抗生素联合治疗对皮肤软组织感染临床失败率的影响

Colton Whiteside, Meghan L. Fletcher, Lauren A. Schluenz-Roehl, Preeyaporn Sarangarm
{"title":"抗生素联合治疗对皮肤软组织感染临床失败率的影响","authors":"Colton Whiteside,&nbsp;Meghan L. Fletcher,&nbsp;Lauren A. Schluenz-Roehl,&nbsp;Preeyaporn Sarangarm","doi":"10.1016/j.japhar.2023.100001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Despite guideline recommendations for skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) consisting of empirical single antibiotic therapy, multiple studies have evaluated the use of a first-generation cephalosporin and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim or clindamycin to optimize coverage for staphylococcal and streptococcal species. No studies have evaluated a tetracycline with a cephalosporin for this indication.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study evaluated combination therapy with doxycycline plus cephalexin compared with cephalexin or doxycycline alone in SSTI.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective, single-center cohort study, conducted at an academic medical center, included consecutive adults who visited the emergency department (ED) with an SSTI, identified with ICD-10 codes, and received a prescription for cephalexin, doxycycline, or both. Admitted patients or those with antibiotics in the previous 30 days or wound care for chronic infections were excluded. The primary outcome was clinical failure defined as documented worsening of infection or incision and drainage (I&amp;D) on follow-up, change in antibiotic, or subsequent hospitalization. Chi-square test was used for the primary outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Patients (N = 419) were predominately white, Hispanic, males with a mean age of 46 ± 16 years, and consistent between groups. History of intravenous drug use was present in 23% of patients, most often in the doxycycline (30%) or combination groups (30%). Clinical failure occurred in 49 patients (12%). There was no difference in clinical failure between cephalexin and combination therapy (17 vs. 13, <em>P</em> = 0.45) or doxycycline versus combination therapy (19 vs. 13, <em>P</em> = 0.27). The predominant reason for clinical failure was worsening of infection (31), followed by change in antibiotic (18) and hospitalization (16). I&amp;D predominately occurred in the doxycycline (44%) and combination groups (30%), with methicillin-resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> being the most commonly identified organism (15).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In ED patients with SSTI, single antibiotic therapy did not result in increased incidence of clinical failure compared with combination therapy with a first-generation cephalosporin and tetracycline.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100736,"journal":{"name":"JAPhA Pharmacotherapy","volume":"1 1","pages":"Article 100001"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of combination antibiotic therapy on clinical failure rate for skin and soft tissue infections\",\"authors\":\"Colton Whiteside,&nbsp;Meghan L. Fletcher,&nbsp;Lauren A. Schluenz-Roehl,&nbsp;Preeyaporn Sarangarm\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.japhar.2023.100001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Despite guideline recommendations for skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) consisting of empirical single antibiotic therapy, multiple studies have evaluated the use of a first-generation cephalosporin and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim or clindamycin to optimize coverage for staphylococcal and streptococcal species. No studies have evaluated a tetracycline with a cephalosporin for this indication.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study evaluated combination therapy with doxycycline plus cephalexin compared with cephalexin or doxycycline alone in SSTI.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective, single-center cohort study, conducted at an academic medical center, included consecutive adults who visited the emergency department (ED) with an SSTI, identified with ICD-10 codes, and received a prescription for cephalexin, doxycycline, or both. Admitted patients or those with antibiotics in the previous 30 days or wound care for chronic infections were excluded. The primary outcome was clinical failure defined as documented worsening of infection or incision and drainage (I&amp;D) on follow-up, change in antibiotic, or subsequent hospitalization. Chi-square test was used for the primary outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Patients (N = 419) were predominately white, Hispanic, males with a mean age of 46 ± 16 years, and consistent between groups. History of intravenous drug use was present in 23% of patients, most often in the doxycycline (30%) or combination groups (30%). Clinical failure occurred in 49 patients (12%). There was no difference in clinical failure between cephalexin and combination therapy (17 vs. 13, <em>P</em> = 0.45) or doxycycline versus combination therapy (19 vs. 13, <em>P</em> = 0.27). The predominant reason for clinical failure was worsening of infection (31), followed by change in antibiotic (18) and hospitalization (16). I&amp;D predominately occurred in the doxycycline (44%) and combination groups (30%), with methicillin-resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> being the most commonly identified organism (15).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In ED patients with SSTI, single antibiotic therapy did not result in increased incidence of clinical failure compared with combination therapy with a first-generation cephalosporin and tetracycline.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAPhA Pharmacotherapy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 100001\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAPhA Pharmacotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949962323000013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAPhA Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949962323000013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景尽管皮肤和软组织感染(SSTI)的指南建议由经验单一抗生素治疗组成,但多项研究评估了第一代头孢菌素和磺胺甲恶唑甲氧苄啶或克林霉素的使用,以优化葡萄球菌和链球菌的覆盖范围。没有任何研究评估四环素和头孢菌素的适应症。目的评价多西环素联合头孢氨苄与头孢氨苄或多西环肽联合治疗SSTI的疗效。方法这项在学术医疗中心进行的回顾性单中心队列研究,包括连续的成年患者,他们因SSTI就诊于急诊科(ED),通过ICD-10代码进行识别,并接受了头孢氨苄、多西环素或两者兼有的处方。排除入院患者或在过去30天内使用抗生素或因慢性感染进行伤口护理的患者。主要结果是临床失败,定义为随访、抗生素更换或随后住院时感染或切开引流(I&;D)的恶化。卡方检验用于主要结果。结果患者(N=419)主要为白人、西班牙裔、男性,平均年龄46±16岁,各组间一致。23%的患者有静脉注射药物使用史,最常见的是多西环素组(30%)或联合用药组(30%)。49名患者(12%)出现临床失败。头孢氨苄与联合治疗(17对13,P=0.45)或多西环素与联合治疗之间的临床失败率没有差异(19对13,P=0.027)。临床失败的主要原因是感染恶化(31),其次是抗生素的变化(18)和住院治疗(16)。我&;D主要发生在多西环素组(44%)和联合用药组(30%),耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌是最常见的生物体(15)。结论在患有SSTI的ED患者中,与第一代头孢菌素和四环素的联合治疗相比,单一抗生素治疗不会增加临床失败的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effect of combination antibiotic therapy on clinical failure rate for skin and soft tissue infections

Background

Despite guideline recommendations for skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) consisting of empirical single antibiotic therapy, multiple studies have evaluated the use of a first-generation cephalosporin and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim or clindamycin to optimize coverage for staphylococcal and streptococcal species. No studies have evaluated a tetracycline with a cephalosporin for this indication.

Objective

This study evaluated combination therapy with doxycycline plus cephalexin compared with cephalexin or doxycycline alone in SSTI.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center cohort study, conducted at an academic medical center, included consecutive adults who visited the emergency department (ED) with an SSTI, identified with ICD-10 codes, and received a prescription for cephalexin, doxycycline, or both. Admitted patients or those with antibiotics in the previous 30 days or wound care for chronic infections were excluded. The primary outcome was clinical failure defined as documented worsening of infection or incision and drainage (I&D) on follow-up, change in antibiotic, or subsequent hospitalization. Chi-square test was used for the primary outcome.

Results

Patients (N = 419) were predominately white, Hispanic, males with a mean age of 46 ± 16 years, and consistent between groups. History of intravenous drug use was present in 23% of patients, most often in the doxycycline (30%) or combination groups (30%). Clinical failure occurred in 49 patients (12%). There was no difference in clinical failure between cephalexin and combination therapy (17 vs. 13, P = 0.45) or doxycycline versus combination therapy (19 vs. 13, P = 0.27). The predominant reason for clinical failure was worsening of infection (31), followed by change in antibiotic (18) and hospitalization (16). I&D predominately occurred in the doxycycline (44%) and combination groups (30%), with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus being the most commonly identified organism (15).

Conclusion

In ED patients with SSTI, single antibiotic therapy did not result in increased incidence of clinical failure compared with combination therapy with a first-generation cephalosporin and tetracycline.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Safety of prolonged thrice-weekly high-dose daptomycin in a hemodialysis patient with prosthetic valve endocarditis Proportion of intensive care unit patients receiving sedation after rapid sequence intubation with rocuronium Effect of loperamide on heart rhythm: Randomized, double-blind, controlled study in healthy adults Advances in recognizing, treating, and preventing mpox infection Does phenobarbital reduce the hospital length of stay for patients suffering from severe alcohol withdrawal? A retrospective comparison of phenobarbital to lorazepam infusions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1