The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 121, Issue 5 , Pages 419-425, May 2008

Efficacy of Oral β-Lactam versus Non-β-Lactam Treatment of Uncomplicated Cellulitis

  • Karl J. Madaras-Kelly, PharmD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • College of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Boise, Idaho
    • Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Boise, Idaho
    • Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Karl Madaras-Kelly, PharmD, MPH, VA Medical Center, Clinical Pharmacy, 500 W Fort St. (119A), Boise, ID 83702.
  • ,
  • Richard E. Remington, MS

      Affiliations

    • Quantified Inc., Boise, Idaho
  • ,
  • Catherine M. Oliphant, PharmD

      Affiliations

    • College of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Boise, Idaho
    • Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Boise, Idaho
  • ,
  • Kevin L. Sloan, MD

      Affiliations

    • University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, Wash
    • Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Wash
  • ,
  • David T. Bearden, PharmD

      Affiliations

    • Oregon State University, College of Pharmacy, Portland, Ore
    • Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Ore.

Abstract 

Background

Preferred therapy for purulent skin and soft tissue infections is incision and drainage, but many infections cannot be drained. Empiric therapies for these infections are ill-defined in the era of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Methods

A multicenter retrospective cohort study of outpatients treated for cellulitis was conducted to compare clinical failure rates of oral β-lactam and non-β-lactam treatments. Exclusion criteria included purulent infection requiring incision and drainage, complicated skin and soft tissue infection, chronic ulceration, and intravenous antibiotics. Failure rates were compared using logistic regression to adjust for both covariates associated with failure and a propensity score for β-lactam treatment.

Results

Of 2977 patients, 861 met inclusion criteria and were classified by treatment: β-lactam (n=631) or non-β-lactam therapy (n=230). Failure rates were 14.7% versus 17.0% (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.31) for β-lactam and non-β-lactam therapy, respectively. Failure was associated with: age (P=.02), acute symptom severity (P=.03), animal bites (P=.03), Charlson score >3 (P=.02), and histamine-2 receptor antagonist use (P=.09). Relative efficacy of β-lactam therapy was greater after adjustment for factors associated with failure but remained statistically insignificant (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.53-1.24); adjusted including propensity score covariate (OR 0.71, 95% CI, 0.45-1.13). Discontinuation due to adverse effects differed between β-lactam (0.5%) and non-β-lactam (2.2%) therapies (P = .04).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in clinical failure between β-lactam and non-β-lactam antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis. Increased discontinuation due to adverse events with non-β-lactam therapy was observed.

Keywords: Antibiotics, Cellulitis, Epidemiology, Outcomes, Skin and soft tissue infections

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This work was supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Boise, Portland, and Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMC). The study was funded by a research grant from Abbott Pharmaceuticals. The study sponsors had no role in the data collection, analysis, or reporting of the study results.

PII: S0002-9343(08)00077-6

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.028

The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 121, Issue 5 , Pages 419-425, May 2008