dc.contributor.author |
Ferreira, Athena |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Bolland, Mark |
en |
dc.contributor.author |
Thomas, Mark |
en |
dc.date.accessioned |
2019-05-28T21:56:27Z |
en |
dc.date.issued |
2016-10 |
en |
dc.identifier.citation |
Infection 44(5):607-615 Oct 2016 |
en |
dc.identifier.issn |
0300-8126 |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/46842 |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
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.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.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].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. |
en |
dc.format.medium |
Print-Electronic |
en |
dc.language |
eng |
en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Infection |
en |
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
en |
dc.subject |
Humans |
en |
dc.subject |
Erysipelas |
en |
dc.subject |
Cellulitis |
en |
dc.subject |
beta-Lactams |
en |
dc.subject |
Cephalosporins |
en |
dc.subject |
Penicillins |
en |
dc.subject |
Macrolides |
en |
dc.subject |
Anti-Bacterial Agents |
en |
dc.subject |
Drug Therapy, Combination |
en |
dc.subject |
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic |
en |
dc.subject |
Lincosamides |
en |
dc.title |
Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing a penicillin or cephalosporin with a macrolide or lincosamide in the treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas. |
en |
dc.type |
Journal Article |
en |
dc.identifier.doi |
10.1007/s15010-016-0895-x |
en |
pubs.issue |
5 |
en |
pubs.begin-page |
607 |
en |
pubs.volume |
44 |
en |
dc.identifier.pmid |
27085865 |
en |
pubs.end-page |
615 |
en |
pubs.publication-status |
Published |
en |
dc.rights.accessrights |
http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Meta-Analysis |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Journal Article |
en |
pubs.elements-id |
526953 |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Medical and Health Sciences |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Medical Sciences |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Molecular Medicine |
en |
pubs.org-id |
School of Medicine |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Medicine Department |
en |
dc.identifier.eissn |
1439-0973 |
en |
pubs.record-created-at-source-date |
2016-09-30 |
en |
pubs.dimensions-id |
27085865 |
en |