-
American Family Physician Aug 2014Impetigo is the most common bacterial skin infection in children two to five years of age. There are two principal types: nonbullous (70% of cases) and bullous (30% of... (Review)
Review
Impetigo is the most common bacterial skin infection in children two to five years of age. There are two principal types: nonbullous (70% of cases) and bullous (30% of cases). Nonbullous impetigo, or impetigo contagiosa, is caused by Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes, and is characterized by honey-colored crusts on the face and extremities. Impetigo primarily affects the skin or secondarily infects insect bites, eczema, or herpetic lesions. Bullous impetigo, which is caused exclusively by S. aureus, results in large, flaccid bullae and is more likely to affect intertriginous areas. Both types usually resolve within two to three weeks without scarring, and complications are rare, with the most serious being poststreptococcal glomerulonephritis. Treatment includes topical antibiotics such as mupirocin, retapamulin, and fusidic acid. Oral antibiotic therapy can be used for impetigo with large bullae or when topical therapy is impractical. Amoxicillin/clavulanate, dicloxacillin, cephalexin, clindamycin, doxycycline, minocycline, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and macrolides are options, but penicillin is not. Natural therapies such as tea tree oil; olive, garlic, and coconut oils; and Manuka honey have been anecdotally successful, but lack sufficient evidence to recommend or dismiss them as treatment options. Treatments under development include minocycline foam and Ozenoxacin, a topical quinolone. Topical disinfectants are inferior to antibiotics and should not be used. Empiric treatment considerations have changed with the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, with methicillin-resistant S. aureus, macrolide-resistant streptococcus, and mupirocin-resistant streptococcus all documented. Fusidic acid, mupirocin, and retapamulin cover methicillin-susceptible S. aureus and streptococcal infections. Clindamycin proves helpful in suspected methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole covers methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection, but is inadequate for streptococcal infection.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diagnosis, Differential; Disease Management; Global Health; Humans; Impetigo; Incidence; Skin
PubMed: 25250996
DOI: No ID Found -
American Family Physician Sep 2008Mastitis occurs in approximately 10 percent of U.S. mothers who are breastfeeding, and it can lead to the cessation of breastfeeding. The risk of mastitis can be reduced... (Review)
Review
Mastitis occurs in approximately 10 percent of U.S. mothers who are breastfeeding, and it can lead to the cessation of breastfeeding. The risk of mastitis can be reduced by frequent, complete emptying of the breast and by optimizing breastfeeding technique. Sore nipples can precipitate mastitis. The differential diagnosis of sore nipples includes mechanical irritation from a poor latch or infant mouth anomalies, such as cleft palate or bacterial or yeast infection. The diagnosis of mastitis is usually clinical, with patients presenting with focal tenderness in one breast accompanied by fever and malaise. Treatment includes changing breastfeeding technique, often with the assistance of a lactation consultant. When antibiotics are needed, those effective against Staphylococcus aureus (e.g., dicloxacillin, cephalexin) are preferred. As methicillin-resistant S. aureus becomes more common, it is likely to be a more common cause of mastitis, and antibiotics that are effective against this organism may become preferred. Continued breastfeeding should be encouraged in the presence of mastitis and generally does not pose a risk to the infant. Breast abscess is the most common complication of mastitis. It can be prevented by early treatment of mastitis and continued breastfeeding. Once an abscess occurs, surgical drainage or needle aspiration is needed. Breastfeeding can usually continue in the presence of a treated abscess.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Female; Humans; Mastitis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 18819238
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Female; Fosfomycin; Humans; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Male; Penicillins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 32407558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2018The aim of this study was to study potential cytochrome P450 (CYP) induction by dicloxacillin. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
AIM
The aim of this study was to study potential cytochrome P450 (CYP) induction by dicloxacillin.
METHODS
We performed an open-label, randomized, two-phase, five-drug clinical pharmacokinetic cocktail crossover study in 12 healthy men with and without pretreatment with 1 g dicloxacillin three times daily for 10 days. Plasma and urine were collected over 24 h and the concentration of all five drugs and their primary metabolites was determined using a liquid chromatography coupled to triple quadrupole mass spectrometry method. Cryopreserved primary human hepatocytes were exposed to dicloxacillin for 48 h and changes in gene expression and the activity of CYP3A4, CYP2C9, CYP2B6 and CYP1A2 were investigated. The activation of nuclear receptors by dicloxacillin was assessed using luciferase assays.
RESULTS
A total of 10 days of treatment with dicloxacillin resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h for omeprazole (CYP2C19) {geometric mean ratio [GMR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.33 [0.24, 0.45]}, tolbutamide (CYP2C9) [GMR (95% CI): 0.73 (0.65, 0.81)] and midazolam (CYP3A4) [GMR (95% CI): 0.54 (0.41, 0.72)]. Additionally, other relevant pharmacokinetic parameters were affected, indicating the induction of CYP2C- and CYP3A4-mediated metabolism by dicloxacillin. Investigations in primary hepatocytes showed a statistically significant dose-dependent increase in CYP expression and activity by dicloxacillin, caused by activation of the pregnane X receptor.
CONCLUSIONS
Dicloxacillin is an inducer of CYP2C- and CYP3A-mediated drug metabolism, and we recommend caution when prescribing dicloxacillin to users of drugs with a narrow therapeutic window.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Area Under Curve; Chromatography, Liquid; Cross-Over Studies; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System; Dicloxacillin; Drug Interactions; Enzyme Induction; Female; Hepatocytes; Humans; Male; Mass Spectrometry; Young Adult
PubMed: 29105855
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13467 -
Tidsskrift For Den Norske Laegeforening... Oct 2023While standard blood tests are often sufficient for an anaemia workup, sometimes more invasive diagnostic testing is required to exclude rare conditions.
BACKGROUND
While standard blood tests are often sufficient for an anaemia workup, sometimes more invasive diagnostic testing is required to exclude rare conditions.
CASE PRESENTATION
A man in his forties contacted his general practitioner because of increasing functional dyspnoea. He had completed a course of dicloxacillin a few months previously for a skin abscess on his abdomen. Bloodwork revealed severe anaemia (haemoglobin 5.4 g/dL), which required transfusion. Subsequent testing excluded iron and vitamin deficiency anaemia, haemolysis and malignancy. Initial bone marrow biopsy was of suboptimal quality. However, repeat tissue sample supported a diagnosis of pure red cell aplasia. The patient improved with ciclosporin treatment, which was gradually tapered.
INTERPRETATION
Pure red cell aplasia should be considered in patients with new onset isolated anaemia with severe reticulocytopenia. Diagnosis depends on obtaining representative tissue from bone marrow biopsy. It is difficult to conclude for this patient whether the aetiology of his pure red cell aplasia was idiopathic or secondary to recent dicloxacillin use.
Topics: Humans; Male; Anemia; Bone Marrow; Dicloxacillin; Neoplasms; Red-Cell Aplasia, Pure; Adult
PubMed: 37874056
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.23.0022 -
Ugeskrift For Laeger May 2021Toxic shock syndrome is a potentially deadly toxin-mediated disease in which quick diagnosis is imperative for treatment and prognosis. This is a case report of a...
Toxic shock syndrome is a potentially deadly toxin-mediated disease in which quick diagnosis is imperative for treatment and prognosis. This is a case report of a 21-year-old woman admitted with high fever, confusion, petechial rash and hypotension. During catherisation a tampon was found, and from a vaginal swab Staphylococcus aureus was grown. The patient was hospitalised for eight days, two of which were at the intensive care unit for norepinephrine infusion for hypotension. She was successfully treated with the antibiotics dicloxacillin and clindamycin.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clindamycin; Female; Humans; Shock, Septic; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; Young Adult
PubMed: 33998442
DOI: No ID Found -
American Family Physician Jul 2008Foot infections are common in patients with diabetes and are associated with high morbidity and risk of lower extremity amputation. Diabetic foot infections are... (Review)
Review
Foot infections are common in patients with diabetes and are associated with high morbidity and risk of lower extremity amputation. Diabetic foot infections are classified as mild, moderate, or severe. Gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus and beta-hemolytic streptococci, are the most common pathogens in previously untreated mild and moderate infection. Severe, chronic, or previously treated infections are often polymicrobial. The diagnosis of diabetic foot infection is based on the clinical signs and symptoms of local inflammation. Infected wounds should be cultured after debridement. Tissue specimens obtained by scraping the base of the ulcer with a scalpel or by wound or bone biopsy are strongly preferred to wound swabs. Imaging studies are indicated for suspected deep soft tissue purulent collections or osteomyelitis. Optimal management requires aggressive surgical debridement and wound management, effective antibiotic therapy, and correction of metabolic abnormalities (mainly hyperglycemia and arterial insufficiency). Treatment with antibiotics is not required for noninfected ulcers. Mild soft tissue infection can be treated effectively with oral antibiotics, including dicloxacillin, cephalexin, and clindamycin. Severe soft tissue infection can be initially treated intravenously with ciprofloxacin plus clindamycin; piperacillin/tazobactam; or imipenem/cilastatin. The risk of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection should be considered when choosing a regimen. Antibiotic treatment should last from one to four weeks for soft tissue infection and six to 12 weeks for osteomyelitis and should be followed by culture-guided definitive therapy.
Topics: Diabetic Foot; Humans; Infections
PubMed: 18649613
DOI: No ID Found