Antibiotics for uncomplicated skin abscesses: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective To assess the impact of adjunctive antibiotic therapy on uncomplicated skin abscesses. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study selection A BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel provided input on design, important outcomes and the interpretation of the results. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included a comparison of antibiotics against no antibiotics or a comparison of different antibiotics in patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, and reported outcomes prespecified by the linked guideline panel. Review methods Reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects meta-analyses that compared antibiotics with no antibiotics, along with a limited number of prespecified subgroup hypotheses. We also performed network meta-analysis with a Bayesian framework to compare effects of different antibiotics. Quality of evidence was assessed with The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results Fourteen RCTs including 4198 patients proved eligible. Compared with no antibiotics, antibiotics probably lower the risk of treatment failure (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.90; low quality), recurrence within 1 month (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77; moderate quality), hospitalisation (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.94; moderate quality) and late recurrence (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.85; moderate quality). However, relative to no use, antibiotics probably increase the risk of gastrointestinal side effects (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX): OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.58; moderate quality; clindamycin: OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.88; high quality) and diarrhoea (clindamycin: OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89; high quality). Cephalosporins did not reduce the risk of treatment failure compared with placebo (moderate quality). Conclusions In patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, moderate-to-high quality evidence suggests TMP-SMX or clindamycin confer a modest benefit for several important outcomes, but this is offset by a similar risk of adverse effects. Clindamycin has a substantially higher risk of diarrhoea than TMP-SMX. Cephalosporins are probably not effective.

[1]  Lara A. Kahale,et al.  GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  L. Miller,et al.  A Placebo‐Controlled Trial of Antibiotics for Smaller Skin Abscesses , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Introduction to BMJ Rapid Recommendations , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[4]  P. Montravers,et al.  Current guidelines and recommendations for the management of skin and soft tissue infections , 2016, Current opinion in infectious diseases.

[5]  D. Karras,et al.  Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole versus Placebo for Uncomplicated Skin Abscess. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Automated generation of node‐splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta‐analysis , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[7]  A. Wallace,et al.  Incidence of skin and soft tissue infections in ambulatory and inpatient settings, 2005–2010 , 2015, BMC Infectious Diseases.

[8]  B. Frazee,et al.  The role of adjunctive antibiotics in the treatment of skin and soft tissue abscesses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2015, CJEM.

[9]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  L. Miller,et al.  Clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Mohammad Hassan Murad,et al.  A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  E. P. Dellinger,et al.  Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. , 2014, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[13]  C. Donskey,et al.  Community-associated Clostridium difficile infection and antibiotics: a meta-analysis. , 2013, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[14]  A. Singer,et al.  Systemic antibiotics after incision and drainage of simple abscesses: a meta-analysis , 2013, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[15]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Automating network meta‐analysis , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[16]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  J. Q. Rosso,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Antibiotic Treatment Strategies for Pediatric Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections , 2012 .

[18]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  D. Nathwani,et al.  Diagnosis and management of Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections (SSTI): a Literature Review and Consensus Statement on Behalf of the Italian Society of Infectious Diseases and International Society of Chemotherapy , 2011, Journal of chemotherapy.

[20]  P. Arbogast,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Antibiotic Treatment Strategies for Pediatric Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections , 2011, Pediatrics.

[21]  M. Mete,et al.  Randomized controlled trial of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin abscesses in patients at risk for community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. , 2010, Annals of emergency medicine.

[22]  S. Markwell,et al.  Randomized, controlled trial of antibiotics in the management of community-acquired skin abscesses in the pediatric patient. , 2010, Annals of emergency medicine.

[23]  Xin Sun,et al.  Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[25]  S. Kaplan,et al.  TRIMETHOPRIM-SULFAMETHOXAZOLE OR CLINDAMYCIN FOR TREATMENT OF COMMUNITY-ACQUIRED METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS SKIN AND SOFT TISSUE INFECTIONS , 2009, The Pediatric infectious disease journal.

[26]  G. Oster,et al.  Trends in US Hospital Admissions for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections , 2007, Emerging infectious diseases.

[27]  J. Maselli,et al.  National trends in ambulatory visits and antibiotic prescribing for skin and soft-tissue infections. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[28]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  T. Maurer,et al.  Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Cephalexin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Skin Abscesses in a Population at Risk for Community-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infection , 2007, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[30]  R. Daum Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , 2007 .

[31]  R. Daum,et al.  Clinical practice. Skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  T. Busman,et al.  Cefdinir vs. cephalexin for mild to moderate uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections in adolescents and adults* , 2006, Current medical research and opinion.

[33]  Roberta B Carey,et al.  Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  Patchen Dellinger,et al.  Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections. , 2005, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[35]  Carrera,et al.  A comparative study of the efficacy , safety and tolerability of azithromycin and cefaclor in the treatment of children with acute skin and / or soft tissue infections , 2005 .

[36]  A. Bucko,et al.  Randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of oral cefditoren 200 or 400 mg BID with either cefuroxime 250 mg BID or cefadroxil 500 mg BID for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections. , 2002, Clinical therapeutics.

[37]  R. Stern,et al.  Medication use and the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[38]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[39]  R. Levy,et al.  Treatment of cutaneous abscess: a double-blind clinical study. , 1985, Annals of emergency medicine.

[40]  I. Akira,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Cefadroxil in the Treatment of Superficial Suppurative Skin and Soft Tissue Infections -A Double-blind Study Comparing to L-Cephalexin , 1982 .

[41]  Murie Ja The treatment of acute superficial abscesses: a prospective clinical trial. , 1981, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

[42]  J. Macfie,et al.  The treatment of acute superficial abscesses: A prospective clinical trial , 1977, The British journal of surgery.