Dataset Information

Clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections.

ABSTRACT: 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.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.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.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.).

SUBMITTER: Miller LG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4547538 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections.

Miller Loren G LG Daum Robert S RS Creech C Buddy CB Young David D Downing Michele D MD Eells Samantha J SJ Pettibone Stephanie S Hoagland Rebecca J RJ Chambers Henry F HF

The New England journal of medicine 20150301 12

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 drainag ...[more]

PMID: 25785967

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundU.S. emergency department visits for cutaneous abscess have increased with the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The role of antibiotics for patients with a drained abscess is unclear.MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial at five U.S. emergency departments to determine whether trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (at doses of 320 mg and 1600 mg, respectively, twice daily, for 7 days) would be superior to placebo in outpatients older than 12 years of age who had an uncomplicated abscess that was being treated with drainage. The primary outcome was clinical cure of the abscess, assessed 7 to 14 days after the end of the treatment period.ResultsThe median age of the participants was 35 years (range, 14 to 73); 45.3% of the participants had wound cultures that were positive for MRSA. In the modified intention-to-treat population, clinical cure of the abscess occurred in 507 of 630 participants (80.5%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group versus 454 of 617 participants (73.6%) in the placebo group (difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 11.7; P=0.005). In the per-protocol population, clinical cure occurred in 487 of 524 participants (92.9%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group versus 457 of 533 participants (85.7%) in the placebo group (difference, 7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.2 to 11.2; P<0.001). Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was superior to placebo with respect to most secondary outcomes in the per-protocol population, resulting in lower rates of subsequent surgical drainage procedures (3.4% vs. 8.6%; difference, -5.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.2 to -2.2), skin infections at new sites (3.1% vs. 10.3%; difference, -7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.4 to -4.1), and infections in household members (1.7% vs. 4.1%; difference, -2.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.6 to -0.2) 7 to 14 days after the treatment period. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with slightly more gastrointestinal side effects (mostly mild) than placebo. At 7 to 14 days after the treatment period, invasive infections had developed in 2 of 524 participants (0.4%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group and in 2 of 533 participants (0.4%) in the placebo group; at 42 to 56 days after the treatment period, an invasive infection had developed in 1 participant (0.2%) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group.ConclusionsIn settings in which MRSA was prevalent, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole treatment resulted in a higher cure rate among patients with a drained cutaneous abscess than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00729937.).

Project description:ObjectiveTo show non-inferiority of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole compared with vancomycin for the treatment of severe infections due to meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).DesignParallel, open label, randomised controlled trial.SettingFour acute care hospitals in Israel.ParticipantsAdults with severe infections caused by MRSA susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and vancomycin. Patients with left sided endocarditis, meningitis, chronic haemodialysis, and prolonged neutropenia were excluded.InterventionsTrimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole 320 mg/1600 mg twice daily versus vancomycin 1 g twice daily for a minimum of seven days and then by indication.Main outcome measuresThe primary efficacy outcome was treatment failure assessed at day 7, consisting of death, persistence of haemodynamic instability or fever, stable or worsening Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and persistence of bacteraemia. The primary safety outcome was all cause mortality at day 30. Non-inferiority was defined by a difference of less than 15% for treatment failure.Results252 patients were included in the trial, of whom 91 (36%) had bacteraemia. No significant difference in treatment failure was seen for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (51/135, 38%) versus vancomycin (32/117, 27%)-risk ratio 1.38 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.99). However, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole did not meet the non-inferiority criterion-absolute difference 10.4% (95% confidence interval -1.2% to 21.5%). For patients with bacteraemia, the risk ratio was 1.40 (0.91 to 2.16). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was significantly associated with treatment failure (adjusted odds ratio 2.00, 1.09 to 3.65). The 30 day mortality rate was 32/252 (13%), with no significant difference between arms. Among patients with bacteraemia, 14/41 (34%) treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and 9/50 (18%) with vancomycin died (risk ratio 1.90, 0.92 to 3.93).ConclusionsHigh dose trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole did not achieve non-inferiority to vancomycin in the treatment of severe MRSA infections. The difference was particularly marked for patients with bacteraemia. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00427076.

Project description:BackgroundMelioidosis, an infectious disease caused by the Gram-negative bacillus Burkholderia pseudomallei, is difficult to cure. Antimicrobial treatment comprises intravenous drugs for at least 10 days, followed by oral drugs for at least 12 weeks. The standard oral regimen based on trial evidence is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxaxole (TMP-SMX) plus doxycycline. This regimen is used in Thailand but is associated with side-effects and poor adherence by patients, and TMP-SMX alone is recommended in Australia. We compared the efficacy and side-effects of TMP-SMX with TMP-SMX plus doxycycline for the oral phase of melioidosis treatment.MethodsFor this multi-centre, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled patients (aged ≥15 years) from five centres in northeast Thailand with culture-confirmed melioidosis who had received a course of parenteral antimicrobial drugs. Using a computer-generated sequence, we randomly assigned patients to receive TMP-SMX plus placebo or TMP-SMX plus doxycycline for 20 weeks (1:1; block size of ten, stratified by study site). We followed patients up every 4 months for 1 year and annually thereafter to the end of the study. The primary endpoint was culture-confirmed recurrent melioidosis, and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7. This study is registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN86140460.FindingsWe enrolled and randomly assigned 626 patients: 311 to TMP-SMX plus placebo and 315 to TMP-SMX plus doxycycline. 16 patients (5%) in the TMP-SMX plus placebo group and 21 patients (7%) in the TMP-SMX plus doxycycline group developed culture-confirmed recurrent melioidosis (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42-1.55). The criterion for non-inferiority was met (p=0.01). Adverse drug reactions were less common in the TMP-SMX plus placebo group than in the TMP-SMX plus doxycycline group (122 [39%] vs 167 [53%]).InterpretationOur findings suggest that TMP-SMX is not inferior to TMP-SMX plus doxycycline for the oral phase of melioidosis treatment, and is preferable on the basis of safety and tolerance by patients.FundingThailand Research Fund, the Melioidosis Research Center, the Center of Excellence in Specific Health Problems in Greater Mekong Sub-region cluster, and the Wellcome Trust.

Project description:IntroductionPneumocystis pneumonia is a common opportunistic infection in patients with HIV/AIDS, and is a leading cause of death in this population. Early selection of effective treatment is therefore critical to reduce mortality. We conducted a clinical trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of three different antifungal treatment regimens in HIV-infected patients with moderate to severe PCP.MethodsOur study was a multicenter, observational prospective clinical trial. We recruited 320 HIV-infected patients with moderate to severe PCP, and stratified these subjects into a trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) monotherapy group, a TMP-SMX plus clindamycin group, and a TMP-SMX plus caspofungin group. Patients were invited to participate in 12 weeks of follow-up. Outcomes included the difference in overall mortality and the proportion of overall positive response to treatment in the three groups at weeks 4 and 12, the difference in treatment duration, and the proportion of adverse events among the three groups during the study period.ResultsThe probability of survival not statistically different among three treatment groups. Mortality in the TMP-SMX monotherapy group (group 1) was 15/115 (13.04%) vs. 20/83 (24.10%) in the TMP-SMX plus clindamycin group (group 2) vs. 24/107 (22.43%) in the TMP-SMX plus caspofungin group (group 3) at week 12 (p = 0.092). The overall positive response rate to treatment in the three groups was 24.14%, 34.94%, and 38.32%, respectively, at week 4, and 33.91%, 38.55%, and 44.86%, respectively, at week 12. No significant difference in the overall positive response rate to treatment at either week 4 or week 12 was noted (p = 0.061, p = 0.246). Rates of changes to therapy were 6.50% (8/123) in group 1, 3.40% (3/87) in group 2, and 2.70% (3/110) in group 3, and did not differ significantly among the three groups (p = 0.376). There were also no significant differences in adverse events among the three treatment groups of patients with moderate to severe PCP.ConclusionsOur results indicate that there are no significant statistical differences among the three studied treatment regimens in terms of antifungal effectiveness in HIV-infected patients with moderate to severe PCP. TMP-SMX monotherapy is a convenient, cheap, and effective therapeutic drug regimen to treat HIV-infected patients with moderate to severe PCP, and is an appropriate treatment strategy in resource-limited settings.Clinical trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: ChiCTR1900021195. Registered on February 1, 2019.

Project description:ImportanceEmergency department visits for skin infections in the United States have increased with the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). For cellulitis without purulent drainage, β-hemolytic streptococci are presumed to be the predominant pathogens. It is unknown if antimicrobial regimens possessing in vitro MRSA activity provide improved outcomes compared with treatments lacking MRSA activity.ObjectiveTo determine whether cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole yields a higher clinical cure rate of uncomplicated cellulitis than cephalexin alone.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter, double-blind, randomized superiority trial in 5 US emergency departments among outpatients older than 12 years with cellulitis and no wound, purulent drainage, or abscess enrolled from April 2009 through June 2012. All participants had soft tissue ultrasound performed at the time of enrollment to exclude abscess. Final follow-up was August 2012.InterventionsCephalexin, 500 mg 4 times daily, plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 320 mg/1600 mg twice daily, for 7 days (n = 248 participants) or cephalexin plus placebo for 7 days (n = 248 participants).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome determined a priori in the per-protocol group was clinical cure, defined as absence of these clinical failure criteria at follow-up visits: fever; increase in erythema (>25%), swelling, or tenderness (days 3-4); no decrease in erythema, swelling, or tenderness (days 8-10); and more than minimal erythema, swelling, or tenderness (days 14-21). A clinically significant difference was defined as greater than 10%.ResultsAmong 500 randomized participants, 496 (99%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 411 (82.2%) in the per-protocol analysis (median age, 40 years [range, 15-78 years]; 58.4% male; 10.9% had diabetes). Median length and width of erythema were 13.0 cm and 10.0 cm. In the per-protocol population, clinical cure occurred in 182 (83.5%) of 218 participants in the cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group vs 165 (85.5%) of 193 in the cephalexin group (difference, -2.0%; 95% CI, -9.7% to 5.7%; P = .50). In the modified intention-to-treat population, clinical cure occurred in 189 (76.2%) of 248 participants in the cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group vs 171 (69.0%) of 248 in the cephalexin group (difference, 7.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 15.5%; P = .07). Between-group adverse event rates and secondary outcomes through 7 to 9 weeks, including overnight hospitalization, recurrent skin infections, and similar infection in household contacts, did not differ significantly.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with uncomplicated cellulitis, the use of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole compared to cephalexin alone did not result in higher rates of clinical resolution of cellulitis in the per-protocol analysis. However, because imprecision around the findings in the modified intention-to-treat analysis included a clinically important difference favoring cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, further research may be needed.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00729937.

Dataset Information

Clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections.

Publications

Clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets