Abstract
Purpose
Beta-lactam antibiotics, such as penicillin, flucloxacillin or cephalexin, are widely considered first-line treatment for cellulitis and erysipelas, while macrolides and lincosamides, such as erythromycin, azithromycin or clindamycin, are widely considered second-line agents. We attempted to determine whether outcomes differed between patients treated either with a beta-lactam or with a macrolide or lincosamide.
Methods
We conducted a meta-analysis of published trials in which patients with cellulitis or erysipelas were randomised to treatment either with a beta-lactam or with a macrolide or lincosamide. We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and SCOPUS (up to March 2014) using the terms: cellulitis/erysipelas, penicillin/beta-lactam, macrolide/lincosamide, random*/controlled*/trial* as keywords. We included randomised trials that compared monotherapy with a beta-lactam with monotherapy with a macrolide or lincosamide for cellulitis or erysipelas.
Results
We identified 15 studies, 9 in patients with cellulitis or erysipelas and 6 in patients with various skin and soft tissue infections including cellulitis and erysipelas. The efficacy of treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas was similar with a beta-lactam [27/221 (12 %) not cured] and a macrolide or lincosamide [21/241 (9 %) not cured, RR 1.24, 95 % CI 0.72–2.41, p = 0.44]. Treatment efficacy was also similar for skin or soft tissue infections including cellulitis and erysipelas (RR 1.28, 95 % CI 0.96–1.69, p = 0.09). Risk of adverse effects was similar for beta-lactams [148/1295 (11 %) not cured] and macrolides or lincosamides [228/1737 (13 %) not cured, RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.64–1.16, p = 0.31].
Conclusion
Treatment with a macrolide or lincosamide for cellulitis or erysipelas has a similar efficacy and incidence of adverse effects as treatment with a beta-lactam.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Phoenix G, Das S, Joshi M. Diagnosis and management of cellulitis. BMJ. 2012;345:e4955.
Ellis Simonsen SM, Van Orman ER, Hatch BE, Jones SS, Gren LH, Hegmann KT, et al. Cellulitis incidence in a defined population. Epidemiol Infect. 2006;134:293–9.
Gunderson CG, Martinello RA. A systematic review of bacteremias in cellulitis and erysipelas. J Infect. 2012;64:148–55.
Jorup-Ronstrom C. Epidemiological, bacteriological and complicating features of erysipelas. Scand J Infect Dis. 1986;18:519–24.
Eriksson B, Jorup-Ronstrom C, Karkkonen K, Sjoblom AC, Holm SE. Erysipelas: clinical and bacteriologic spectrum and serological aspects. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23:1091–8.
Bergkvist P-I, Sjobeck K. Antibiotic and prednisolone therapy of erysipelas: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Scand J Infect Dis. 1997;29:377–82.
Pasternack MS, Swartz MN. Cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis, and subcutaneous tissue infections. In: Bennet JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ, editors. Mandell, Douglas and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases, vol. 1. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2015. p. 1194–215.
Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein RJ, Gorbach SL, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:1373–406.
Ray GT, Suaya JA, Baxter R. Microbiology of skin and soft tissue infections in the age of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Diagn Micro Inf Dis. 2013;76:24–30.
David MZ, Daum RS. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology and clinical consequences of an emerging epidemic. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23:616–87.
Green MD, Beall B, Marcon MJ, Allen CH, Bradley JS, Dashefsky B, et al. Multicentre surveillance of the prevalence and molecular epidemiology of macrolide resistance among pharyngeal isolates of group A streptococci in the USA. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57:1240–3.
Mulla ZD, Leaverton PE, Wiersma ST. Invasive group A streptococcal infections in Florida. South Med J. 2003;96:968–73.
Carapetis JR, Jacoby P, Carville K, Ang SJ, Curtis N, Andrews R. Effectiveness of clindamycin and intravenous immunoglobulin, and risk of disease in contacts, in invasive group A streptococcal infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:358–65.
Amsden GW. Anti-inflammatory effects of macrolides—an underappreciated benefit in the treatment of community-acquired respiratory tract infections and chronic inflammatory pulmonary conditions? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55:10–21.
Chua K, Laurent F, Coombs G, Grayson ML, Howden BP. Not community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA)! A clinician’s guide to community MRSA—its evolving antimicrobial resistance and implications for therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:99–114.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed Mar 2011.
Bernard P, Plantin P, Roger H, Sassolas B, Villaret E, Legrain V, et al. Roxithromycin versus penicillin in the treatment of erysipelas in adults: a comparative study. Br J Dermatol. 1992;127:155–9.
Thomas MG. Oral clindamycin compared with sequential intravenous and oral flucloxacillin in the treatment of cellulitis in adults. A randomized, double-blind trial. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2014;22:330–4.
Baig A, Grillage MG, Welch RB. A comparison of erythromycin and flucloxacillin in the treatment of infected skin lesions in general practice. Br J Clin Pract. 1988;42:110–5.
Pusponegoro EHD, Wiryadi BE. Clindamycin and cloxacillin compared in the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Ther. 1990;12:236–41.
Daniel R, The European Azithromycin Study Group. Azithromycin, erythromycin and cloxacillin in the treatment of infections of skin and associated soft tissues. J Int Med Res. 1991;19:433–45.
Kiani R. Double-blind, double-dummy comparison of azithromycin and cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10:880–4.
Mallory SB. Azithromycin compared with cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Am J Med. 1991;91:36S–9S.
Nolen TM. Clinical trials of cefprozil for treatment of skin and skin-structure infections: review. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;14:S255–63.
Rodriguez-Solares A, Perez-Gutierrez F, Prosperi J, Milgram E, Martin A. A comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerance of azithromycin, dicloxacillin and flucloxacillin in the treatment of children with acute skin and skin-structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;31:103–9.
Arata J, Torigoe R, Ohkawara A, Koizumi H, Sato H, Furuya K, et al. A multicenter, double-blind, double placebo clinical trial of azithromycin versus cefaclor in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Jpn J Chemother. 1995;43:837–50.
Jardim ML, Mendonca MG. Treatment of bacterial skin infections an open, randomized and comparative study among roxithromycin and cephalexin. Rev Bras Med. 1995;52:1047–51.
Pereira LC. Comparative clinical study between roxithromycin and cephalexin in the treatment of folliculitis, furunculosis and erysipelas/cellulitis. Rev Bras Med. 1996;53:81–6.
Montero L. A comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of azithromycin and cefaclor in the treatment of children with acute skin and/or soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37:125–31.
Blaszczyk-Kostanecka M, Dobozy A, Dominguez-Soto L, Guerrero R, Hunyadi J, Lopera J, et al. Comparison of two regimens of oral clindamycin versus dicloxacillin in the treatment of mild-to-moderate skin and soft-tissue infections. Curr Ther Res. 1998;59:341–53.
Arata J, Shimizu H, Watanabe S, Miyachi Y, Iwatsuki K, Furue M, et al. Clinical evaluation of telithromycin in patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Phase III double-blind comparative study of telithromycin versus cefdinir. Jpn J Chemother. 2005;53:183–206.
Kilburn SA, Featherstone P, Higgins B, Brindle R. Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;6:CD004299.
Bernard P, Chosidow O, Vaillant L, The French Erysipelas Study Group. Oral pristinamycin versus standard penicillin regimen to treat erysipelas in adults: randomised, non-inferiority, open trial. BMJ. 2002;325:864.
Seaton RA, Sharp E, Bezlyak V, Weir CJ. Factors associated with outcome and duration of therapy in outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) patients with skin and soft-tissue infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;38:243–8.
Grayson ML, McDonald M, Gibson K, Athan E, Munckhof WJ, Paull P, et al. 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. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1440–8.
Owens RC, Donskey CJ, Gaynes RP, Loo VG, Muto CA. Antimicrobial-associated risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:S19–31.
Brown KA, Khanafer N, Daneman N, Fisman DN. Meta-analysis of antibiotics and the risk of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:2326–32.
Nemeth J, Oesch G, Kuster SP. Bacteriostatic versus bactericidal antibiotics for patients with serious bacterial infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70:382–95.
Acknowledgments
We thank the staff of the Philson library in the University of Auckland for assistance with the literature searches, Dr. Marcelo Mendes for translation of two articles published in Portuguese and Dr. Greg Gamble for advice on statistical analyses.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
None of the authors received any funding to support this research.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflicts of interest relating to this manuscript.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ferreira, A., Bolland, M.J. & Thomas, M.G. Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing a penicillin or cephalosporin with a macrolide or lincosamide in the treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas. Infection 44, 607–615 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-016-0895-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-016-0895-x