Intramuscular bipenicillin vs. intravenous penicillin in the treatment of erysipelas in adults: randomized controlled study

Clinical response to antibiotic regimens in lower limb cellulitis: a systematic review

There is variation in the treatment of lower limb cellulitis (LLC) with no agreement on the most effective antibiotic regimen. Many patients with cellulitis fail to respond to first-line antibiotics. This can negatively affect patient care and result in unnecessary hospital admissions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the clinical response and safety of antibiotic regimens for the management of LLC. A systematic review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using OVID MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in January 2019. Outcomes of interest included the clinical response to antibiotic regimens (type, dose, route, duration) and the safety of antibiotics in LLC. Trial quality was identified using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Four RCTs were included. All included studies showed no significant differences between the clinical response to different antibiotic type, administration route, treatment duration or dose. LLC may be overtreated and shorter courses of oral antibiotics, possibly with lower doses, may be more suitable. There is a lack of published data on the clinical response and safety of antibiotics in LLC. Three studies were high risk for bias overall. Further high-quality studies may help determine whether less intensive antibiotic regimens can effectively treat LLC.

Is coverage of S. aureus necessary in cellulitis/erysipelas? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Empirical treatment of patients with cellulitis/erysipelas usually targets both streptococci and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA). However, the recommendation to empirically cover MSSA is weak and based on low-quality evidence.

METHODS AND OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed and clinical trial registries to assess the role of S. aureus in cellulitis/erysipelas and the need for empirical MSSA coverage.

RESULTS

Combined microbiological and serological data, and response to penicillin monotherapy suggest that streptococci are responsible for the vast majority of cases of cellulitis/erysipelas. However, most cases are non-culturable and the specificity of microbiological and serological studies is questionable based on recent studies using molecular techniques. According to epidemiological data and three randomized controlled trials, empirical coverage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is not recommended for most patients, despite the high prevalence of MRSA in many areas. If MRSA is indeed not an important cause of uncomplicated cellulitis/erysipelas, then the same may apply to MSSA. Based on indirect comparison of data from clinical studies, cure rates with penicillin monotherapy (to which most MSSA are resistant) are comparable to the cure rates reported in many studies using wider-spectrum antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Considering the limitations of microbiological studies in identifying the pathogens responsible for cellulitis/erysipelas, treatment needs to be guided by clinical trials. Trials comparing penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy to MSSA-covering regimens are needed to definitively answer whether empirical coverage of MSSA is needed and to identify the subset of patients that can be safely treated with penicillin or amoxicillin monotherapy.

Antibiotic overuse and resistance in dermatology

Antibiotics have a significant role in dermatology, treating a wide range of diseases, including acne, rosacea, inflammatory skin conditions and skin structure infections, such as cellulitis, folliculitis, carbuncles, and furuncles. Because of their consistent use, utility, and availability, antibiotics are susceptible to overuse within the medical practice, and, specific to this discussion, in the dermatologic setting. The issue of continuously increasing risk of antibiotic resistance remains an important concern to the dermatologist. The scope of this review will be to provide an overview of the common antibiotics used in the dermatologic setting with an emphasis on identifying areas of overuse, reported bacterial resistance, and discussion of clinical management aimed at decreasing antibiotic resistance.

Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas

BACKGROUND

Cellulitis and erysipelas are now usually considered manifestations of the same condition, a skin infection associated with severe pain and systemic symptoms. A range of antibiotic treatments are suggested in guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions for non-surgically-acquired cellulitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In May 2010 we searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the ongoing trials databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials comparing two or more different interventions for cellulitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies with a total of 2488 participants. Our primary outcome 'symptoms rated by participant or medical practitioner or proportion symptom-free' was commonly reported. No two trials examined the same drugs, therefore we grouped similar types of drugs together.Macrolides/streptogramins were found to be more effective than penicillin antibiotics (Risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97). In 3 trials involving 419 people, 2 of these studies used oral macrolide against intravenous (iv) penicillin demonstrating that oral therapies can be more effective than iv therapies (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98).Three studies with a total of 88 people comparing a penicillin with a cephalosporin showed no difference in treatment effect (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43).Six trials which included 538 people that compared different generations of cephalosporin, showed no difference in treatment effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to1.06).We found only small single studies for duration of antibiotic treatment, intramuscular versus intravenous route, the addition of corticosteroid to antibiotic treatment compared with antibiotic alone, and vibration therapy, so there was insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Only two studies investigated treatments for severe cellulitis and these selected different antibiotics for their comparisons, so we cannot make firm conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot define the best treatment for cellulitis and most recommendations are made on single trials. There is a need for trials to evaluate the efficacy of oral antibiotics against intravenous antibiotics in the community setting as there are service implications for cost and comfort.