Once-daily ceftriaxone for skin and soft tissue infections

The Israeli Defense Forces Point of Injury Antimicrobial Treatment Protocol - A New Protocol and Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Combat wound infection is a common and serious complication, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. In 2005, a point of injury antimicrobial protocol was published by the Israel Defense Forces, in which Moxifloxacin was chosen. During 2016-2017, a revision of this protocol was performed and concluded with the publication of an updated protocol. The purpose of this report is to present this process and the revised protocol, together with a review of the literature.

METHODS

We searched "Medline" and "Google Scholar" for studies dealing with antimicrobial prophylaxis in trauma, for militaries' point of injury antimicrobial protocol protocols and for established surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis protocols.

RESULTS

Point of injury antimicrobial protocol is aimed at preventing early infection and its complications. The choice of Moxifloxacin for this purpose may not be optimal since Moxifloxacin spectrum might be overly broad, there is scant evidence supporting it for this indication, and the available preparation does not meet distinctive technical requirements. Contrarily, Ceftriaxone seemed to have suitable microbiological, pharmacological and technical features.

CONCLUSION

Point of injury antimicrobial protocol should be used especially when evacuation and definitive surgical treatment are delayed. According to present scientific data and operational needs, Ceftriaxone was chosen for most penetrating injuries, with Metronidazole addition for penetrating abdominal and cranial trauma.

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.

Management of cellulitis in a pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVES

(1) To determine antibiotic choices, route of administration, and outcomes of children treated as outpatients with noncomplicated, nonfacial cellulitis at a tertiary care center. (2) To determine the number of visits and time spent in the emergency department (ED) for treatment.

DESIGN

A descriptive case-control study.

SETTING

A tertiary care pediatric ED at an academic medical center.

METHODS

Medical records of all otherwise healthy children (aged 1-16 yrs) presenting with noncomplicated, nonfacial cellulitis over a 3-year period (January 1, 2001-December 31, 2003) were reviewed. Data extracted included the following: demographics; clinical presentation; laboratory and microbiology results; management, including choice, dose, and route of antibiotic(s); treatment failures; and time spent in the ED.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria, and their charts were selected for review. The oral antibiotic most often prescribed was cephalexin (N = 105). Treatment failure occurred in 10 (8.9%) of the cases. The intravenous antibiotic most often prescribed was cefazolin (N = 124; 39 received cefazolin alone, and 85 received cefazolin and probenecid). The cefazolin-only group had 12 (31%) treatment failures, whereas the cefazolin and probenecid group had 7 (8.1%) treatment failures. More time in the ED (521 +/- 287 minutes) and more visits (3.4 +/- 2.8) were seen in the intravenous group as compared with the oral group (time in ED, 164 +/- 139 minutes; visits, 1.4 +/- 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Noncomplicated, nonfacial cellulitis is most commonly treated using first-generation cephalosporins. Treatment with oral antibiotics was effective and required fewer visits and less time in the ED compared with intravenous treatment. Twice-daily cefazolin and probenecid was associated with less treatment failures and admissions than cefazolin alone and may represent a reasonable alternative for children with nonfacial cellulitis requiring intravenous antibiotics.

Current use of anti-infectives in dermatology

Dermatologic diseases encompass a broad category of pathologic situations. Infection remains a significant aspect of the pathology faced in patient encounters, and it is natural to expect that anti-infectives play a major element in the armamentarium utilized by dermatologists. Aside from the treatment of the classic bacterial and fungal infections, there are now new uses for antiviral agents to help suppress recurrent disease, such as herpes simplex. There is also the novel approach of using anti-infectives, or agents that have been thought to have antimicrobial activity, to treat inflammatory diseases. This review describes anti-infectives, beginning with common antibiotics used to treat bacterial infections. The discussion will then cover the current use of antivirals. Finally, the description of antifungals will be separated, starting with the oral agents and ending with the topical antimycotics. The use of anti-infectives in tropical dermatology has been purposefully left out, and perhaps should be the subject of a separate review. Cutaneous bacterial infections consist chiefly of those microorganisms that colonize the skin, such as species of staphylococcus and streptococcus. Propionibacterium acnes and certain other anaerobes can be involved in folliculitis, pyodermas and in chronic conditions such as hidradenitis suppurativa.

Influence of ceftriaxone treatment on FDG uptake--an in vivo [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose imaging study in soft tissue infections in rats

Our aim was to determine the influence of antibiotic treatment using ceftriaxone on [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in experimental soft tissue infections. PET scans were performed in two groups (treated n=4; non-treated n=4) at days 3, 5, and 6 after inoculation of the infection. Additional autoradiography was performed in four animals at day 7 and in three animals at day 11. The difference of FDG uptake on day 5 (after three days of antibiotic treatment) between both groups proved to be significant (df=6; T=2.52; p=0.045). FDG uptake determined at the other days did not reveal significant difference between the two groups. It seems to be possible that the effect of antibiotic treatment on FDG uptake is less evident than reported for therapy monitoring of cancer treatment. The change of FDG uptake over time in treated and untreated infections is complex and further in vivo experiments have to be initiated to investigate the potential value of clinical FDG PET in therapy monitoring of infection.

Once-Daily Cefazolin and Probenecid for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacokinetic and clinical evidence for the use of once-daily cefazolin and probenecid in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1966–July 2003), EMBASE (1980–July 2003), and PubMed (1966–July 2003) databases for English language, human reports were searched. Search terms included cefazolin, probenecid, cellulitis, and soft tissue infections.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Studies that described pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes that evaluated the use of cefazolin in conjunction with probenecid for SSTI were included. All studies were evaluated independently by both authors. For pharmacokinetic studies, the effect of probenecid on the pharmacokinetics of cefazolin was evaluated. For clinical trials, efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated. For efficacy endpoints, definition of cure was used as defined by each trial.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In all 3 pharmacokinetic studies identified, the addition of probenecid to cefazolin therapy prolonged the half-life and increased serum concentrations of cefazolin. This process allowed serum concentrations to be above the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for the most likely skin pathogens ( Staphylococcus aureus, β-hemolytic streptococci) at the end of the dosing interval. In the first of 2 clinical trials, 7 (7%) of 96 patients receiving intravenous ceftriaxone 2 g and oral probenecid 1 g daily were reported to fail therapy compared with 8 (8%) of 98 patients receiving intravenous cefazolin 2 g and oral probenecid 1 g daily. In the second clinical trial, clinical success was reported in 51 (86%) of 59 patients receiving the same doses of cefazolin and probenecid as above compared with 55 (96%) of 57 patients receiving intravenous ceftriaxone 1 g and oral placebo daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited pharmacokinetic and clinical data suggest that intravenous cefazolin 2 g and oral probenecid 1 g daily is an effective regimen in the treatment of SSTI.

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

A once-daily regimen of cefazolin (2 g intravenously [iv]) plus probenecid (1 g by mouth) was compared with a once-daily regimen of ceftriaxone (1 g iv) plus oral placebo in a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial of home-based therapy for moderate-to-severe cellulitis in adults. For the assessable recipients of cefazolin-probenecid (n=59) and ceftriaxone-placebo (n=57), clinical cure occurred at the end of treatment in 86% and 96% (P=.11), respectively, and was maintained at 1 month of follow-up in 96% and 91% (P=.55), respectively. The mean number of treatment doses (+/-standard deviation) given was similar in the 2 treatment arms (6.97+/-2.6 for cefazolin-probenecid and 6.12+/-2.1 for ceftriaxone-placebo; P=.06). The median antibiotic trough concentrations were 2.35 microgram/mL for cefazolin and 15.45 microgram/mL for ceftriaxone. Patients in the 2 treatment arms were similar with regard to overall rates of adverse reaction (P=.15), but nausea was more common among those in the cefazolin-probenecid arm (P=.048). The once-daily regimen of cefazolin-probenecid is a cheap, practical, and effective treatment option for moderate-to-severe cellulitis, and it avoids the need to use third-generation cephalosporins in most patients.

Systemic antibiotic agents

Understanding the breadth of systemic antimicrobial agents available for use by the dermatologist and their associated side-effect profiles and drug interactions allows the clinician to offer patients optimal care in the management of cutaneous infectious disease.

Home-based treatment of cellulitis with twice-daily cefazolin

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical outcome and pharmacokinetics of therapy with cefazolin for patients with cellulitis in a hospital-in-the-home (HIH) program.

DESIGN

Observational study with outcome data compared with previously published reports of therapy for cellulitis.

SETTING

A university teaching hospital and HIH unit, July 1996-December 1997.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with cellulitis were eligible for inclusion provided their medical condition was stable, they did not require surgical intervention, and their social circumstances allowed home-based therapy.

INTERVENTION

Cefazolin 2 g intravenously twice daily, with regular nursing and medical assessment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical efficacy; peak and trough serum concentrations of cefazolin.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients (37 were men) with a mean age of 48 years (range, 18-90 years) had 61 episodes of moderate to severe cellulitis (41, lower limb; 17, upper limb; and three, face). They received a median of 11 doses of cefazolin (range, 3-27 doses). Clinical outcomes were: cure in 54, improvement in one, treatment failure in three, and in the remaining three episodes the outcome was indeterminate. Cefazolin concentrations were measured in 27 patients. All peak concentrations were more than 40 micrograms/mL, while trough concentrations were all above the MIC90 of the expected pathogens: median, 3.2 micrograms/mL (range: 0.4-18.5 micrograms/mL). Cefazolin was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Twice-daily cefazolin 2 g intravenously is a convenient and effective option for home-based treatment of patients with cellulitis. Its clinical efficacy is comparable with other treatment regimens.

Antimicrobial agents for the dermatologist. I. Beta-lactam antibiotics and related compounds

We review the newer antimicrobial agents that are being employed by dermatologists with increased frequency as well as some of the more commonly used older agents. Particular emphasis is based on selection factors such as causative pathogens and their resistance profiles, routes of administration, toxicity, drug interactions, and dosing requirements. Emphasis in this review is on the newer classes of antimicrobials such as third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins; beta-lactam, beta-lactamase inhibitor combination agents; monobactams; carbapenems; macrolides; and fluoroquinolones. Dermatologic indications and treatment alternatives are highlighted; this will expand the practicing clinician's therapeutic armamentarium and enable him/her to make rational decisions concerning treatment approaches to infectious disease problems encountered in daily practice.

Ceftriaxone versus cefazolin with probenecid for severe skin and soft tissue infections

To evaluate the hypothesis that a single daily administration of cefazolin and probenecid and a single daily administration of ceftriaxone and probenecid would be equally effective, in combination with oral antibiotics, for the outpatient treatment of skin and soft tissue infections, a randomized, double-blind study was completed. Patients presenting to the Emergency Department with the primary diagnosis of cellulitis or soft tissue infection, excluding patients requiring immediate hospital admission, received either 2 g of ceftriaxone or 2 g of cefazolin, each with 1 g of probenecid, on a daily basis as outpatients from the Emergency Department. The patients were given a prescription for oral penicillin and cloxacillin for independent procurement. Outcome was assessed based on reduction in the size of the infected area, and the need for additional treatment (other antibiotics or hospital admission). A total of 194 patients were randomized to receive ceftriaxone (96) or cefazolin (98). There was no statistical difference in cause of infection, site of infection, duration of treatment, noncompliance or need for incision or drainage of the wound. The outcome, as determined by the ratio of the involved infected area on initial and last treatment day, and the frequency of failure were similar. The single daily administration of 2 g of either cefazolin, in combination with probenecid, or ceftriaxone are equivalent in efficacy in the outpatient treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. There is the potential for significant cost savings in utilizing outpatient cefazolin therapy over ceftriaxone for treatment of these infections.

Ceftriaxone. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of serious infections

Ceftriaxone possesses a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity that includes the Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobes commonly associated with serious infections. Its therapeutic efficacy is comparable to that of other third-generation cephalosporins and aminoglycoside-combination regimens. The most commonly reported adverse events with ceftriaxone are similar in incidence and severity to those reported with other third-generation cephalosporins. Notably, the drug has a favourable pharmacokinetic profile which allows once-daily administration. In comparative studies with other parenteral regimens requiring 3 to 6 daily doses, treatment with once-daily ceftriaxone reduced total antimicrobial drug costs (i.e. acquisition, preparation and administration costs) by 17 to 52%. Ceftriaxone was also more cost effective than ceftazidime and a variety of other antimicrobial treatment regimens (penicillins, cephalosporins, combination regimens) in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia or bronchopneumonia. This reflected lower drug and hospitalisation costs associated with a reduced length of hospital stay in ceftriaxone recipients. In noncomparative studies, ceftriaxone achieved considerable hospitalisation cost savings in patients with serious infections (mostly bone, joint, skin/skin structure infections), who were able to receive all or part of their antimicrobial therapy as outpatients. In one analysis which evaluated all direct and indirect costs (such as training programmes, transportation, time for visits and supplies) and benefits (such as hospitalisation cost savings, return to work or school, increased productivity) of outpatient ceftriaxone therapy, the overall benefit-cost ratio was approximately 5:1. The studies to date confirm that ceftriaxone is effective, well tolerated, convenient to administer and, when utilised appropriately, offers the potential for cost avoidance in patients with serious infections. Although additional well designed pharmacoeconomic analyses are needed to further evaluate its cost effectiveness, ceftriaxone should be considered an essential third-generation cephalosporin formulatory representative in most clinical settings.

In vitro activity of ceftriaxone and other cephalosporins against 602 clinical isolates of staphylococci from geographically diverse medical centers

The in vitro activity of ceftriaxone and six additional antimicrobial agents (ceftizoxime, cefoperazone, cefuroxime, fleroxacin, ciprofloxacin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) was assessed or 602 recent clinical isolates of staphylococci from six geographically distinct medical centers in North America. All seven antimicrobial agents were active (90-100% of strains susceptible) against oxacillin-susceptible (OS) strains of Staphylococcus aureus (OSSA) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (OSCNS) but had limited activity against oxacillin resistant (OR) staphylococci. Our assessment of the in vitro antistaphylococcal activity of ceftriaxone against contemporary isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci indicates that the activity versus OS staphylococci has not changed over the past decade despite widespread use of the drug. It appears that these agents will continue to be useful for empiric therapy in those centers in which OR strains are uncommon.

The in vitro antibacterial activity of ceftriaxone against Streptococcus pyogenes is unrelated to penicillin-binding protein 4

The in vitro activities of penicillin and ceftriaxone were compared against 29 strains of Streptococcus pyogenes with the result that ceftriaxone showed greater activity than penicillin. The morphological changes induced by 1/2 and 1x MIC concentrations of penicillin and ceftriaxone, respectively, were very similar using scanning electron microscopy. Competitive binding studies using 'cold' penicillin or ceftriaxone as inhibitors of radiolabeled penicillin binding demonstrated that ceftriaxone had a very low affinity for penicillin binding protein (PBP) 4 compared to that of penicillin. Since ceftriaxone had greater antibacterial activity, this suggests that PBP 4 may not be important to the in vitro activity of ceftriaxone. In contrast, the IC50 for ceftriaxone was much lower (> 200 fold) for PBPs 2 and 3 compared to PBP 4, suggesting greater avidity of these high molecular mass PBPs for ceftriaxone. These data may at least in part explain the superior in vitro activity of ceftriaxone compared to penicillin against S. pyogenes. These data, together with the observation that PBP 1 was saturated at a lower concentration of penicillin than any of the other PBPs, suggest that the inhibition of PBPs 1, 2, and 3 mediates the bactericidal activity of beta-lactam antibiotics against group A streptococci.

Ceftriaxone in treatment of serious infections. Skin and soft tissue infections

Ceftriaxone is generally recognized to be safe and effective when administered either intravenously or intramuscularly to both adults and children as a single drug for skin and skin structure infections. An advantage of ceftriaxone over the other third-generation cephalosporins is its long serum half-life, which allows it to be given every 12 hours in children and every 24 hours in most adults. There is no question that ceftriaxone is effective for skin and soft tissue infections, particularly those caused by staphylococci and streptococci. The drug's sales to home infusion companies around the country attest to its widespread use for such infections. The fact remains, however, that the data required to substantiate efficacy and safety for ceftriaxone or for any of the other third-generation cephalosporins are just not available in large numbers.

Empiric therapy of severe infections in adults

The third-generation cephalosporins are useful for empiric therapy of most of the severe infections in adults as a result of their broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity (particularly against clinically important gram-negative bacteria), good tissue penetration, and lack of serious adverse effects. This review examines their use in respiratory tract infections, bacterial meningitis, skin-structure infections, and urinary tract infections in adult patients. Penicillin G remains the optimal therapy for severe community-acquired pneumonia, since Streptococcus pneumoniae still accounts for the majority of cases. However, for empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, therapy must ensure coverage both of aerobic gram-negative bacilli and Staphylococcus aureus. The choice of empiric antibiotic therapy in the treatment of urinary tract infections depends on the pattern of resistance in the patient's environment. At present, the treatment of bacterial meningitis in otherwise healthy adults does not constitute a major problem provided that penicillin resistance among pneumococci and meningococci (responsible for at least 80 percent of cases) does not become a clinical problem. However, in meningitis in which gram-negative bacilli are suspected and where specific problems include antibiotic resistance among these organisms and the inadequate penetration of many antibiotics into the cerebrospinal fluid, third-generation cephalosporins are the drugs of choice, and they have markedly improved the clinical outcome. Most skin-structure infections are due to S. aureus and are best treated by an anti-staphylococcal penicillin or an older cephalosporin. Nevertheless, the third-generation cephalosporins have proved to be highly effective agents for infections of skin and soft-tissue infections associated with both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens in patients at risk from these organisms or in the elderly.

Randomized, double-blind trial of cefonicid and nafcillin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections

We compared treatment with one daily intravenous dose of cefonicid and multidose nafcillin in 65 patients with severe infections of the skin or skin structure. Clinical cure or improvement was achieved in 91% of the patients given cefonicid and in 87% of the patients given nafcillin (P = 0.97). The use of cefonicid may allow outpatient therapy of some severe infections.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of ceftriaxone

Ceftriaxone is a third-generation cephalosporin that exhibits saturable plasma protein binding, which influences its pharmacokinetic parameters depending on the dose. Systemic clearance and volume of distribution of total drug show dependence on both concentration and time, whereas for unbound drug these parameters remain constant. The decrease in renal or non-renal clearance with age or in the presence of disease states is often compensated by the concurrent increase in free fraction, resulting in no apparent changes in half-life and no need for dose adjustment. Because of its unusually long plasma half-life, the availability of intramuscular administration and its high intrinsic activity against many organisms, ceftriaxone has become a popular agent in once-daily therapy of infections in paediatric patients, gonococcal infections and outpatient management of pneumonia and osteomyelitis.

Ceftriaxone. A reappraisal of its antibacterial activity and pharmacokinetic properties, and an update on its therapeutic use with particular reference to once-daily administration

Since ceftriaxone was first reviewed in the Journal, further studies have confirmed its broad antibacterial spectrum in vitro and extended its clinical documentation in comparative studies with other widely used drugs in infections of the urinary and lower respiratory tract, meningitis in infants and children, uncomplicated gonorrhoea, perioperative prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery, and in several other types of infection. As in earlier studies, which primarily used a twice-daily dosage regimen, few significant differences were found between therapeutic groups in comparative studies and results have demonstrated the efficacy of once-daily ceftriaxone in all but the most serious infections, such as sole antibiotic therapy in pseudomonal infections. Wider clinical experience has established that ceftriaxone is generally well tolerated. Thus, ceftriaxone now has a well-defined place as an appropriate alternative for the parenteral treatment of a variety of infections due to susceptible organisms, as well as for perioperative prophylaxis of surgery, and may offer advantages of greater convenience over other parenteral antibiotics which are administered more frequently.