Topical antibiotics in pyodermas

Zaynoun, Shukrallah; Matta, Muna T.; Uwayda, M. M.; Kurban, Amal K.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1974.tb06411.x

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By using the same technique, the relative potencies of 0.1% betamethasone valerate, 0.025% fluocinolone acetonide, and 0.1% triamcinolone acetonide creams were evaluated and found to have practically the same potency (123). These results correlated well with double-blind clinical studies.…”

Section: Intensity Of Inflammatory Stimulus Applied Therementioning

confidence: 53%

Bioassays Used in Development of Topical Dosage Forms

Haleblian¹

1976

Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Intensity Of Inflammatory Stimulus Applied Therementioning

confidence: 53%

Bioassays Used in Development of Topical Dosage Forms

Haleblian¹

1976

Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The final selection of publications included 4 placebo-controlled uSSTI trials (35)(36)(37)(38), 12 linezolid trials (39-50), 3 ceftaroline trials (51-53), 1 retrospective ceftaroline secondary analysis (54), and 2 nonantibacterial treatment trials of UV light for erysipelas (23,24) (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The four trials as proxy for placebo included 234 subjects with a range of uncomplicated infections reported as impetigo, folliculitis, SITL, and pyoderma (Table 1). Publication dates were from 1974 to 2013, three of the trials enrolled a subset of subjects Ͻ18 years of age, and one publication required certified translation from French to English (35)(36)(37)(38). Each trial reported a TOC clinical treatment response; none reported an early clinical treatment response.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The four proxy for placebo uSSTI trials reported TOC clinical treatment response rates ranging from 8% to 66% (Table 2) (35)(36)(37)(38). Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was evident for lesion size, infection type, and timing of the TOC assessment (Table 3).…”

Section: Iii) Nonantibacterial Treatment Trials (Search C)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the meta-analysis, the trial that restricted enrollment to subjects with SITL was excluded (35), resulting in a pooled proxy for placebo TOC clinical treatment response rate of 31.0% (95% CI, 6.2% to 55.9%); the variance across trials (I 2 ϭ 90.6%, P Ͻ 0.0001) was high ( Fig. 2a) (36)(37)(38). Eleven of the 12 linezolid trials reported TOC clinical treatment response rates ranging from 50% to 95% (Table 2) (39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50).…”

Section: Iii) Nonantibacterial Treatment Trials (Search C)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis To Estimate Antibacterial Treatment Effect in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection

Cates

Mitrani-Gold

et al. 2015

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the antibacterial treatment effect for linezolid and ceftaroline to inform on the design of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) noninferiority trials. The primary endpoints included an early clinical treatment response (ECTR) defined as cessation of lesion spread at 48 to 72 h postrandomization and the test-of-cure (TOC) response defined as total resolution of the infection at 7 to 14 days posttreatment. The systematic review identified no placebo-controlled trials in ABSSSI, 4 placebo-controlled trials in uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infection as a proxy for placebo in ABSSSI, 12 linezolid trials in ABSSSI, 3 ceftaroline trials in ABSSSI, and 2 trials for nonantibacterial treatment. The ECTR rates at 48 to 72 h and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 78.7% (95% CI, 61.1 to 96.3%) for linezolid, 74.0% (95% CI, 69.7 to 78.3%) for ceftaroline, and 59.0% (95% CI, 52.8 to 65.3%) for nonantibacterial treatment. The early clinical treatment effect could not be estimated, given no available placebo or proxy for placebo data for this endpoint. Clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity influenced the selection of trials for the meta-analysis of the TOC treatment effect estimation. The pooled estimates of the TOC treatment response were 31.0% (95% CI, 6.2 to 55.9%) for the proxy for placebo, 88.1% (95% CI, 81.0 to 95.1%) for linezolid, and 86.1% (95% CI, 83.7 to 88.6%) for ceftaroline. The TOC clinical treatment effect estimation was 25.1% for linezolid and 27.8% for ceftaroline. The antibacterial treatment effect estimation at TOC will inform on the design and analysis of future noninferiority ABSSSI clinical trials. Over the past decade, robust clinical, scientific, and regulatory debate has emerged for initiatives to improve the design, execution, and analysis of antibacterial clinical trials (1-4). New trials for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), previously referred to as complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSTI), remain important, given the rise in incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and reports of treatment failure (5-8). Per guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), patient eligibility for enrollment in ABSSSI trials should be restricted to those with erysipelas, cellulitis, major cutaneous abscesses, and wound infections having a minimal lesion surface area involvement of 75 cm 2 (9). For trial endpoints, the traditional test-of-cure (TOC) endpoint, with the treatment success defined as total resolution of the infection at 7 to 14 days posttreatment, remains aligned with the European regulatory guidance, yet the treatment success for the primary efficacy endpoint aligned with the FDA guidance is defined as cessation of lesion spread after 48 to 72 h of treatment (9-11). Revisions to the enrollment and endpoint criteria in recent regulatory guidance for ABSSSI trials necessitate reevaluation of the...

show abstract

Topical Antibiotics in Dermatology

Hirschmann¹

1988

Arch Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Topical antibiotics are safe and effective in certain conditions, primarily acne, rosacea, and nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus. They are useful in impetigo only when it is of limited extent. Their efficacy in other pyodermas is unclear, although mupirocin is probably effective in many cases. In "infected eczema" that does not require systemic therapy they seem to add little to what topical corticosteroids alone achieve. They are ineffective in reducing the incidence of significant infection with indwelling intravenous catheters. They are safe preparations, but extensive use, especially in closed populations, may encourage the emergence of resistant bacteria.

show abstract

Topical antibiotics in pyodermas

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

Bioassays Used in Development of Topical Dosage Forms

Bioassays Used in Development of Topical Dosage Forms

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis To Estimate Antibacterial Treatment Effect in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection

Topical Antibiotics in Dermatology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About