and Jason Tetro 2

Since their first isolation from chickens in 1937 [1], coronaviruses have proven to be significant pathogens of many types of wild as well as economically important domesticated animals.Though coronaviruses were first identified as human respiratory pathogens in 1965 [2], only recently, with their established link with the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), has there been a sudden upsurge of interest in this group of viruses.