Sultamicillin in the treatment of superficial skin and soft tissue infections in children

Interventions for bacterial folliculitis and boils (furuncles and carbuncles)

BACKGROUND

Bacterial folliculitis and boils are globally prevalent bacterial infections involving inflammation of the hair follicle and the perifollicular tissue. Some folliculitis may resolve spontaneously, but others may progress to boils without treatment. Boils, also known as furuncles, involve adjacent tissue and may progress to cellulitis or lymphadenitis. A systematic review of the best evidence on the available treatments was needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions (such as topical antibiotics, topical antiseptic agents, systemic antibiotics, phototherapy, and incision and drainage) for people with bacterial folliculitis and boils.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to June 2020: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers up to June 2020. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further relevant trials.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed systemic antibiotics; topical antibiotics; topical antiseptics, such as topical benzoyl peroxide; phototherapy; and surgical interventions in participants with bacterial folliculitis or boils. Eligible comparators were active intervention, placebo, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'clinical cure' and 'severe adverse events leading to withdrawal of treatment'; secondary outcomes were 'quality of life', 'recurrence of folliculitis or boil following completion of treatment', and 'minor adverse events not leading to withdrawal of treatment'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs (1300 participants). The studies included more males (332) than females (221), although not all studies reported these data. Seventeen trials were conducted in hospitals, and one was conducted in clinics. The participants included both children and adults (0 to 99 years). The studies did not describe severity in detail; of the 232 participants with folliculitis, 36% were chronic. At least 61% of participants had furuncles or boils, of which at least 47% were incised. Duration of oral and topical treatments ranged from 3 days to 6 weeks, with duration of follow-up ranging from 3 days to 6 months. The study sites included Asia, Europe, and America. Only three trials reported funding, with two funded by industry. Ten studies were at high risk of 'performance bias', five at high risk of 'reporting bias', and three at high risk of 'detection bias'. We did not identify any RCTs comparing topical antibiotics against topical antiseptics, topical antibiotics against systemic antibiotics, or phototherapy against sham light. Eleven trials compared different oral antibiotics. We are uncertain as to whether cefadroxil compared to flucloxacillin (17/21 versus 18/20, risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.16; 41 participants; 1 study; 10 days of treatment) or azithromycin compared to cefaclor (8/15 versus 10/16, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.40; 31 participants; 2 studies; 7 days of treatment) differed in clinical cure (both very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in clinical cure rate between cefdinir and cefalexin after 17 to 24 days (25/32 versus 32/42, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.38; 74 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), and there probably is little to no difference in clinical cure rate between cefditoren pivoxil and cefaclor after 7 days (24/46 versus 21/47, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.78; 93 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). For risk of severe adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal, there may be little to no difference between cefdinir versus cefalexin after 17 to 24 days (1/191 versus 1/200, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.62; 391 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). There may be an increased risk with cefadroxil compared with flucloxacillin after 10 days (6/327 versus 2/324, RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 14.62; 651 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and cefditoren pivoxil compared with cefaclor after 7 days (2/77 versus 0/73, RR 4.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 97.17; 150 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, for these three comparisons the 95% CI is very wide and includes the possibility of both increased and reduced risk of events. We are uncertain whether azithromycin affects the risk of severe adverse events leading to withdrawal of treatment compared to cefaclor (274 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) as no events occurred in either group after seven days. For risk of minor adverse events, there is probably little to no difference between the following comparisons: cefadroxil versus flucloxacillin after 10 days (91/327 versus 116/324, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.98; 651 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) or cefditoren pivoxil versus cefaclor after 7 days (8/77 versus 5/73, RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.42; 150 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of azithromycin versus cefaclor after seven days due to very low-certainty evidence (7/148 versus 4/126, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.17; 274 participants; 2 studies). The study comparing cefdinir versus cefalexin did not report data for total minor adverse events, but both groups experienced diarrhoea, nausea, and vaginal mycosis during 17 to 24 days of treatment. Additional adverse events reported in the other included studies were vomiting, rashes, and gastrointestinal symptoms such as stomach ache, with some events leading to study withdrawal. Three included studies assessed recurrence following completion of treatment, none of which evaluated our key comparisons, and no studies assessed quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no RCTs regarding the efficacy and safety of topical antibiotics versus antiseptics, topical versus systemic antibiotics, or phototherapy versus sham light for treating bacterial folliculitis or boils. Comparative trials have not identified important differences in efficacy or safety outcomes between different oral antibiotics for treating bacterial folliculitis or boils. Most of the included studies assessed participants with skin and soft tissue infection which included many disease types, whilst others focused specifically on folliculitis or boils. Antibiotic sensitivity data for causative organisms were often not reported. Future trials should incorporate culture and sensitivity information and consider comparing topical antibiotic with antiseptic, and topical versus systemic antibiotics or phototherapy.

Interventions for impetigo

BACKGROUND

Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.

Rational antibiotic therapy and the position of ampicillin/sulbactam

In the current context of increasing antimicrobial resistance, it is important to use antibiotics rationally and to re-assess regularly the clinical usefulness of commonly used agents. This review focuses on the efficacy of the beta-lactam ampicillin co-administered with the beta-lactamase inhibitor sulbactam, either parenterally (ampicillin/sulbactam) or orally (sultamicillin), for the treatment of bacterial infections. Clinical findings from the past decade confirm the results of numerous older studies and together provide good evidence to support the continued use of ampicillin/sulbactam and sultamicillin in hospital- and community-acquired infections both in adults and children. This is also recognised in recent published national and international guidelines, many of which recommend ampicillin/sulbactam as first-line therapy for various respiratory and skin infections.

Incorporation and release of cloxacillin sodium in micelles of poly(styrene-b-2-vinyl pyridine-b-ethylene oxide)

A novel drug carrier system was constructed from anionic drug cloxacillin sodium (CLX) and micelle of poly(styrene-b-2-vinyl pyridine-b-ethylene oxide) (PS-PVP-PEO) by incorporating the former into the micelle of the latter. The incorporation of CLX into the micelle of PS-PVP-PEO was confirmed by zeta-potential measurements, dynamic light scattering (DLS), and fluorescence spectroscopy. In the absence of the anionic drug, CLX, the zeta-potential of neat PS-PVP-PEO micelle was +13 mV under aqueous acidic condition due to the presence of positive charges in the PVP unit. The addition of CLX into the micelle of PS-PVP-PEO decreased the zeta-potential of the micelle smoothly and finally led to a minimum zeta-potential around 0 mV. This fact shows that the added CLX is effectively incorporated into the PS-PVP-PEO micelle by electrostatic attraction. In concomitant with the decrease in zeta-potential, a decrease in hydrodynamic diameter from 94 to 69 nm was observed on addition of CLX to the PS-PVP-PEO micellar solution. This fact also indicates the incorporation of CLX into the PS-PVP-PEO micelles because the binding of CLX to the PVP block of the micelles induces a conformational change from an extended to a shrunken form due to the cancellation of the repulsive force in the PVP blocks by CLX. Fluorescence quenching of pyrene by CLX gave additional evidence for the effective bindings of CLX to the PS-PVP-PEO micelles. Further, release of CLX from the nanoaggregates of CLX/PS-PVP-PEO was investigated in vitro. It was found that the release kinetics of the CLX is conformed to a model based on the consecutive chemical kinetics.

Interventions for impetigo

BACKGROUND

Impetigo is a common superficial bacterial skin infection, most frequently encountered in children. There is no standard therapy and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including waiting for natural resolution.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Skin Group Specialised Trials Register (March 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1 2002), the National Research Register (2002), MEDLINE (from 1966 to January 2003), EMBASE (from 1980 to March 2000) and LILACS (November 2001). We handsearched the Yearbook of Dermatology (1938-1966), the Yearbook of Drug Therapy (1949-1966), used reference lists of articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous and bullous, primary and secondary impetigo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All steps in data collection were done by two independent reviewers. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 trials including 3533 participants in total which studied 20 different oral and 18 different topical treatments. CURE OR IMPROVEMENT: Topical antibiotics showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled odds ratio (OR) 6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.93 to 10.73), and no topical antibiotic was superior (pooled OR of mupirocin versus fusidic acid 1.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.16). Topical mupirocin was superior to oral erythromycin (pooled OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.97). In most other comparisons, topical and oral antibiotics did not show significantly different cure rates, nor did most trials comparing oral antibiotics. Penicillin was inferior to erythromycin and cloxacillin and there is little evidence that using disinfectant solutions improves impetigo.

SIDE EFFECTS

The reported number of side effects was low. Oral antibiotic treatment caused more side effects, especially gastrointestinal ones, than topical treatment.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Data on the natural course of impetigo are lacking. Placebo controlled trials are scarce. There is little evidence about the value of disinfecting measures. There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more effective than oral treatment for people with limited disease. It is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics for people with extensive impetigo. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. Resistance patterns against antibiotics change and should be taken into account in the choice of therapy.

Use of ampicillin/sulbactam and sultamicillin in pediatric infections: a re-evaluation

Ampicillin/sulbactam is an effective solution to the emergence of beta-lactamase-mediated resistance among common pediatric pathogens, and is a widely recognized treatment option for a variety of pediatric infections. Recent antimicrobial surveillance data confirm the continued susceptibility of many Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobes and anaerobes to ampicillin/sulbactam. Pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated high drug concentrations at a variety of infection sites, including cerebrospinal fluid and bone. Furthermore, clinical studies have shown that ampicillin/sulbactam, administered intravenously, intramuscularly or orally (as the mutual prodrug sultamicillin), is clinically and bacteriologically effective against upper and lower respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, skin, bone and soft-tissue infections, and meningitis, and provides effective surgical prophylaxis. Sultamicillin has an excellent tolerability profile, which is associated with a low rate of treatment discontinuation. Accordingly, ampicillin/sulbactam and sultamicillin should be considered first-choice options for the management of a variety of pediatric infections.

Sultamicillin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use

Sultamicillin is the tosylate salt of the double ester of sulbactam plus ampicillin. Sulbactam is a semisynthetic beta-lactamase inhibitor which, in combination with ampicillin, extends the antibacterial activity of the latter to include some beta-lactamase-producing strains of bacteria that would otherwise be resistant. The combination of sulbactam plus ampicillin for parenteral use has previously been shown to be clinically and bacteriologically effective in a variety of infections. The chemical linkage of sulbactam and ampicillin has now produced an orally effective compound, sultamicillin, with antibacterial activity and clinical efficacy which are similar to those of the parenteral formulation. Sultamicillin has been shown to be clinically effective in non-comparative trials in patients with infections of the respiratory tract, ears, nose and throat, urinary tract, skin and soft tissues, as well as in obstetric and gynaecological infections, and in the treatment of gonorrhoea. In a small number of controlled trials, sultamicillin has shown comparable clinical efficacy to phenoxymethyl penicillin (penicillin V) and to amoxycillin (alone and in combination with clavulanic acid) in the treatment of paediatric streptococcal pharyngitis and acute otitis media, respectively; to cefaclor in the treatment of acute otitis media in adults; and to bacampicillin, cloxacillin and flucloxacillin plus ampicillin in skin and soft tissue infections in adults, children and adult diabetic patients, respectively. Sultamicillin was superior in efficacy to bacampicillin in the treatment of chronic respiratory infections, to cefaclor in the treatment of acute otitis media in adults, and to cefadroxil in the treatment of patients with complicated urinary tract infections. However, in single-dose treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhoea, sultamicillin (1500mg plus probenecid 1g) was inferior to a 2g intramuscular dose of spectinomycin. While in several studies the incidence of diarrhoea associated with sultamicillin was greater than that with comparative antibacterials, sultamicillin-associated diarrhoea was generally mild and transitory, although occasionally severe enough to necessitate discontinuation of treatment. Further studies in larger groups of patients are needed to clarify the therapeutic efficacy and safety of sultamicillin in comparison with other antibacterial regimens, and to determine the optimum single dosage for the treatment of gonorrhoea. Nonetheless, sultamicillin appears to provide a similar pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile to that of parenteral sulbactam plus ampicillin and, as such, will extend the therapeutic efficacy of ampicillin, with the further advantage of allowing treatment of patients with an oral formulation, thus avoiding the potentially adverse clinical and financial effects of prolonged parenteral therapy.

Beta-lactamase inhibitors from laboratory to clinic

beta-Lactamases constitute the major defense mechanism of pathogenic bacteria against beta-lactam antibiotics. When the beta-lactam ring of this antibiotic class is hydrolyzed, antimicrobial activity is destroyed. Although beta-lactamases have been identified with clinical failures for over 40 years, enzymes with various abilities to hydrolyze specific penicillins or cephalosporins are appearing more frequently in clinical isolates. One approach to counteracting this resistance mechanism has been through the development of beta-lactamase inactivators. beta-Lactamase inhibitors include clavulanic acid and sulbactam, molecules with minimal antibiotic activity. However, when combined with safe and efficacious penicillins or cephalosporins, these inhibitors can serve to protect the familiar beta-lactam antibiotics from hydrolysis by penicillinases or broad-spectrum beta-lactamases. Both of these molecules eventually inactivate the target enzymes permanently. Although clavulanic acid exhibits more potent inhibitory activity than sulbactam, especially against the TEM-type broad-spectrum beta-lactamases, the spectrum of inhibitory activities are very similar. Neither of these inhibitors acts as a good inhibitor of the cephalosporinases. Clavulanic acid has been most frequently combined with amoxicillin in the orally active Augmentin and with ticarcillin in the parenteral beta-lactam combination Timentin. Sulbactam has been used primarily to protect ampicillin from enzymatic hydrolysis. Sulbactam has been used either in the orally absorbed prodrug form as sultamicillin or as the injectable combination ampicillin-sulbactam. Synergy has been demonstrated for these combinations for most members of the Enterobacteriaceae, although those organisms that produce cephalosporinases are not well inhibited. Synergy has also been observed for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Haemophilus influenzae, penicillinase-producing Staphylococcus aureus, and anaerobic organisms. These antibiotic combinations have been used clinically to treat urinary tract infections, bone and soft-tissue infections, gonorrhea, respiratory infections, and otitis media. Gastrointestinal side effects have been reported for Augmentin and sultamicillin; most side effects with these agents have been mild. Although combination therapy with beta-lactamase inactivators has been used successfully, the problem of resistance development to two agents must be considered. Induction of cephalosporinases can occur with clavulanic acid. Permeability mutants could arise, especially with added pressure from a second beta-lactam.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)