EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSoft-tissue infections are common, generally of mild tomodest severity, and are easily treated with a variety ofagents. An etiologic diagnosis of simple cellulitis is fre-quently difﬁcult and generally unnecessary for patientswith mild signs and symptoms of illness. Clinical as-sessment of the severity of infection is crucial, and sev-eral classiﬁcation schemes and algorithms have beenproposed to guide the clinician [1]. However, mostclinical assessments have been developed from eitherretrospective studies or from an author’s own “clinicalexperience,” illustrating the need for prospectivestudieswith deﬁned measurements of severity coupled to man-agement issues and outcomes.Until then, it is the recommendation of this com-mittee that patients with soft-tissue infection accom-panied by signs and symptoms of systemic toxicity (e.g.,fever or hypothermia, tachycardia [heart rate,

/pdf/practice-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-management-of-skin-4b42oom5lk.pdf

Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections

Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of intention to treat analysis as reported in randomised controlled trials in four large medical journals. Design: Survey of all reports of randomised controlled trials published in 1997 in the BMJ, Lancet, JAMA , and New England Journal of Medicine . Main outcome measures: Methods of dealing with deviations from random allocation and missing data. Results: 119 (48%) of the reports mentioned intention to treat analysis. Of these, 12 excluded any patients who did not start the allocated intervention and three did not analyse all randomised subjects as allocated. Five reports explicitly stated that there were no deviations from random allocation. The remaining 99 reports seemed to analyse according to random allocation, but only 34 of these explicitly stated this. 89 (75%) trials had some missing data on the primary outcome variable. The methods used to deal with this were generally inadequate, potentially leading to a biased treatment effect. 29 (24%) trials had more than 10% of responses missing for the primary outcome, the methodsof handling the missing responses were similar in this subset. Conclusions: The intention to treat approach is often inadequately described and inadequately applied. Authors should explicitly describe the handling of deviations from randomised allocation and missing responses and discuss the potential effect of any missing response. Readers should critically assess the validity of reported intention to treat analyses. Key messages Intention to treat gives a pragmatic estimate of the benefit of a change in treatment policy rather than of potential benefit in patients who receive treatment exactly as planned Full application of intention to treat is possible only when complete outcome data are available for all randomised subjects About half of all published reports of randomised controlled trials stated that intention to treat was used, but handling of deviations from randomised allocation varied widely Many trials had some missing data on the primary outcome variable, and methods used to deal with this were generally inadequate, potentially leading to bias Intention to treat analyses are often inadequately described and inadequately applied

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/319/7211/670.full.pdf

What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials

A panel of national experts was convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) to update the 2005 guidelines for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). The panel's recommendations were developed to be concordant with the recently published IDSA guidelines for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. The focus of this guideline is the diagnosis and appropriate treatment of diverse SSTIs ranging from minor superficial infections to life-threatening infections such as necrotizing fasciitis. In addition, because of an increasing number of immunocompromised hosts worldwide, the guideline addresses the wide array of SSTIs that occur in this population. These guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical skills in promptly diagnosing SSTIs, identifying the pathogen, and administering effective treatments in a timely fashion.

/pdf/practice-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-management-of-skin-3yst6uf27k.pdf

Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: 2014 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) is a ubiquitous human alphaherpesvirus that causes varicella (chicken pox) and herpes zoster (shingles). Varicella is a common childhood illness, characterized by fever, viremia, and scattered vesicular lesions of the skin. As is characteristic of the alphaherpesviruses, VZV establishes latency in cells of the dorsal root ganglia. Herpes zoster, caused by VZV reactivation, is a localized, painful, vesicular rash involving one or adjacent dermatomes. The incidence of herpes zoster increases with age or immunosuppression. The VZV virion consists of a nucleocapsid surrounding a core that contains the linear, double-stranded DNA genome; a protein tegument separates the capsid from the lipid envelope, which incorporates the major viral glycoproteins. VZV is found in a worldwide geographic distribution but is more prevalent in temperate climates. Primary VZV infection elicits immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgM, and IgA antibodies, which bind to many classes of viral proteins. Virus-specific cellular immunity is critical for controlling viral replication in healthy and immunocompromised patients with primary or recurrent VZV infections. Rapid laboratory confirmation of the diagnosis of varicella or herpes zoster, which can be accomplished by detecting viral proteins or DNA, is important to determine the need for antiviral therapy. Acyclovir is licensed for treatment of varicella and herpes zoster, and acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir are approved for herpes zoster. Passive antibody prophylaxis with varicella-zoster immune globulin is indicated for susceptible high-risk patients exposed to varicella. A live attenuated varicella vaccine (Oka/Merck strain) is now recommended for routine childhood immunization.

Varicella-zoster virus.

Clinical practice. Herpes zoster.

Objective: To document the effects of treatment with famciclovir on the acute signs and symptoms of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia. Design: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled,...

Famciclovir for the Treatment of Acute Herpes Zoster: Effects on Acute Disease and Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Objective. —To compare the safety and efficacy of topical 1% penciclovir cream with vehicle control cream (placebo) for the treatment of a recurrent episode of herpes simplex labialis (cold sores) in immunocompetent patients. Design. —Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, patient-initiated, 2-armed, parallel clinical trial. Patients were prospectively dispensed study medication, and treatment was self-initiated by the patient within 1 hour of the first sign or symptom of a recurrence. Setting. —A total of 31 ambulatory clinics in the United States in a variety of settings, including private practices, public health facilities, and universities. Patients. —Otherwise healthy individuals with a history of frequent episodes of herpes simplex labialis. A total of 2209 patients were enrolled and given study medication, and 1573 initiated treatment for a recurrence. Interventions. —Topical 1% penciclovir cream or vehicle control cream. Subjects applied treatment every 2 hours while awake for 4 consecutive days. Main Outcome Measures. —Lesion healing was the primary efficacy variable. Secondary end points included time to loss of lesion pain and time to cessation of viral shedding. Results. —Healing of classical lesions (vesicles, ulcers, and/or crusts) was 0.7 day faster for penciclovir-treated patients compared with those who received vehicle control cream (median, 4.8 days vs 5.5 days; hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.49; P P P =.003) also resolved more quickly for penciclovir-treated patients compared with patients who applied the vehicle control. The efficacy of penciclovir cream was apparent when therapy was initiated early (prodrome or erythema lesion stage) and when initiated late (papule or vesicle stage). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between penciclovir and placebo groups. Conclusions. —Penciclovir cream is the first treatment to clearly demonstrate an impact on the course of recurrent herpes labialis in immunocompetent patients. Efficacy was seen in all clinical and laboratory measures of the disease (lesion healing, pain resolution, and cessation of viral shedding). Faster healing and pain resolution occurred both among patients who first applied penciclovir cream in the prodrome and erythema stages and among those who started treatment in the papule and vesicle lesion stages.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/415844/jama_277_17_030.pdf

Ted L. Rea

Papers

Famciclovir for the Treatment of Acute Herpes Zoster: Effects on Acute Disease and Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Penciclovir Cream for the Treatment of Herpes Simplex Labialis: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial