Ampicillin/Sulbactam Compared with Cefazolin or Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 2 - Trang 173-183 - 2012
Mark K. Sachs1, Christine Pilgrim2
1Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Miami School of Medicine, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, USA
2Division of Infectious Diseases, Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA

Tóm tắt

The increasing prevalence of β-lactamase production by pathogens associated with cellulitis and soft-tissue infections have made the efficacy of standard treatment regimens suspect and demonstrate the need for a reappraisal of optimal medical management for these infections. In an open randomised, prospective study, the efficacy and toxicity of intravenous ampicillin/sulbactam was compared with cefazolin for the treatment of cellulitis and with cefoxitin for the treatment of soft-tissue infections. Ampicillin/sulbactam was given to 24 patients, cefoxitin to 16 and cefazolin to 12 patients. Analysis of clinical and bacteriological responses showed no significant differences between groups despite the fact that by in vitro testing 82 (98%) of isolates from soft-tissue infections were susceptible to ampicillin/sulbactam but only 68 (81%) were susceptible to cefoxitin (p < 0.001). The addition of sulbactam to ampicillin significantly enhanced its in vitro activity against β-lactamase-producing Staphylococcus aureus and anaerobic bacteria. All adverse reactions were subclinical, demonstrable only by mild laboratory abnormalities. Overall, ampicillin/sulbactam appears to be of comparable clinical efficacy in the treatment of polymicrobial soft-tissue infections with cefoxitin, or in the treatment of cellulitis with cefazolin. Additionally, when Enterococcus faecalis and S. aureus are recovered from a single culture, ampicillin/sulbactam, as opposed to cefoxitin monotherapy, would remain effective. Therefore, ampicillin/sulbactam will often be a less expensive therapeutic alternative.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Acar JF, Minozzi C. Role of β-lactamases in the resistance of gram-negative bacilli to β-lactam antibiotics. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 8: S482–S486, 1986 Aswapokee N, Neu HC. A sulfone beta-lactam compound which acts as a beta-lactamase inhibitor. Journal of Antibiotics (Tokyo) 31: 1238–1244, 1978 Bruhat MA, Pouly JL, LeBoedec G, Mage G. Treatment of acute salpingitis with ampicillin/sulbactam: comparison with cefoxitin. Drugs 31: 7S–10S, 1986 Crombleholme WR, Ohm-Smith M, Robbie U, Dekay V, Sweet R. Ampicillin/sulbactam versus gentamicin/metronidazole in the treatment of soft tissue pelvic infections. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 156: 507–512, 1987 Dickinson GM, Bisno AL. Infections associated with indwelling devices: concepts of pathogenesis; infections associated with intravascular devices. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 35: 597–600, 1989 English AR, Retsema JA, Girard AE, Lynch JE, Barth WE. CP 45-899: a beta-lactamase inhibitor that extends the antibacterial spectrum of beta lactams: initial bacteriological characterization. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 14: 414–419, 1978 Finegold SM, Wexler HM. Therapeutic implications of bacteriologic findings in mixed aerobic-anaerobic infections. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 611–616, 1988 Finland FPF, Wilcox C. In vitro susceptibility of pathogenic staphylococci to 7 antibiotics. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 20: 325–334, 1950 Foulds G. Pharmacokinetics of ampicillin/sulbactam in humans: a review. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 8: S503–S511, 1986 Gleckman RA, Roth RU. Diabetic foot infections-prevention and treatment. Western Journal of Medicine 142: 263–265, 1985 Goetz JP, Tafari N. Needle aspiration in haemophilus influenza type B cellulitis. Pediatrics 54: 504–506, 1974 Goldgeier MH. The microbial evaluation of acute cellulitis. Cutis 31: 649–655, 1983 Hook EW, Hooton TM, Horton CA, Coyle MB, Ramsey PG, et al. Microbiologic evaluation of cutaneous cellulitis in adults. Archives of Internal Medicine 146: 295–297, 1986 Kernodle DS, Classen DC, Burke JP, Kaiser AB. Failure of cephalosporins to prevent Staphylococcus aureus surgical wound infections. Journal of the American Medical Association 236: 961–966, 1990 Kielhofner MA, Brown B, Dall L. Influence of underlying disease process on the utility of cellulitis needle aspirates. Archives of Internal Medicine 148: 2451–2452, 1988 Knowles JR. Anti-beta-lactamase agents. In Hand FE (Ed.) Antibiotics VI. Modes and mechanisms of microbial growth and inhibition, pp. 90–107, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1983 Koneman EW, Allen SD, Dowell VR, et al. Color atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology, 2nd ed., pp. 1–88, JB Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1985 Labia R, Morand A, Lelievre V, Mattione D, Kazmierczak A. Sulbactam: biochemical factors involved in its synergy with ampicillin. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 8(S5): S496–S502, 1986 Loffler L, Baurenfeind A, Keyl W, Hoffstedt B, Piergies A, Lenz W. An open, comparative study of sulbactam plus ampicillin vs cefotaxime as initial therapy for serious soft tissue infections and bone and joint infections. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 8: S593–S598, 1986 Matlow AG, Bohnen JMA, Nohr C, Christou N, Meakins J. Pathogenicity of enterococci in a rat model of fecal peritonitis. Journal of Infectious Diseases 160: 142–145, 1989 Mehtar S, Croft RJ, Hilas A. A non-comparative study of parenteral ampicillin and sulbactam in intra-thoracic and intraabdominal infections. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 17: 389–396, 1986 Meyers BR, Sherman E, Mendelson MH, Velasquez G, Srulevitch-Chin E, et al. Bloodstream infections in the elderly. American Journal of Medicine 86: 379–384, 1988 Moellering RC. Enterococcal infections in patients treated with moxalactam. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 4: S708–S711, 1982 Mowat AG, Baum J. Chemotaxis of polymorphonuclear leukocytes from patients with diabetes mellitus. New England Journal of Medicine 284: 621–627, 1971 Musial CE, Rosenblatt JE. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of anaerobic bacteria isolated at the Mayo Clinic during 1982 through 1987: comparison with results from 1977 through 1981. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 69: 392–399, 1989 Neu HC. The emergence of bacterial resistance and its influence on empiric therapy. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 5: 509–520, 1983 Newell PM, Norden CW. Value of needle aspiration in the bacteriologic diagnosis of cellulitis in adults. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 26: 401–404, 1988 Nichols RL. A comparison of ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefoxitin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections of bacterial etiology. Abstract. International Symposium on Anaerobic and Bacterial Infections, Monaco, 1988 Noble WC. Microbiology of human skin, 2nd ed., pp. 14–17, Lloyd-Luke, London, 1981 Oviasu VO, Obasohan AO. Effectiveness of sulbactam/ampicillin in the treatment of lobar pneumonia. Current Therapeutic Research 41(1): 99–104, 1987 Pankey AG, Katner PH, Valainis GT, Clarkson MJ, Cortez LM, et al. Overview of bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissue and clinical experience with ticarcillin plus clavulinate potassium in their treatment. American Journal of Medicine 79(5B): 106–115, 1985 Reinhardt JF, Johnston L, Ruane P, Johnson CC, Ingram-Drake L, et al. A randomized, double-blind comparison of sulbactam/ampicillin and clindamycin for the treatment of aerobic and aerobic-anaerobic infections. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 8 (Suppl. 5): S569–S575, 1986 Retsema JA, Schelkly WU, Girard AE, English AR. Beta-lactamase inhibitor CP-45,899 (sulbactam): mode of action against a type III inhibitor beta-lactamase and synergy effects with cephalosporins. Drugs Under Experimental and Clinical Research 7: 255–261, 1981 Richmond HH, Sykes RB. The beta-lactamases of gram-negative bacteria and their possible physiologic role. Advances in Microbial Physiology 9: 31–35, 1973 Sanders CC, Sanders WE. Tyle: 1 β-lactamases of gram-negative bacterial: interactions with β-lactam antibiotics. Journal of Infectious Diseases 154: 792–800, 1986 Sanders CV, Greenberg RN, Mareer RL. Drugs 5 years later: cefamandole and cefoxitin. Annals of Internal Medicine 103: 70–78, 1985 Sapico FL, Witte JL, Canawall HN, Montgomerie JZ, Bessman AN. The infected foot of the diabetic patient: quantitative microbiology and analysis of clinical features. Reviews on Infectious Diseases 6: 5171–5176, 1984 Senft HH, Stiglmayer R, Elbach HW, Koemer H. Sulbactam/ampicillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynaecological infections. Drugs 31 (Suppl. 2): 18–21, 1986 Siersbach-Nielsen K, Hansen JM, Kampmand T, Kristensen M. Rapid evaluation of creatinine clearance. Lancet 1: 1133–1134, 1971 Simor AE, Roberts JF, Smith JA. Cumitech 23: infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissues, pp. 1–8, American Society for Microbiology, Washington DC, 1988 Smith CR, Lipsky JJ, Laskin OL, Hellerman DB, Mellits ED, et al. Double-blind comparison of the nephrotoxicity and auditory toxicity of gentamicin and tobramycin. New England Journal of Medicine 302: 1106–1109, 1980 Stromberg BV, Reines HD, Hunt P. Comparative clinical study of sulbactam and ampicillin and clindamycin and tobramycin in infections of soft-tissue. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 162: 575–578, 1986 Styrt B, Gorbach SL. Recent developments in the understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of anaerobic infections. New England Journal of Medicine 321: 298–301, 1989 Wheat LJ, Allen SD, Henry M, Kernek OB, Siders JA, et al. Diabetic foot infections and bacteriologic analysis. Archives of Internal Medicine 146: 1935–1940, 1986 Wise R, Andrews JM, Bedford RA. Clavulanic acid and CP-45,899: a comparison of their in vitro activity in combination with penicillins. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 6: 197–200, 1980