Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “IMPETIGO”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 919 records · Page 51Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Inflammatory tinea pedis/manuum masquerading as bacterial cellulitis.

BACKGROUND: Tinea pedis and tinea manuum in children are more common than previously recognized. Clinical presentations of dermatophyte infections may vary in children and may be difficult to diagnose. OBJECTIVE: To show the necessity of potassium hydroxide preparations and/or fungal cultures in assessing suspicious cases of cellulitis in children who may have dermatophyte infections. PATIENTS: We describe 4 children with inflammatory tinea pedis or tinea manuum who were initially misdiagnosed as having bacterial cellulitis. INTERVENTION: A potassium hydroxide examination was performed on 3 patients. Fungal cultures were performed on 2 patients. RESULTS: Inflammatory/bullous dermatophyte infections were detected by potassium hydroxide examination in all 4 patients and all 4 children successfully responded to topical antifungal therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These cases demonstrate that inflammatory tinnea pedis/manuum can masquerade as cellulitis in children. Early potassium hydroxide examination can allow appropriate antifungal treatment to be initiated before fungal culture results are finalized.

Cellulitis↗
PubMed1991

Double-blind, double-dummy comparison of azithromycin and cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections.

In this double-blind, randomised trial conducted in 22 centres in the USA, azithromycin given over five days, as a once-a-day regimen, (500 mg on day 1, 250 mg on days 2-5) was compared with cephalexin (500 mg b.i.d.) given for ten days in the treatment of patients with skin and skin structure infections. A total of 366 patients entered the study and 179 of these were eligible for the efficacy analysis. The overall clinical response to azithromycin was 94.0%, compared with 95.8% for cephalexin. The clinical cure rates were 53.0% for azithromycin and 59.4% for cephalexin; the respective improvement rates were 41.0% and 36.5%. Distribution of response (cured, improved, failed) was similar in each group (p = 0.37). The bacteriological eradication rate for azithromycin-treated patients was 94.2% and for cephalexin-treated patients was 90.3% (p = 0.34). Clinical and bacteriological response was similar in each group for all primary diagnoses. The two antibiotics were well tolerated, the overall incidence of side effects being 13.7% with approximately 60% due to gastrointestinal disturbances. In all but one case (cephalexin) the severity of the reported side effects was mild or moderate. Six patients withdrew from the study due to treatment-related events; five had been treated with azithromycin and one with cephalexin. In summary, a five-day, once-daily regimen of azithromycin was as effective as a ten-day, twice-daily regimen of cephalexin in the treatment of patients with skin and skin structure infections.

Abscess↗