Rethinking Pyoderma Management: Where Non-Antimicrobial Topicals Fit in Modern Veterinary Practice

Antimicrobial stewardship is no longer a future goal in veterinary medicine. It is a present-day responsibility.

Canine pyoderma remains one of the most common dermatologic conditions seen in general practice, and historically, it has also been one of the most frequent reasons for systemic antibiotic use. Emerging guidance, including the International Society for Companion Animal Infectious Diseases (ISCAID) guidelines published in Veterinary Dermatology, is pushing the profession toward a more thoughtful, layered approach.

The Shift: From Routine Antibiotics to Strategic Therapy

The guidelines are generally understood to emphasize:

• Topical therapy playing a central role in managing pyoderma
• Systemic antibiotics reserved for appropriate cases
• Antiseptics prioritized over antibiotics whenever possible

Consensus in the literature suggests that topical approaches can effectively treat surface and superficial pyoderma, may reduce reliance on systemic antibiotics in select cases, and can shorten the duration of systemic therapy when used adjunctively.

Topical approaches are generally associated with lower risk of driving antimicrobial resistance, due to high local drug concentration and minimal systemic exposure.

Why This Matters in Daily Practice

Practitioners are managing several pressures at once:

• Rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR)
• Increased scrutiny on prescribing habits
• Clients who are more informed and asking more questions

At the same time, dermatology cases are often chronic, recurrent, and multifactorial. This creates conditions where repeated antibiotic courses become common, underlying disease can remain unaddressed, and resistance risk increases over time.

The guidelines reinforce that pyoderma cannot be managed the same way it was 10 to 15 years ago.

The Role of Non-Antimicrobial Topicals

This is where non-antimicrobial options, including barrier-supportive, wound-healing, and microbiome-friendly products, become especially relevant.

While the guidelines focus heavily on antiseptics such as chlorhexidine and benzoyl peroxide, they are generally understood to also acknowledge:

• The importance of physical cleansing and biofilm disruption
• The benefit of products that support skin environment and healing
• The potential role of emerging alternative topical therapies

These approaches support a broader clinical goal: restoring the skin, not just suppressing bacteria.

Where Zarasyl Fits

Zarasyl represents a different category of topical support, one positioned to align with stewardship principles:

• Non-antimicrobial mechanism, which does not contribute to resistance pressure
• Supports moist wound healing and skin barrier repair
• Flexible use as a first-line option in mild cases, an adjunct alongside antiseptics, or a maintenance tool in recurrent patients

For practices trying to avoid unnecessary antibiotic use, managing recurrent or chronic dermatologic disease, or looking to support healing between flare-ups, a non-antibiotic option can expand the clinical toolkit.

A More Nuanced Treatment Algorithm

Rather than a binary "antibiotic vs. no antibiotic" approach, the modern framework looks more like a spectrum based on disease severity:

Topicals are no longer optional in this framework. They are foundational.

The Takeaway

The ISCAID guidelines reinforce something many clinicians already recognize: there is a need for more tools between "do nothing" and "prescribe antibiotics."

Non-antimicrobial products like Zarasyl are positioned to help fill that gap, supporting antimicrobial stewardship, contributing to skin healing, and reducing reliance on systemic drugs where clinically appropriate.