A review of antibiotics in dermatology

  • Daniel A. Carrasco
  • Melody Vander Straten
  • Stephen K. Tyring
Review

Abstract

Background

Since the early 1930s when antibiotics were first introduced, they have revolutionized the way physicians treat infections. Skin conditions from acne to leprosy, which were once shunned by society, are now easily treated with oral antibiotics.

Objective

Antibiotics are chemicals derived from bacteria and fungi that uniquely have antibacterial action. The most notable example is penicillin, which is derived from a mold. With hundreds of antibiotics available to the practicing physician, improper use of these drugs has become widespread and expensive and has spawned resistant strains. For the dermatologist, antibiotics are vital weapons in the drug armamentarium for treating various skin conditions.

Conclusion

This review explores the newest and most common oral, parenteral, and topical antibiotics used in dermatology, their indications, adverse effects, dosage, and spectrum of activity. Furthermore, systemic antibacterial prophylaxis and vaccines pertinent to dermatology are discussed. The penicillins, cephalosporins, tetracyclines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, sulfonamides, aminoglycosides, lincosamides, folate inhibitors, and a new synthetic class of drugs, the oxazolidinones, are reviewed. These antibiotics are used to treat a variety of organisms.

Keywords

Erythromycin Acne Doxycycline Clarithromycin Azithromycin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Sommaire

Antécédents

Depuis leur mise au point au debut des années 1930, les antibiotiques n’ont cessé de révolutionner le traitement des infections. Des dermatoses autrefois fuies par la société, de l’acné à lèpre, sont facilement traitées aujourd’hui grâce aux antibiotiques par voie orale.

Objectif

Les antibiotiques sont des produits chimiques dérivés de bactéries et de champignons, particulièrement efficaces contre les infections bactériennes. L’exemple le plus connu est la pénicilline qui provient d’une moisissure. La prolifération des antibiotiques, dont le nombre sur le marché dépasse la centaine, en a entraîné un usage abusif, augmentant les coûts associes aux soins médicaux et causant l’apparition de souches résistantes. Toutefois, pour le dermatologue, les antibiotiques constituent un élément essentiel de la pharmacopée utilisée dans le traitement des diverses affections cutanées.

Conclusion

Le présent article explore les plus récents antibiotiques oraux, parentéraux et topiques les plus fréquemment utilisés en dermatologie. On y aborde la posologie, les réactions indésirables, les doses et le spectre d’activité. De plus, on y discute des prophylaxies systémiques antibactériennes et des vaccins reliés à la dermatologie. On passera en revue la pénicilline, la céphalosporine, la tétracycline, les macrolides, les fluoroquinolones, les sulfamides, les aminosides, les lincosamides, les antifoliques ainsi qu’une nouvelle classe de médicaments synthétiques, les oxazolidinones. Ces antibiotiques sont utilisés dans le traitement d’une variété d’organismes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kazung BG, Bertram J. Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. In: Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lang, pp 43-50Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirschmann JV. Overview of antibiotics. In: Freedberg IM, Eisen AZ, Wolff K, et al, eds. Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine, 5th ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, pp 2829-2837Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kujath P et al. (2000) University of Lubeck, Germany; European Congress of Chemotherapy, Madrid, Spain, May 9, 2000Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roujeau JC, Stern RS. Severe adverse cutaneous reactions to drugs. N Engl J Med 1994; 331(19): 1272–1285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Korkij W, Soltani K. Fixed drug eruption. A brief review. Arch Dermatol 1984; 120:520–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Somer T, Finegold SM. Vasculitides associated with infections, immunizations, and antimicrobial drugs. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 20:1010–1036PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruocco V, Sacerdoti G. Pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid due to drugs. Int J Dermatol 1991; 30(5):307–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roujeau JC, Bioulac-Sage P, Bourseau C, et al. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Analysis of 63 cases. Arch Dermatol 1991; 127:1333–1338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin RY. A perspective on penicillin allergy. Arch Intern Med 1991; 152(5):930–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sher TH. Penicillin hypersensitivity—a review. Pediatr Clin North Am 1983; 30(1):161–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asbel LE, Levison ME. Cephalosporins, carbapenems and monobactams. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2000; 14(2):435–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilbert DN, Moellering RC, Sande MA (1999) The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy, pp 35–39Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dattwyler RJ, Halper JJ, Volkman DJ, et al. Treatment of late Lyme borreliosis—randomized comparison of ceftriaxone and penicillin. Lancet 1998; 1(8596):1191–1194Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saxton A, Beal GN, Rohr AS, et al. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactamantibiotics. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107(2): 204–215Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Platt R, Dreis MW, Kennedy DL, et al. Serum sickness-like reactions to amoxicillin, cefaclor, cephalexin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. J Infect Dis 1988; 158:474–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bachelez H, Senet P, Cadranel J, et al. The use of tetracycline for the treatment of sarcoidosis. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137:69–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Webster GF. Acne. Curr Probl Dermatol 1996; 8:237–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Del Rosso J (2000) Meeting highlights, Acne and rosacea, 24th Annual Hawaii Dermatology Seminar, p 3 (Published by an unrestricted educational grant from Galderma)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zuckerman JM. The newer macrolides, azithromycin and clarithromycin. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2000; 14(2):449–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sturgill MG, Rapp RP. Clarithromycin: Review of a new macrolide antibiotic with improved microbiologic spectum and favorable pharmaco kinetic and adverse effect profiles. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26(9):1099–1108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kanatani MS, Guglielmo BJ. The new macrolides: azithromycin and clarithromycin. West J Med 1994; 160(1):31–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharma PK, Yadav TP, Gautam RK, et al. Erythromycin in pityriasis rosea: A double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 42:241–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strle F, Maraspin V, Lotric-Furlan S, et al. Azithromycin and doxycycline for the treatment of Borreliaculture-positive erythema migrans. Infection 1996; 24(1):64–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dattwylen RJ, Grunwaldt E, Luft BJ. Clarithromycin in the treatment of early Lyme disease: a pilot study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40(2):468–469Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lassus A. Comparative studies of azithromycin in skin and soft tissue infections and sexually transmitted infections byNeisseria andChlamydia species. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25(Suppl A): 115–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hardy DJ, Guay DRP, Jones RN. Clarithromycin, a unique macrolide: A pharmacokinetic, microbiological and clinical overview. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 15(1):39–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mallory SB. Azithromycin compared with cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Am J Med 1991; 91(3A):36S-39SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Handsfield HH, Dalu ZA, Martin DH, et al. Multicenter trial of single-dose azithromycin vs ceftriaxone in the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea. Sex Transm Dis 1994; 21(2): 107–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lesher GT, Froelich EJ, Gruett JH, et al. 1,8-naphthyridine derivatives: a new class of chemotherapy agents. J Med Pharm Chem 1962; 5:1063–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chu DT, Fernandes PB. Structure-activity relationship of thefluoroquinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33(2): 131–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Domagala JM. Structure-activity and structure-side effect relationships of the quinolone antibacterials. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 33(4):685–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walker RC. The fluoroquinolones. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 1030–1034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Donnell JA, Gelone SP. Fluoroquinolones. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2000; 14(2):489–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rodvold KA. Clinical safety profile of newer fluoroquinolones. Infect Med 1999; 10(Supp):41–43Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Klempner MS, Styrt B. Prevention of recurrent staphylococcal skin infections with low-dose clindamycin therapy. JAMA 1988; 260(18):2682–2685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zalla MJ, Su WP, Fransway AF. Dermatologic manifestations of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Mayo Clin Proc 1992; 67(11):1089–1108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Purohit SD, Supta ML, Gupia PR. Dietary constituents and rifampicin absorption. Tuberculosis 1987; 68:151Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ramesh V, Misra RS, Saxena V, et al. A comparative of efficacy of drug regimens in skin tuberculosis. Clin Exp Dermatol 1991; 16:106–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoss DM, Feder HM. Addition of rifampicin to conventional therapy for recurrent furunculosis. Arch Dermatol 1995; 131:647–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gamea AM, El-Tatawi FA. The effect of rifampicin on rhinoscleroma. J Laryngol Otol 1990; 10:772–777Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grosset J, Leventis S. Adverse effects of rifampin. Rev Infect Dis 1983; 5(3S):440–446Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Esterly NB, Furey NL, Flanagan LE. The effect of antimicrobial agents on leukocytechemotaxis. J Invest Dermatol 1978; 70(1):51–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Metronidazole (topical). In: Drug Information for the Health Care Professionals (USP DI). Rockville, MD: U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, 1997, pp 2028–2029Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wolf JE (2000) Meeting highlights, Acne and rosacea, 24th Annual Hawaii Dermatology Seminar, p 1 (Published by an unrestricted educational grant from Galderma)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hirschmann JV. Overview of antibiotics. In: Freedberg IM, Eisen AZ, Wolff K, et al, eds. Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp 2306-2318Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hirschmann JV. Overview of antibiotics. In: Freedberg IM, Eisen AZ, Wolff K, et al, eds. Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp 2790-2794Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ford C, Hamel J, Stapert D. Oxazolidinones: A new class of antimicrobials. Infect Med 1999; 16:435Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tucker JA, Allwine DA, Grega KC, et al. Piperazinyl oxazolidinones antibacterial agents containing apyridine, diazine or triazene hetero aromatic ring. J Med Chem. 1998; 41:3727–3735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dresser LD, Rybak MJ. The pharmacologic and bacteriologic properties of oxazolidinones, a new class of synthetic antimicrobials. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18(3):456–462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rybak MJ, Capelletty DM, Moldovan T, et al. Comparative in vitro activities and postantibiotic effects ofthe oxazolidinones compounds eperezolid (PNU-100592) and linezolid(PNU-100766) versus vancomycin againstStaphylococcus aureus, coagulase negative staphylococci,Enterococcus faecalis, andEnterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42(3):721–724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zurenko GE, Yagi BH, Schaadt RD, et al. In vitro activities of PNU 100592 and PNU 100766, noveloxazolidinones antibacterial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40(4):839–845PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Anonymous. Linezolid (Zyvox). Med Lett 2000; 14(1079):45-46Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lundstrom TS, Sobel JD. Antibiotics for gram-positive bacterial infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2000; 14(2):463–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chant C, Rybak MJ. Quinupristin/dalfopristin (RP 59500): a new streptograminantibiotic. Ann Pharmacother 1995; 29(10):1022–1027PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Qadri SM, Ueno Y, Abu Mostafa FM, et al. In vitro activity of quinupristin/dalfopristin, RP 59500, against gram positive clinical isolates. Chemotherapy 1997; 43(2):94–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kaye ET. Topical antibacterial agents. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2000; 14(2):321–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Thiboutot DM. Acne: An overview of clinical research findings. Dermatol Clin 1997; 15:97–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bonner MW, Benson PM, James WD. Topical antibiotics in dermatology. In: Freedberg IM, Eisen AZ, Wolff K, et al. eds. Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp 2829-2837Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bradley SF. Effectiveness of mupirocin in the control of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus. Infect Med 1993; 10:23–28Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Winston LG. Rifampin as antibiotic adjunct works well for recurrentboils. Skin Allergy News 2000; 31(7):25Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Williams RE, Mackie RM. The staphylococci. Importance of their control in the management of skin disease. Dermatol Clin 1993; 11:201–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Smack OP. Infections and allergy incidence in ambulatory surgery patientsusing white petrolatum versus bacitracin ointment. JAMA 1996; 276:972–975CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kapusnik-Uner JE. Tetracycline, chloramphenicol, erythromycin, and miscellaneous antibacterial agents. In: Hardman JG, et al, ed. Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp 1123-1147Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lindemayr H, Drobil M. Eczema of the lower leg and contact allergy. Hautarzt 1985; 36(4):227–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fraki JE, Peltonen L, Hopsu-Havu VK. Allergy to various components of topical preparations in stasisdermatitis and leg ulcer. Contact Dermatitis 1985; 5:97–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Klein JO. Otitis externa, otitis media, and mastoiditis. In: Mandell GL, Douglas RGL, Bennett JE eds. Principles and practice of infectious disease. New York: Churchill Livingstone, pp 505Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chambers HF, Sande MA. The aminoglycosides. In: Hardman JG, et al, ed. Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis ofTherapeutics, 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp 1123-1147Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Scherbenske JM, Winton GB, James WD. AcutePseudomonas infection of the external ear (malignant external otitis). J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1998; 14:165–169Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Package insert for Leshcutan (paromomycin sulfate, 15%, and methylbenzethonium chloride, 12%, ointment), Petah-Tikva, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lancini G. Antibiotics, A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York, Chapter 5: Plenum, pp 70-78Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Edwards DI. Biosynthesis of antimicrobial drugs. In: Antimicrobial Drug Action. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, pp 31-32Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Chloramphenicol (topical). In: Drug Information for Health Care Professionals (USP DI). Rockville, MD: U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, 1997, p 795Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Roberts Pharmaceutical Corp. (1997) Package insert for Furacin (nitrofurazone cream). In: Physicians Desk Reference, 51st ed. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, p 3044Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Brown CD, Zitelelli JA. A review of topical agents for wounds and methods of wounding. Guidelines for wound management. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1993; 19:732–737PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ward RS, Saffle JR. Topical agents in burn and wound care. Phys Ther 1995; 75:526–538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Klempner MS, Styrt B. Prevention of recurrent staphylococcal skin infections with low-dose clindamycin therapy. JAMA 1988; 260(18):2682–2685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Meislin HW, Lerner SA, Graves MH, et al. Cutaneous abscesses: anaerobic and aerobic bacteriology andoutpatient management. Ann Intern Med 1977; 87(2):145–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Macfie J, Harvey J. The treatment of acute superficial abscesses: A prospective clinical trial. Br J Surg 1977; 64(4):264–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Haas AF, Grekin RC. Antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32(2 Part 1):155–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Carrasco
    • 1
  • Melody Vander Straten
    • 1
  • Stephen K. Tyring
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Dermatology, Microbiology/Immunology and Internal MedicineUniversity of Texas Medical Branch-GalvestonGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations