Loren G Miller1, Robert S Daum, C Buddy Creech, David Young, Michele D Downing, Samantha J Eells, Stephanie Pettibone, Rebecca J Hoagland, Henry F Chambers. 1. From the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute (L.G.M., S.J.E.) and Division of Infectious Diseases, Harbor-UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Medical Center (L.G.M., S.J.E.), Torrance, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles (L.G.M., S.J.E.), Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) (D.Y.), and Division of Infectious Diseases, San Francisco General Hospital and UCSF (M.D.D., H.F.C.), San Francisco - all in California; Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, University of Chicago, Chicago (R.S.D.); Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University, Nashville (C.B.C.); the EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD (S.P.); and Cota Enterprises, Meriden, KS (R.J.H.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin and skin-structure infections are common in ambulatory settings. However, the efficacy of various antibiotic regimens in the era of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is unclear. METHODS: We enrolled outpatients with uncomplicated skin infections who had cellulitis, abscesses larger than 5 cm in diameter (smaller for younger children), or both. Patients were enrolled at four study sites. All abscesses underwent incision and drainage. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either clindamycin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for 10 days. Patients and investigators were unaware of the treatment assignments and microbiologic test results. The primary outcome was clinical cure 7 to 10 days after the end of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 524 patients were enrolled (264 in the clindamycin group and 260 in the TMP-SMX group), including 155 children (29.6%). One hundred sixty patients (30.5%) had an abscess, 280 (53.4%) had cellulitis, and 82 (15.6%) had mixed infection, defined as at least one abscess lesion and one cellulitis lesion. S. aureus was isolated from the lesions of 217 patients (41.4%); the isolates in 167 (77.0%) of these patients were MRSA. The proportion of patients cured was similar in the two treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population (80.3% in the clindamycin group and 77.7% in the TMP-SMX group; difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.2 to 4.9; P=0.52) and in the populations of patients who could be evaluated (466 patients; 89.5% in the clindamycin group and 88.2% in the TMP-SMX group; difference, -1.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to 5.1; P=0.77). Cure rates did not differ significantly between the two treatments in the subgroups of children, adults, and patients with abscess versus cellulitis. The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference between clindamycin and TMP-SMX, with respect to either efficacy or side-effect profile, for the treatment of uncomplicated skin infections, including both cellulitis and abscesses. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00730028.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Skin and skin-structure infections are common in ambulatory settings. However, the efficacy of various antibiotic regimens in the era of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is unclear. METHODS: We enrolled outpatients with uncomplicated skin infections who had cellulitis, abscesses larger than 5 cm in diameter (smaller for younger children), or both. Patients were enrolled at four study sites. All abscesses underwent incision and drainage. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either clindamycin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for 10 days. Patients and investigators were unaware of the treatment assignments and microbiologic test results. The primary outcome was clinical cure 7 to 10 days after the end of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 524 patients were enrolled (264 in the clindamycin group and 260 in the TMP-SMX group), including 155 children (29.6%). One hundred sixty patients (30.5%) had an abscess, 280 (53.4%) had cellulitis, and 82 (15.6%) had mixed infection, defined as at least one abscess lesion and one cellulitis lesion. S. aureus was isolated from the lesions of 217 patients (41.4%); the isolates in 167 (77.0%) of these patients were MRSA. The proportion of patients cured was similar in the two treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population (80.3% in the clindamycin group and 77.7% in the TMP-SMX group; difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.2 to 4.9; P=0.52) and in the populations of patients who could be evaluated (466 patients; 89.5% in the clindamycin group and 88.2% in the TMP-SMX group; difference, -1.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to 5.1; P=0.77). Cure rates did not differ significantly between the two treatments in the subgroups of children, adults, and patients with abscess versus cellulitis. The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference between clindamycin and TMP-SMX, with respect to either efficacy or side-effect profile, for the treatment of uncomplicated skin infections, including both cellulitis and abscesses. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00730028.).
Authors: Kara B Mascitti; Jeffrey S Gerber; Theoklis E Zaoutis; Todd D Barton; Ebbing Lautenbach Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Benjamin A Lipsky; Marin H Kollef; Loren G Miller; Xiaowu Sun; Richard S Johannes; Ying P Tabak Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Vivian G Loo; Anne-Marie Bourgault; Louise Poirier; François Lamothe; Sophie Michaud; Nathalie Turgeon; Baldwin Toye; Axelle Beaudoin; Eric H Frost; Rodica Gilca; Paul Brassard; Nandini Dendukuri; Claire Béliveau; Matthew Oughton; Ivan Brukner; Andre Dascal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel J Pallin; William D Binder; Matthew B Allen; Molly Lederman; Siddharth Parmar; Michael R Filbin; David C Hooper; Carlos A Camargo Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Maria-Luisa Alegre; Luqiu Chen; Michael Z David; Caroline Bartman; Susan Boyle-Vavra; Neha Kumar; Anita S Chong; Robert S Daum Journal: J Immunol Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Valerie S Albrecht; Brandi M Limbago; Gregory J Moran; Anusha Krishnadasan; Rachel J Gorwitz; Linda K McDougal; David A Talan Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Helio S Sader; Robert K Flamm; Rodrigo E Mendes; David J Farrell; Ronald N Jones Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Robert S Daum; Loren G Miller; Lilly Immergluck; Stephanie Fritz; C Buddy Creech; David Young; Neha Kumar; Michele Downing; Stephanie Pettibone; Rebecca Hoagland; Samantha J Eells; Mary G Boyle; Trisha Chan Parker; Henry F Chambers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245