Erythromycin versus cefadroxil in the treatment of skin infections

Interventions for impetigo

BACKGROUND

Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.

Interventions for impetigo

BACKGROUND

Impetigo is a common superficial bacterial skin infection, most frequently encountered in children. There is no standard therapy and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including waiting for natural resolution.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Skin Group Specialised Trials Register (March 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1 2002), the National Research Register (2002), MEDLINE (from 1966 to January 2003), EMBASE (from 1980 to March 2000) and LILACS (November 2001). We handsearched the Yearbook of Dermatology (1938-1966), the Yearbook of Drug Therapy (1949-1966), used reference lists of articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous and bullous, primary and secondary impetigo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All steps in data collection were done by two independent reviewers. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 trials including 3533 participants in total which studied 20 different oral and 18 different topical treatments. CURE OR IMPROVEMENT: Topical antibiotics showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled odds ratio (OR) 6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.93 to 10.73), and no topical antibiotic was superior (pooled OR of mupirocin versus fusidic acid 1.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.16). Topical mupirocin was superior to oral erythromycin (pooled OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.97). In most other comparisons, topical and oral antibiotics did not show significantly different cure rates, nor did most trials comparing oral antibiotics. Penicillin was inferior to erythromycin and cloxacillin and there is little evidence that using disinfectant solutions improves impetigo.

SIDE EFFECTS

The reported number of side effects was low. Oral antibiotic treatment caused more side effects, especially gastrointestinal ones, than topical treatment.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Data on the natural course of impetigo are lacking. Placebo controlled trials are scarce. There is little evidence about the value of disinfecting measures. There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more effective than oral treatment for people with limited disease. It is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics for people with extensive impetigo. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. Resistance patterns against antibiotics change and should be taken into account in the choice of therapy.

Treatment of bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Bacterial skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs) are among the most frequently seen infectious entities in the community setting and occasionally in the institutional setting. A wide variety of SSSIs exist, with cellulitis, impetigo and folliculitis being the most common. Most SSSIs are caused by aerobic staphylococci and streptococci, with aerobic Gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes being involved in more complicated infections. Systemic therapy with a variety of beta-lactams, macrolides and lincosamides (clindamycin) have been the cornerstone of SSSI therapy for many years. With the exception of mupirocin, topical therapy occupies a small therapeutic niche. Despite the emergence of antimicrobial resistance among the pathogens most commonly associated with SSSIs (for example, Streptococcus pyogenes and macrolides; Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin, vancomycin, penicillin and mupirocin), few treatment failures have been reported. The newest antimicrobials reviewed herein (linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin, gatifloxacin, gemifloxacin and moxifloxacin) are not a significant improvement upon older agents in the treatment of SSSIs. Perhaps this assessment will change if the penetrance of the antimicrobial resistance patterns described above reach a critical threshold and clinical failures become more widespread.

Erysipelas: recognition and management

Erysipelas is an acute bacterial infection of the dermis and hypodermis that is associated with clinical inflammation. It is a specific clinical type of cellulitis and, as such, it should be studied as a specific entity. Erysipelas is generally caused by group A streptococci; it is highly probable that streptococcal toxins also play a role, which could, in part, help explain the clinical inflammation. Erysipelas of the leg is the main clinical type encountered. The face, arm, and upper thigh are the other most common sites for the occurrence of erysipelas. After a sudden onset, areas of erythema and edema characteristically enlarge with well-defined margins. Athlete's foot is the most common portal of entry for the disease. Erysipelas is generally associated with high fever, and adenopathy and lymphangitis are sometimes present. At the time of diagnosis, it is important to look for clinical markers of severity (local signs and symptoms, general signs and symptoms, co-morbidity, social context) which would necessitate hospitalization. There are many differential diagnoses, particularly in the case of atypical dermo-hypodermitis. Some bacterial infections may have specific clinical aspects or may lead to a diagnosis of cellulitis. Necrotizing cellulitis or fasciitis are life-threatening diseases and a rapid diagnosis is important. Other noninfectious types of cellulitis have been reported in many diseases, both localized or generalized. The biology of typical erysipelas is of little value in diagnosis and a laboratory workup is usually not required. There are few local complications associated with erysipelas; abscess can occur in some patients and septicemia is rare. Recurrence is the more distressing complication. Treatment of patients with erysipelas has been evaluated in a small number of studies. In most of them, erysipelas has been included in therapeutic studies of 'severe cutaneous infections'. This is not justified as in fact erysipelas is usually sensitive to penicillin G. Amoxicillin and macrolides are also effective. However, comparative, cost-analysis studies need to be performed to determine the best therapeutic option. Bed rest with the leg elevated is also important. Anticoagulants are indicated in patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. The portal of entry will also require treatment. Long-term antibacterial therapy is required for patients with recurrence.

Randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of oral cefditoren 200 or 400 mg BID with either cefuroxime 250 mg BID or cefadroxil 500 mg BID for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections are commonly observed in medical practice. Because these infections typically are confined to the superficial layers and seldom lead to the destruction of skin structures and resultant systemic dissemination, in general they can be treated with an oral antibiotic with potent microbiologic activity against gram-positive pathogens.

OBJECTIVE

This paper compares the efficacy and tolerability of 3 beta-lactam antibiotics in patients with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections.

METHODS

Two double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group studies were conducted, in which patients aged > or = 12 years with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections were randomized to receive cefditoren 200 or 400 mg, cefuroxime 250 mg, or cefadroxil 500 mg, each BID for 10 days. Study 1 compared cefditoren with cefuroxime; Study 2 compared cefditoren with cefadroxil. Clinical and microbiologic responses were assessed at a posttreatment visit (within 48 hours of treatment completion) and test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after treatment completion). Patients were monitored closely throughout the study with the use of physical examinations, clinical laboratory tests, and assessment of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 1,685 patients (855 males, 830 females; mean age, 41.1 years [range, 12-95 years]) were enrolled. Within both studies, the 3 treatment groups were similar at baseline based on demographic characteristics and types of infection. Cellulitis (26%), wound infection (25%), and simple abscess (15%) were the most common infections. Clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were 85% (443/523) for cefditoren 200 mg, 83% (427/516) for cefditoren 400 mg, 88% (234/265) for cefuroxime, and 85% (211/248) for cefadroxil. At the test-of-cure visit, cefditoren 200 mg had eradicated significantly fewer of the causative pathogens isolated before treatment in microbiologically evaluable patients than did cefuroxime in Study 1 (P = 0.043) but significantly more of the pathogens than did cefadroxil in Study 2 (P = 0.018). Eradication rates for the most commonly isolated pathogens were generally similar in the 3 treatment groups in both studies, with the only significant difference favoring cefditoren 200 and 400 mg over cefadroxil for Peptostreptococcus species in Study 2 (P = 0.016 and P = 0.003, respectively). A minority of patients (< or = 5% in any treatment group) discontinued study-drug treatment prematurely due to a treatment-related adverse event, with statistically higher rates for cefditoren 400 mg than for cefditoren 200 mg and the comparator cephalosporins (each P < 0.05). All 3 cephalosporins were generally well tolerated. Most adverse events (>93%) were categorized as mild to moderate, with the most common being diarrhea, nausea, and headache.

CONCLUSION

In this population of patients with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections, including those due to Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes, the clinical cure rate and tolerability of cefditoren were comparable to those of cefuroxime and cefadroxil.

Clarithromycin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections: two multicenter clinical studies. Clarithromycin Study Group

BACKGROUND

Clarithromycin is a new macrolide analog of erythromycin with activity against a number of dermatologic pathogens.

METHODS

The efficacy and safety of clarithromycin, 250 mg bid, were compared with those of reference drugs, cefadroxil and erythromycin, in two multicenter studies: (1) a randomized, double-blind 45-center study, in which clarithromycin or cefadroxil 500 mg bid was given for 5-14 days; and (2) a single-blind 31-center study, in which clarithromycin or erythromycin, 250 mg qid, was given for < or = 14 days.

RESULTS

In the first study, efficacy and safety were evaluated in 299 and 538 patients, respectively. In the second study, the numbers were 141 and 261 patients, respectively. Overall, clarithromycin was as effective and safe as cefadroxil and erythromycin.

CONCLUSIONS

Clarithromycin provides an alternative therapy to cefadroxil and erythromycin for skin and skin structure infections, especially in beta-lactam allergic patients.