Double-blind randomized study of oral temafloxacin and cefadroxil in patients with mild to moderately severe bacterial skin infections

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.

Fluoroquinolones vs beta-lactams for empirical treatment of immunocompetent patients with skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of fluoroquinolones with beta-lactams in the treatment of patients with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and references of relevant articles for study reports published between January 1980 and February 2006.

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials that enrolled 4817 patients were included in the analysis. Fluoroquinolones as empirical treatment of patients with SSTIs were more effective than beta-lactams for the clinically evaluable patients (90.4% vs 88.2%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.66). This was also true in subset analyses of randomized controlled trials that studied ciprofloxacin (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.45-4.26) and for patients with mild to moderate infections (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.13-2.96). In contrast, no difference was found between the compared regimens for patients with moderate to severe infections (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.80-1.55), for patients who did not receive third-generation cephalosporins as the comparator antibiotic (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73-1.34), or for the microbiologically evaluable patients (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89-1.59). Fluoroquinolones were also associated with more adverse effects (19.2% vs 15.2%; OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.57).

CONCLUSION

The high proportion of successfully treated patients in the compared groups of antibiotics and the development of more adverse effects associated with fluoroquinolone use suggest that these antibiotics do not have substantial advantages compared with beta-lactams for empirical treatment of patients with SSTIs.

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.

Erysipelas: recognition and management

Erysipelas is an acute bacterial infection of the dermis and hypodermis that is associated with clinical inflammation. It is a specific clinical type of cellulitis and, as such, it should be studied as a specific entity. Erysipelas is generally caused by group A streptococci; it is highly probable that streptococcal toxins also play a role, which could, in part, help explain the clinical inflammation. Erysipelas of the leg is the main clinical type encountered. The face, arm, and upper thigh are the other most common sites for the occurrence of erysipelas. After a sudden onset, areas of erythema and edema characteristically enlarge with well-defined margins. Athlete's foot is the most common portal of entry for the disease. Erysipelas is generally associated with high fever, and adenopathy and lymphangitis are sometimes present. At the time of diagnosis, it is important to look for clinical markers of severity (local signs and symptoms, general signs and symptoms, co-morbidity, social context) which would necessitate hospitalization. There are many differential diagnoses, particularly in the case of atypical dermo-hypodermitis. Some bacterial infections may have specific clinical aspects or may lead to a diagnosis of cellulitis. Necrotizing cellulitis or fasciitis are life-threatening diseases and a rapid diagnosis is important. Other noninfectious types of cellulitis have been reported in many diseases, both localized or generalized. The biology of typical erysipelas is of little value in diagnosis and a laboratory workup is usually not required. There are few local complications associated with erysipelas; abscess can occur in some patients and septicemia is rare. Recurrence is the more distressing complication. Treatment of patients with erysipelas has been evaluated in a small number of studies. In most of them, erysipelas has been included in therapeutic studies of 'severe cutaneous infections'. This is not justified as in fact erysipelas is usually sensitive to penicillin G. Amoxicillin and macrolides are also effective. However, comparative, cost-analysis studies need to be performed to determine the best therapeutic option. Bed rest with the leg elevated is also important. Anticoagulants are indicated in patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. The portal of entry will also require treatment. Long-term antibacterial therapy is required for patients with recurrence.

UV-dependent quinolone-induced human erythrocyte membrane lipid peroxidation: studies on the phototoxicity of Y-26611, a new quinolone derivative

Quinolone antibacterial drugs are widely used as oral therapeutic agents. However, in some patients they cause ultraviolet (UV)-dependent dermatitis. Using lipid peroxidation as an index of phototoxicity, we studied the effects of a new quinolone derivative, Y-26611 together with ofloxacin, sparofloxicin and lomefloxacin on washed human erythrocyte suspensions. Irradiation of erythrocytes with UV-A or UV-B for 60 min. in the presence of Y-26611 (30-600 micrograms/ml) strong dose dependent lipid peroxidation, up to 17.01 nmoles/ml was induced. Under identical conditions, lipid peroxidation induced by up to 600 micrograms/ml ofloxacin, sparofloxacin or lomefloxacin were 0.94, 3.36 and 2.98 nmoles/ml respectively. The lipid peroxidation was entirely dependent on both UV as well as the drug. The lipid peroxidation responses to drug+UV could completely be inhibited by sodium azide (hydroxyl radical, HO. and single oxygen, 1O2 scavenger) or by phenyl N-tert-butylnitrone (PBN, HO. and superoxide anion radical, O2- scavenger). It is likely that reactive oxygen species generated by interaction between UV-sensitized drug molecules and oxygen molecules mediate erythrocyte membrane lipid peroxidation. The method used in this study is rapid and convenient for screening drugs for UV-dependent cytotoxicity.

Systemic management of cutaneous bacterial infections

Cutaneous bacterial infections can be treated by a variety of modalities, although systemic antimicrobial agents usually provide the most efficacious and efficient means for treatment. Oral administration allows outpatient management, thus decreasing the overall cost of treatment. Although gram-negative organisms are increasingly implicated in dermatologic infections, the bacteria that are commonly found in skin infections include group A beta-hemolytic Streptococcus and Staphylococcus aureus, which cause many types of pyoderma or impetigo. Not every patient exhibits the common signs of bacterial skin infection, which can include redness, crusting, induration, increased local temperature, serous exudate, a purulent discharge, pustules, bullae, or a foul-smelling odor, as well as such symptoms as malaise, pain, and tenderness. Bacterial confirmation may also be difficult. Beta-lactam antibiotics, tetracycline, and erythromycin have proven useful in this setting; however, increasing resistance is problematic. The management of bacterial infections of the skin and skin structure has been expanded during the past decade with the introduction of the new fluoroquinolones--agents with a wide spectrum of antimicrobial activity and good pharmacokinetic characteristics. While the clinical efficacy of each agent must be considered in the light of risk of adverse events and potential drug interactions, ciprofloxacin, enoxacin, ofloxacin, and temafloxacin appear to be most useful for cutaneous bacterial infections.

Temafloxacin: an overview

Temafloxacin (6-fluoro-7-piperazino-4-quinolone) is a new fluoroquinolone with a 7-8 hour half-life and rapid gastrointestinal absorption. These characteristics make it an ideal antimicrobial for once- or twice-daily oral dosing. With the exception of the central nervous system (CNS), temafloxacin has excellent tissue and body fluid penetration and concentration. Temafloxacin has broad antimicrobial activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, including improved in vitro activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Mycoplasma hominis, and anaerobic bacteria, including Bacteroides fragilis. Temafloxacin is as effective as beta-lactam therapy and superior to ciprofloxacin in the treatment of S. pneumoniae lower respiratory infections. It has been clinically effective when given in a short 3-day regimen for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Multiple clinical trials indicate that temafloxacin is also clinically effective, well tolerated, and safe for use in adult patients for the treatment of other lower respiratory tract, genitourinary tract, and skin and skin-structure infections.