Top

Infection

Published in:

01-10-2016 | Original Paper

Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing a penicillin or cephalosporin with a macrolide or lincosamide in the treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas

Authors: Athena Ferreira, Mark J. Bolland, Mark G. Thomas

Published in: Infection | Issue 5/2016

Abstract

Purpose

Beta-lactam antibiotics, such as penicillin, flucloxacillin or cephalexin, are widely considered first-line treatment for cellulitis and erysipelas, while macrolides and lincosamides, such as erythromycin, azithromycin or clindamycin, are widely considered second-line agents. We attempted to determine whether outcomes differed between patients treated either with a beta-lactam or with a macrolide or lincosamide.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of published trials in which patients with cellulitis or erysipelas were randomised to treatment either with a beta-lactam or with a macrolide or lincosamide. We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and SCOPUS (up to March 2014) using the terms: cellulitis/erysipelas, penicillin/beta-lactam, macrolide/lincosamide, random*/controlled*/trial* as keywords. We included randomised trials that compared monotherapy with a beta-lactam with monotherapy with a macrolide or lincosamide for cellulitis or erysipelas.

Results

We identified 15 studies, 9 in patients with cellulitis or erysipelas and 6 in patients with various skin and soft tissue infections including cellulitis and erysipelas. The efficacy of treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas was similar with a beta-lactam [27/221 (12 %) not cured] and a macrolide or lincosamide [21/241 (9 %) not cured, RR 1.24, 95 % CI 0.72–2.41, p = 0.44]. Treatment efficacy was also similar for skin or soft tissue infections including cellulitis and erysipelas (RR 1.28, 95 % CI 0.96–1.69, p = 0.09). Risk of adverse effects was similar for beta-lactams [148/1295 (11 %) not cured] and macrolides or lincosamides [228/1737 (13 %) not cured, RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.64–1.16, p = 0.31].

Conclusion

Treatment with a macrolide or lincosamide for cellulitis or erysipelas has a similar efficacy and incidence of adverse effects as treatment with a beta-lactam.

Available only for authorised users

Phoenix G, Das S, Joshi M. Diagnosis and management of cellulitis. BMJ. 2012;345:e4955.CrossRefPubMed

Ellis Simonsen SM, Van Orman ER, Hatch BE, Jones SS, Gren LH, Hegmann KT, et al. Cellulitis incidence in a defined population. Epidemiol Infect. 2006;134:293–9.CrossRefPubMed

Gunderson CG, Martinello RA. A systematic review of bacteremias in cellulitis and erysipelas. J Infect. 2012;64:148–55.CrossRefPubMed

Jorup-Ronstrom C. Epidemiological, bacteriological and complicating features of erysipelas. Scand J Infect Dis. 1986;18:519–24.CrossRefPubMed

Eriksson B, Jorup-Ronstrom C, Karkkonen K, Sjoblom AC, Holm SE. Erysipelas: clinical and bacteriologic spectrum and serological aspects. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23:1091–8.CrossRefPubMed

Bergkvist P-I, Sjobeck K. Antibiotic and prednisolone therapy of erysipelas: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Scand J Infect Dis. 1997;29:377–82.CrossRefPubMed

Pasternack MS, Swartz MN. Cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis, and subcutaneous tissue infections. In: Bennet JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ, editors. Mandell, Douglas and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases, vol. 1. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2015. p. 1194–215.

Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein RJ, Gorbach SL, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:1373–406.CrossRefPubMed

Ray GT, Suaya JA, Baxter R. Microbiology of skin and soft tissue infections in the age of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Diagn Micro Inf Dis. 2013;76:24–30.CrossRef

10.

David MZ, Daum RS. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology and clinical consequences of an emerging epidemic. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23:616–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Green MD, Beall B, Marcon MJ, Allen CH, Bradley JS, Dashefsky B, et al. Multicentre surveillance of the prevalence and molecular epidemiology of macrolide resistance among pharyngeal isolates of group A streptococci in the USA. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57:1240–3.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mulla ZD, Leaverton PE, Wiersma ST. Invasive group A streptococcal infections in Florida. South Med J. 2003;96:968–73.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Carapetis JR, Jacoby P, Carville K, Ang SJ, Curtis N, Andrews R. Effectiveness of clindamycin and intravenous immunoglobulin, and risk of disease in contacts, in invasive group A streptococcal infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:358–65.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Amsden GW. Anti-inflammatory effects of macrolides—an underappreciated benefit in the treatment of community-acquired respiratory tract infections and chronic inflammatory pulmonary conditions? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55:10–21.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Chua K, Laurent F, Coombs G, Grayson ML, Howden BP. Not community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA)! A clinician’s guide to community MRSA—its evolving antimicrobial resistance and implications for therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:99–114.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed Mar 2011.

17.

Bernard P, Plantin P, Roger H, Sassolas B, Villaret E, Legrain V, et al. Roxithromycin versus penicillin in the treatment of erysipelas in adults: a comparative study. Br J Dermatol. 1992;127:155–9.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Thomas MG. Oral clindamycin compared with sequential intravenous and oral flucloxacillin in the treatment of cellulitis in adults. A randomized, double-blind trial. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2014;22:330–4.

19.

Baig A, Grillage MG, Welch RB. A comparison of erythromycin and flucloxacillin in the treatment of infected skin lesions in general practice. Br J Clin Pract. 1988;42:110–5.PubMed

20.

Pusponegoro EHD, Wiryadi BE. Clindamycin and cloxacillin compared in the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Ther. 1990;12:236–41.PubMed

21.

Daniel R, The European Azithromycin Study Group. Azithromycin, erythromycin and cloxacillin in the treatment of infections of skin and associated soft tissues. J Int Med Res. 1991;19:433–45.PubMed

22.

Kiani R. Double-blind, double-dummy comparison of azithromycin and cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10:880–4.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mallory SB. Azithromycin compared with cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Am J Med. 1991;91:36S–9S.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nolen TM. Clinical trials of cefprozil for treatment of skin and skin-structure infections: review. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;14:S255–63.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Rodriguez-Solares A, Perez-Gutierrez F, Prosperi J, Milgram E, Martin A. A comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerance of azithromycin, dicloxacillin and flucloxacillin in the treatment of children with acute skin and skin-structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;31:103–9.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Arata J, Torigoe R, Ohkawara A, Koizumi H, Sato H, Furuya K, et al. A multicenter, double-blind, double placebo clinical trial of azithromycin versus cefaclor in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Jpn J Chemother. 1995;43:837–50.

27.

Jardim ML, Mendonca MG. Treatment of bacterial skin infections an open, randomized and comparative study among roxithromycin and cephalexin. Rev Bras Med. 1995;52:1047–51.

28.

Pereira LC. Comparative clinical study between roxithromycin and cephalexin in the treatment of folliculitis, furunculosis and erysipelas/cellulitis. Rev Bras Med. 1996;53:81–6.

29.

Montero L. A comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of azithromycin and cefaclor in the treatment of children with acute skin and/or soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37:125–31.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Blaszczyk-Kostanecka M, Dobozy A, Dominguez-Soto L, Guerrero R, Hunyadi J, Lopera J, et al. Comparison of two regimens of oral clindamycin versus dicloxacillin in the treatment of mild-to-moderate skin and soft-tissue infections. Curr Ther Res. 1998;59:341–53.CrossRef

31.

Arata J, Shimizu H, Watanabe S, Miyachi Y, Iwatsuki K, Furue M, et al. Clinical evaluation of telithromycin in patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Phase III double-blind comparative study of telithromycin versus cefdinir. Jpn J Chemother. 2005;53:183–206.

32.

Kilburn SA, Featherstone P, Higgins B, Brindle R. Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;6:CD004299.PubMed

33.

Bernard P, Chosidow O, Vaillant L, The French Erysipelas Study Group. Oral pristinamycin versus standard penicillin regimen to treat erysipelas in adults: randomised, non-inferiority, open trial. BMJ. 2002;325:864.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Seaton RA, Sharp E, Bezlyak V, Weir CJ. Factors associated with outcome and duration of therapy in outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) patients with skin and soft-tissue infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;38:243–8.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Grayson ML, McDonald M, Gibson K, Athan E, Munckhof WJ, Paull P, et al. Once-daily intravenous cefazolin plus oral probenecid is equivalent to once daily intravenous ceftriaxone plus oral placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe cellulitis in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1440–8.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Owens RC, Donskey CJ, Gaynes RP, Loo VG, Muto CA. Antimicrobial-associated risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:S19–31.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Brown KA, Khanafer N, Daneman N, Fisman DN. Meta-analysis of antibiotics and the risk of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:2326–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Nemeth J, Oesch G, Kuster SP. Bacteriostatic versus bactericidal antibiotics for patients with serious bacterial infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70:382–95.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing a penicillin or cephalosporin with a macrolide or lincosamide in the treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas
Authors: Athena Ferreira
Mark J. Bolland
Mark G. Thomas
Publication date: 01-10-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Infection / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0300-8126
Electronic ISSN: 1439-0973
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-016-0895-x

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing a penicillin or cephalosporin with a macrolide or lincosamide in the treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever: transmission to visitors and healthcare workers

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of first-line fidaxomicin for patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in Germany

Analysis of peritoneal galactomannan for the diagnosis of Aspergillus peritonitis

Statins and Aspirin use in HIV-infected people: gap between European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines and clinical practice: the results from HIV-HY study

Occult HBV infection in the oncohematological setting

Cranial imaging findings in neurobrucellosis: results of Istanbul-3 study

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page