• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Effect of Cephalexin Plus Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole vs Cephalexin Alone on Clinical Cure of Uncomplicated Cellulitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑与单用头孢氨苄治疗单纯性蜂窝织炎临床疗效的对比:一项随机临床试验
JAMA. 2017 May 23;317(20):2088-2096. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.5653.
2
Clinical trial: comparative effectiveness of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus cephalexin alone for treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis: a randomized controlled trial.临床试验:头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲噁唑与头孢氨苄单药治疗单纯性蜂窝织炎的比较效果:一项随机对照试验。
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jun;56(12):1754-62. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit122. Epub 2013 Mar 1.
3
Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole versus Placebo for Uncomplicated Skin Abscess.复方新诺明与安慰剂治疗单纯性皮肤脓肿的疗效比较
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374(9):823-32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507476.
4
A Randomized Trial of Clindamycin Versus Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for Uncomplicated Wound Infection.克林霉素与复方新诺明治疗单纯性伤口感染的随机试验
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;62(12):1505-1513. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw177. Epub 2016 Mar 29.
5
Clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections.克林霉素与复方磺胺甲噁唑治疗单纯性皮肤感染。
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 19;372(12):1093-103. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1403789.
6
Cefdinir vs. cephalexin for mild to moderate uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections in adolescents and adults.头孢地尼与头孢氨苄用于青少年及成人轻至中度非复杂性皮肤及皮肤结构感染的比较。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Dec;22(12):2419-28. doi: 10.1185/030079906X148355.
7
Empiric outpatient therapy with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, cephalexin, or clindamycin for cellulitis.经验性门诊治疗蜂窝织炎,可选择使用复方磺胺甲噁唑、头孢氨苄或克林霉素。
Am J Med. 2010 Oct;123(10):942-50. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.05.020.
8
A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Antibiotics for Smaller Skin Abscesses.一项针对较小皮肤脓肿的抗生素安慰剂对照试验。
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 29;376(26):2545-2555. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607033.
9
Subgroup Analysis of Antibiotic Treatment for Skin Abscesses.皮肤脓肿抗生素治疗的亚组分析。
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):21-30. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.07.483. Epub 2017 Oct 5.
10
Antimicrobial activity against CA-MRSA and treatment of uncomplicated nonpurulent cellulitis.抗 CA-MRSA 活性及非化脓性蜂窝织炎的治疗。
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2013 Aug;11(8):777-80. doi: 10.1586/14787210.2013.816470. Epub 2013 Aug 14.

引用本文的文献

1
[Common skin and soft tissue infections-current recommendations].[常见皮肤及软组织感染——当前建议]
Dermatologie (Heidelb). 2025 Aug;76(8):470-479. doi: 10.1007/s00105-025-05537-6. Epub 2025 Jul 28.
2
Cellulitis in Pediatric Patients: Recognition and Management in the Era of Evolving Resistance.儿科患者的蜂窝织炎:耐药性不断演变时代的识别与管理
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2025 Apr 21. doi: 10.1007/s40257-025-00936-w.
3
Epsilon-polylysine microneedle potentiating MXene-mediated photothermal ablation for combating antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.ε-聚赖氨酸微针增强MXene介导的光热消融以对抗耐抗生素细菌感染。
Mater Today Bio. 2025 Jan 19;31:101498. doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2025.101498. eCollection 2025 Apr.
4
Prioritizing emergency department antibiotic stewardship interventions for skin and soft tissue infections using judgment analysis.运用判断分析为皮肤及软组织感染确定急诊科抗生素管理干预措施的优先级。
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2025 Jan 20;46(3):1-9. doi: 10.1017/ice.2024.211.
5
Microbiological and Clinical Features of Patients with Cellulitis in Tropical Australia: Disease Severity Assessment and Implications for Clinical Management.澳大利亚热带地区蜂窝织炎患者的微生物学和临床特征:疾病严重程度评估及对临床管理的意义
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2024 Nov 19;112(2):337-345. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.24-0450. Print 2025 Feb 5.
6
Efficacy and safety of first- and second-line antibiotics for cellulitis and erysipelas: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.一线和二线抗生素治疗蜂窝织炎和丹毒的疗效和安全性:一项随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析。
Arch Dermatol Res. 2024 Sep 6;316(8):603. doi: 10.1007/s00403-024-03317-1.
7
The Epidemiology of Antibiotic-Related Adverse Events in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections: A Narrative Review of the Literature.糖尿病足感染治疗中抗生素相关不良事件的流行病学:文献综述
Antibiotics (Basel). 2023 Apr 18;12(4):774. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12040774.
8
Insufficient Representation of Patients With Obesity in Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Antimicrobials for Treatment of Skin and Skin Structure Infections: A Scoping Review.评估抗菌药物治疗皮肤和皮肤结构感染有效性及安全性的随机对照试验中肥胖患者代表性不足:一项范围综述
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023 Mar 20;10(3):ofad144. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofad144. eCollection 2023 Mar.
9
Clinical Impact of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections.皮肤和软组织感染的临床影响
Antibiotics (Basel). 2023 Mar 11;12(3):557. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12030557.
10
Outpatient management of moderate cellulitis in children using high-dose oral cephalexin.使用大剂量口服头孢氨苄对儿童中度蜂窝织炎进行门诊治疗
Paediatr Child Health. 2022 May 3;27(4):213-219. doi: 10.1093/pch/pxac031. eCollection 2022 Jul.

本文引用的文献

1
Costs and Consequences Associated With Misdiagnosed Lower Extremity Cellulitis.与误诊的下肢蜂窝织炎相关的成本和后果。
JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Feb 1;153(2):141-146. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.3816.
2
Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole versus Placebo for Uncomplicated Skin Abscess.复方新诺明与安慰剂治疗单纯性皮肤脓肿的疗效比较
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374(9):823-32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507476.
3
Inability of polymerase chain reaction, pyrosequencing, and culture of infected and uninfected site skin biopsy specimens to identify the cause of cellulitis.聚合酶链反应、焦磷酸测序和感染及未感染部位皮肤活检标本培养均无法确定蜂窝织炎的病因。
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Dec 1;61(11):1679-87. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ655. Epub 2015 Aug 3.
4
Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the infectious diseases society of America.美国传染病学会关于皮肤和软组织感染的诊断和管理实践指南:2014 年更新。
Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59(2):147-59. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu296. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
5
Skin infections and antibiotic stewardship: analysis of emergency department prescribing practices, 2007-2010.皮肤感染与抗生素管理:2007 - 2010年急诊科处方实践分析
West J Emerg Med. 2014 May;15(3):282-9. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2013.8.18040. Epub 2014 Jan 6.
6
Clinical trial: comparative effectiveness of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus cephalexin alone for treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis: a randomized controlled trial.临床试验:头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲噁唑与头孢氨苄单药治疗单纯性蜂窝织炎的比较效果:一项随机对照试验。
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jun;56(12):1754-62. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit122. Epub 2013 Mar 1.
7
A systematic review of bacteremias in cellulitis and erysipelas.一项关于蜂窝织炎和丹毒菌血症的系统评价。
J Infect. 2012 Feb;64(2):148-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2011.11.004. Epub 2011 Nov 11.
8
Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus from skin and soft-tissue infections in US emergency department patients, 2004 and 2008.比较美国急诊部皮肤和软组织感染患者的金黄色葡萄球菌,2004 年和 2008 年。
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Jul 15;53(2):144-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir308.
9
The role of beta-hemolytic streptococci in causing diffuse, nonculturable cellulitis: a prospective investigation.β-溶血性链球菌在引起弥漫性、不可培养性蜂窝织炎中的作用:一项前瞻性研究。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2010 Jul;89(4):217-226. doi: 10.1097/MD.0b013e3181e8d635.
10
Staphylococcus aureus is the most common identified cause of cellulitis: a systematic review.金黄色葡萄球菌是蜂窝织炎最常见的确诊病因:系统评价。
Epidemiol Infect. 2010 Mar;138(3):313-7. doi: 10.1017/S0950268809990483. Epub 2009 Aug 3.

头孢氨苄联合甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑与单用头孢氨苄治疗单纯性蜂窝织炎临床疗效的对比:一项随机临床试验

Effect of Cephalexin Plus Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole vs Cephalexin Alone on Clinical Cure of Uncomplicated Cellulitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

作者信息

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

机构信息

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.

出版信息

JAMA. 2017 May 23;317(20):2088-2096. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.5653.

DOI:10.1001/jama.2017.5653
PMID:28535235
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5815038/
Abstract

IMPORTANCE

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.

OBJECTIVE

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.

INTERVENTIONS

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).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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%.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00729937.

摘要

重要性

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。

目的

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。

干预措施

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)。

主要结局和测量指标

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%。

结果

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。

结论与相关性

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。

试验注册

clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00729937