Moran Gregory J, Krishnadasan Anusha, Mower William R, Abrahamian Fredrick M, LoVecchio Frank, Steele Mark T, Rothman Richard E, Karras David J, Hoagland Rebecca, Pettibone Stephanie, Talan David A
Department of Emergency Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California2Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
JAMA. 2017 May 23;317(20):2088-2096. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.5653.
Emergency 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.
To determine whether cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole yields a higher clinical cure rate of uncomplicated cellulitis than cephalexin alone.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, 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.
Cephalexin, 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).
The 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%.
Among 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.
Among 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.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00729937.
随着耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)的出现,美国因皮肤感染而到急诊科就诊的人数有所增加。对于无脓性引流的蜂窝织炎,β溶血性链球菌被认为是主要病原体。与缺乏MRSA活性的治疗方法相比,具有体外MRSA活性的抗菌方案是否能带来更好的治疗效果尚不清楚。
确定头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑治疗单纯性蜂窝织炎的临床治愈率是否高于单用头孢氨苄。
设计、地点和参与者:2009年4月至2012年6月在美国5个急诊科进行的多中心、双盲、随机优势试验,纳入年龄大于12岁、患有蜂窝织炎且无伤口、脓性引流或脓肿的门诊患者。所有参与者在入组时均接受软组织超声检查以排除脓肿。最终随访时间为2012年8月。
头孢氨苄,每日4次,每次500mg,联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑,每日2次,每次320mg/1600mg,共7天(n = 248名参与者),或头孢氨苄联合安慰剂治疗7天(n = 248名参与者)。
在符合方案组中预先确定的主要结局是临床治愈,定义为随访时不存在以下临床失败标准:发热;红斑增加(>25%)、肿胀或压痛(第3 - 4天);红斑、肿胀或压痛无减轻(第8 - 10天);以及红斑、肿胀或压痛超过轻微程度(第14 - 21天)。临床显著差异定义为大于10%。
在500名随机参与者中,496名(99%)纳入改良意向性分析,411名(82.2%)纳入符合方案分析(中位年龄40岁[范围15 - 78岁];58.4%为男性;10.9%患有糖尿病)。红斑的中位长度和宽度分别为13.0cm和10.0cm。在符合方案人群中,头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑组218名参与者中有182名(83.5%)临床治愈,而头孢氨苄组193名参与者中有165名(85.5%)临床治愈(差异为-2.0%;95%CI为-9.7%至5.7%;P = 0.50)。在改良意向性分析人群中,头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑组248名参与者中有189名(76.2%)临床治愈,头孢氨苄组248名参与者中有171名(69.0%)临床治愈(差异为7.3%;95%CI为-1.0%至15.5%;P = 0.07)。至7至9周的组间不良事件发生率和次要结局,包括过夜住院、复发性皮肤感染以及家庭接触者中的类似感染,差异均无统计学意义。
在单纯性蜂窝织炎患者中,符合方案分析显示,与单用头孢氨苄相比,使用头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑并未使蜂窝织炎的临床缓解率更高。然而,由于改良意向性分析结果的不精确性包括了有利于头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑的具有临床重要意义的差异,可能需要进一步研究。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00729937