OBJECTIVE: To compare clindamycin and cephalexin for treatment of uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) caused predominantly by community-associated (CA) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We hypothesized that clindamycin would be superior to cephalexin (an antibiotic without MRSA activity) for treatment of these infections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 6 months to 18 years with uncomplicated SSTIs not requiring hospitalization were enrolled September 2006 through May 2009. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to 7 days of cephalexin or clindamycin; primary and secondary outcomes were clinical improvement at 48 to 72 hours and resolution at 7 days. Cultures were obtained and tested for antimicrobial susceptibilities, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type, and Panton-Valentine leukocidin status. RESULTS: Of 200 enrolled patients, 69% had MRSA cultured from wounds. Most MRSA were USA300 or subtypes, positive for Panton-Valentine leukocidin, and clindamycin susceptible, consistent with CA-MRSA. Spontaneous drainage occurred or a drainage procedure was performed in 97% of subjects. By 48 to 72 hours, 94% of subjects in the cephalexin arm and 97% in the clindamycin arm were improved (P = .50). By 7 days, all subjects were improved, with complete resolution in 97% in the cephalexin arm and 94% in the clindamycin arm (P = .33). Fevers and age less than 1 year, but not initial erythema > 5 cm, were associated with early treatment failures, regardless of antibiotic used. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference between cephalexin and clindamycin for treatment of uncomplicated pediatric SSTIs caused predominantly by CA-MRSA. Close follow-up and fastidious wound care of appropriately drained, uncomplicated SSTIs are likely more important than initial antibiotic choice.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare clindamycin and cephalexin for treatment of uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) caused predominantly by community-associated (CA) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We hypothesized that clindamycin would be superior to cephalexin (an antibiotic without MRSA activity) for treatment of these infections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 6 months to 18 years with uncomplicated SSTIs not requiring hospitalization were enrolled September 2006 through May 2009. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to 7 days of cephalexin or clindamycin; primary and secondary outcomes were clinical improvement at 48 to 72 hours and resolution at 7 days. Cultures were obtained and tested for antimicrobial susceptibilities, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type, and Panton-Valentine leukocidin status. RESULTS: Of 200 enrolled patients, 69% had MRSA cultured from wounds. Most MRSA were USA300 or subtypes, positive for Panton-Valentine leukocidin, and clindamycin susceptible, consistent with CA-MRSA. Spontaneous drainage occurred or a drainage procedure was performed in 97% of subjects. By 48 to 72 hours, 94% of subjects in the cephalexin arm and 97% in the clindamycin arm were improved (P = .50). By 7 days, all subjects were improved, with complete resolution in 97% in the cephalexin arm and 94% in the clindamycin arm (P = .33). Fevers and age less than 1 year, but not initial erythema > 5 cm, were associated with early treatment failures, regardless of antibiotic used. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference between cephalexin and clindamycin for treatment of uncomplicated pediatric SSTIs caused predominantly by CA-MRSA. Close follow-up and fastidious wound care of appropriately drained, uncomplicated SSTIs are likely more important than initial antibiotic choice.
Authors: B C Herold; L C Immergluck; M C Maranan; D S Lauderdale; R E Gaskin; S Boyle-Vavra; C D Leitch; R S Daum Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-02-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: F C Tenover; R D Arbeit; R V Goering; P A Mickelsen; B E Murray; D H Persing; B Swaminathan Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: G Lina; Y Piémont; F Godail-Gamot; M Bes; M O Peter; V Gauduchon; F Vandenesch; J Etienne Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Timothy S Naimi; Kathleen H LeDell; Kathryn Como-Sabetti; Stephanie M Borchardt; David J Boxrud; Jerome Etienne; Susan K Johnson; Francois Vandenesch; Scott Fridkin; Carol O'Boyle; Richard N Danila; Ruth Lynfield Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael C Lee; Ana M Rios; Monica Fonseca Aten; Asuncion Mejias; Dominick Cavuoti; George H McCracken; R Doug Hardy Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Arthur L Frank; John F Marcinak; P Daisy Mangat; Joyce T Tjhio; Swathi Kelkar; Paul C Schreckenberger; John P Quinn Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Arnold S Bayer; Selvi C Ersoy; Warren E Rose; Ana M Bienvenida; Yan Q Xiong; Henry F Chambers Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Batu K Sharma-Kuinkel; Sun H Ahn; Thomas H Rude; Yurong Zhang; Steven Y C Tong; Felicia Ruffin; Fredric C Genter; Kevin R Braughton; Frank R Deleo; Steven L Barriere; Vance G Fowler Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Sander Koning; Renske van der Sande; Arianne P Verhagen; Lisette W A van Suijlekom-Smit; Andrew D Morris; Christopher C Butler; Marjolein Berger; Johannes C van der Wouden Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-01-18
Authors: Patrick G Hogan; Marcela Rodriguez; Allison M Spenner; Jennifer M Brenneisen; Mary G Boyle; Melanie L Sullivan; Stephanie A Fritz Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 9.079