***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: ABSTRACT This was a double-blind , multicenter study in which 410 adults ( ≥18 years of age ) with uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections ( SSTIs ) were r and omized to receive either 400 mg of gatifloxacin orally once daily or 500 mg of levofloxacin orally once daily for 7 to 10 days . The study protocol called for four assessment s — before and during treatment , at the end of treatment , and posttreatment . Efficacy evaluations included clinical response and bacterial eradication rates . Of 407 treated patients , 202 ( 108 women , 94 men ) received gatifloxacin  and 205 ( 111 women , 94 men ) received levofloxacin . For clinical ly evaluable patients , the cure rates were 91 % for gatifloxacin and 84 % for levofloxacin ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] for the difference , −2.0 to 15.2 % ) . Clinical cure rates for microbiologically evaluable patients were 93 % for gatifloxacin and 88 % for levofloxacin ( 95 % CI for the difference , −6.5 to 16.8 % ) . The bacterial eradication rate was 92 % for each group , with gatifloxacin eradicating 93 % of the methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolates and levofloxacin eradicating 91 % of them . Both drugs were well tolerated . Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate , and nausea was the most common adverse event in each treatment arm . Once-daily oral gatifloxacin ( 400 mg ) is clinical ly efficacious and well tolerated compared with once-daily levofloxacin ( 500 mg ) for the treatment of patients with uncomplicated SSTIs 112 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of erysipelas , were r and omized to 8 days treatment with prednisolone or placebo in addition to antibiotics .  108 patients received the study drugs and were evaluated for time to cure , which was the primary end-point . The median healing time was significantly shorter in the prednisolone group , 5 days , vs 6 days in the placebo group ( p < 0.01 ) . The 90th percentile healing time was 10.0 days in the prednisolone group vs 14.6 days in the control group . The prednisolone-treated patients had a median length of hospital stay ( secondary end-point ) of 5 days vs 6 for the placebo-treated ( p < 0.01 ) . The median treatment time with intravenous antibiotics  ( secondary end-point ) was 4 days in the placebo group , which was 1 day longer than in the prednisolone group ( p < 0.05 ) . 13 patients , 7 of whom received placebo , relapsed during the observation period of 3 weeks . The frequency of side effects attributable to the study drug was not higher in the prednisolone group In this prospect i ve study of cellulitis , several nonpharmacological factors were associated with lack of early response . Such early nonresponse was rarely related to inappropriate therapy but strongly predictive of early treatment escalation , suggesting that broadening antibiotic treatment often may be premature This prospect i ve study of cellulitis identified β-hemolytic streptococci as the dominating cause in all investigated subgroups . Group C/G streptococci were more frequently detected than group A streptococci . No single clinical feature substantially increased the probability of confirmed streptococcal etiology OBJECTIVES To determine whether outcomes for patients with cellulitis treated with oral antimicrobials  are as good as for those who are treated with parenteral antimicrobials . METHODS A prospect i ve r and omized non-inferiority trial was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Melbourne , Australia . Participants were patients referred by the emergency department for treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis with parenteral antimicrobials . Patients were r and omized to receive either oral cefalexin or parenteral cefazolin . Parenteral antimicrobials were changed to oral after the area of cellulitis ceased progressing . The primary outcome was days until no advancement of the area of cellulitis . A non-inferiority margin of 15 % was set for the oral arm compared with the parenteral arm . Secondary outcomes were failure of treatment , pain , complications and satisfaction with care . This trial is registered with the Australian New Zeal and Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12611000685910 ) . RESULTS Twenty-four patients were r and omized to oral antimicrobials and 23 to parenteral antimicrobials .  Mean days to no advancement of cellulitis was 1.29 ( SD 0.62 ) for the oral arm and 1.78 ( SD 1.13 ) for the parenteral arm , with a mean difference of -0.49 ( 95 % CI : -1.02 to + 0.04 ) . The upper limit of the 95 % CI of the difference in means of + 0.04 was below the 15 % non-inferiority margin of + 0.27 days , indicating non-inferiority . More patients failed treatment in the parenteral arm ( 5 of 23 , 22 % ) compared with the oral arm ( 1 of 24 , 4 % ) , although this difference was not statistically significant ( P=0.10 ) . Pain , complications and satisfaction with care were similar for both groups . CONCLUSIONS Oral antimicrobials are as effective as parenteral antimicrobials for the treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis BACKGROUND Cellulitis is a condition routinely encountered in the primary care setting . No previous study has compared a short ( 5 days ) vs st and ard ( 10 days ) course of therapy of the same antibiotic in patients with uncomplicated cellulitis . METHODS We performed a r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled trial to determine if 5 days of therapy has equal efficacy to 10 days of therapy for patients with cellulitis . Of 121 enrolled subjects evaluated after 5 days of therapy for cellulitis , 43 were r and omized to receive 5 more days of levofloxacin therapy ( 10 days total antibiotic treatment ) , and 44 subjects to receive 5 more days of placebo therapy ( 5 days of total antibiotic treatment ) . Levofloxacin was given at a dose of 500 mg/d . Subjects were not r and omized if they had worsening cellulitis , a persistent nidus of infection , a lack of any clinical improvement , or abscess formation within the first 5 days of therapy . The main outcome measure was resolution of cellulitis at 14 days , with absence of relapse by 28 days , after study enrollment . RESULTS Eighty-seven subjects were r and omized and analyzed by intention to treat . There was no significant difference in clinical outcome between the 2 courses of therapy ( success in 42 [ 98 % ] of 43 subjects receiving 10 days of antibiotic , and 43 [ 98 % ] of 44 subjects receiving 5 days of antibiotic ) at both 14 and 28 days of therapy . CONCLUSION In patients with uncomplicated cellulitis , 5 days of therapy with levofloxacin appears to be as effective as 10 days of therapy BACKGROUND New antibiotics are needed to treat infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria .  Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial drug design ed to provide enhanced activity against Gram-positive pathogens . We aim ed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous to oral tedizolid for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections . METHODS ESTABLISH-2 was a r and omised , double-blind , phase 3 , non-inferiority trial done between Sept 28 , 2011 , and Jan 10 , 2013 , at 58 centres in nine countries . Patients ( aged ≥12 years ) with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections ( cellulitis or erysipelas , major cutaneous abscess , or wound infection ) that had a minimum lesion area of 75 cm(2 ) and were suspected or documented to be associated with a Gram-positive pathogen , were r and omly assigned ( 1:1 ) , via an interactive voice-response system with block r and omisation , to receive intravenous once-daily tedizolid ( 200 mg for 6 days ) or twice-daily linezolid ( 600 mg for 10 days ) , with optional oral step-down . R and omisation was stratified by geographic region and type of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection . The primary endpoint was early clinical response ( ≥20 % reduction in lesion area at 48 - 72 h compared with baseline ) , with a non-inferiority margin of -10 % . Analysis was by intention to treat . This study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT01421511 . FINDINGS 666 patients were r and omly assigned to receive tedizolid ( n=332 ) or linezolid ( n=334 ) . 283 ( 85 % ) patients in the tedizolid group and 276 ( 83 % ) in the linezolid group achieved early clinical response ( difference 2·6 % , 95 % CI -3·0 to 8·2 ) , meeting the prespecified non-inferiority margin . Gastrointestinal adverse events were less frequent with tedizolid than linezolid , taking place in 52 ( 16 % ) of 331 patients and 67 ( 20 % ) of 327 patients in the safety population . Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of study drug were reported by one ( < 1 % ) patient in the tedizolid group and four ( 1 % ) patients in the linezolid group . INTERPRETATION Intravenous to oral once-daily tedizolid 200 mg for 6 days was non-inferior to twice-daily linezolid 600 mg for 10 days for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections .  Tedizolid could become a useful option for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections in the hospital and outpatient setting s. FUNDING Cubist Pharmaceuticals ABSTRACT Skin and soft tissue infections ( SSTIs ) are a common cause of morbidity in both the community and the hospital . An SSTI is classified as complicated if the infection has spread to the deeper soft tissues , if surgical intervention is necessary , or if the patient has a comorbid condition hindering treatment response ( e.g. , diabetes mellitus or human immunodeficiency virus ) . The purpose of this study was to compare linezolid to vancomycin in the treatment of suspected or proven methicillin-resistant gram-positive complicated SSTIs ( CSSTIs ) requiring hospitalization . This was a r and omized , open-label , comparator-controlled , multicenter , multinational study that included patients with suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ( MRSA ) infections that involved substantial areas of skin or deeper soft tissues , such as cellulitis , abscesses , infected ulcers , or burns ( < 10 % of total body surface area ) . Patients were r and omized ( 1:1 ) to receive linezolid ( 600 mg ) every 12 h either intravenously ( i.v . ) or orally or vancomycin ( 1 g ) every 12 h i.v . In the intent-to-treat population , 92.2 % and 88.5 % of patients treated with linezolid and vancomycin , respectively , were clinical ly cured at the test-of-cure ( TOC ) visit ( P = 0.057 ) .  Linezolid  outcomes ( 124/140 patients or 88.6 % ) were superior to vancomycin outcomes ( 97/145 patients or 66.9 % ) at the TOC visit for patients with MRSA infections ( P < 0.001 ) . Drug-related adverse events were reported in similar numbers in both the linezolid and the vancomycin arms of the trial . The results of this study demonstrate that linezolid therapy is well tolerated , equivalent to vancomycin in treating CSSTIs , and superior to vancomycin in the treatment of CSSTIs due to MRSA In this double-blind , r and omised 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 bacter 
    Output:
    
For trials assessing prevention of cellulitis , recurrence was the key outcome measure .
From the cellulitis PSP , prevention of recurrence , clinical features and long-term disease impact were the most important outcome themes for patients .
We have shown that in cellulitis treatment and prevention research , there is significant heterogeneity in clinical outcomes , inadequate focus on patient-reported outcomes , and a disparity between what is currently measured and what patients and healthcare professionals feel is important .