Assessment of Antibiotic Treatment of Cellulitis and Erysipelas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Dermatology | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Assessment of Antibiotic Treatment of Cellulitis and ErysipelasA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Educational Objective
To identify the appropriate type of antibiotic, administration route, and treatment duration for cellulitis.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What is the most appropriate antibiotic choice, route of administration, and duration of treatment for cellulitis?

Findings  In this systematic review of 43 studies that included 5999 participants, no evidence was found to support the superiority of any 1 antibiotic over another and the use of intravenous over oral antibiotics; short treatment courses (5 days) appear to be as effective as longer treatment courses.

Meaning  In light of low-quality evidence found for the most appropriate agent, route of administration, and duration of treatment for patients with cellulitis, additional research is required to define the optimum management of cellulitis.

Abstract

Importance  The optimum antibiotic treatment for cellulitis and erysipelas lacks consensus. The available trial data do not demonstrate the superiority of any agent, and data are limited on the most appropriate route of administration or duration of therapy.

Objective  To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic therapy for non–surgically acquired cellulitis.

Data Sources  The following databases were searched to June 28, 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, issue 5), Medline (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Information System (LILACS) (from 1982). In addition, 5 trials databases and the reference lists of included studies were searched. Further searches of PubMed and Google Scholar were undertaken from June 28, 2016, to December 31, 2018.

Study Selection  Randomized clinical trials comparing different antibiotics, routes of administration, and treatment durations were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  For data collection and analysis, the standard methodological procedures of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. For dichotomous outcomes, the risk ratio and its 95% CI were calculated. A summary of findings table was created for the primary end points, adopting the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was the proportion of patients cured, improved, recovered, or symptom-free or symptom-reduced at the end of treatment, as reported by the trial. The secondary outcome was any adverse event.

Results  A total of 43 studies with a total of 5999 evaluable participants, whose age ranged from 1 month to 96 years, were included. Cellulitis was the primary diagnosis in only 15 studies (35%), and in other studies the median (interquartile range) proportion of patients with cellulitis was 29.7% (22.9%-50.3%). Overall, no evidence was found to support the superiority of any 1 antibiotic over another, and antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus did not add an advantage. Use of intravenous antibiotics over oral antibiotics and treatment duration of longer than 5 days were not supported by evidence.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this systematic review and meta-analysis, only low-quality evidence was found for the most appropriate agent, route of administration, and duration of treatment for patients with cellulitis; future trials need to use a standardized set of outcomes, including severity scoring, dosing, and duration of therapy.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: March 22, 2019.

Corresponding Authors: Owen Martin Williams, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, Public Health England Microbiology Services Bristol, and University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Marlborough Street, Bristol, United Kingdom, BS2 8HW (martinx.williams@uhbristol.nhs.uk); Richard Brindle, DM, FRCP, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom (richard.brindle@bristol.ac.uk).

Published Online: June 12, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0884

Author Contributions: Drs Brindle and Williams had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Brindle, Williams, Featherstone.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Brindle, Williams, Barton.

Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Brindle.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Brindle, Williams, Featherstone.

Supervision: Brindle, Williams.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Meeting Presentation: The results of this study were presented at the ASM Microbe 2018, June 8, 2018, Atlanta, Georgia.

Additional Contributions: The authors wish to thank the Cochrane Skin Group for assistance with the initial searches. No compensation outside of usual salary was received.

References
1.
Hay  RJ, Morris-Jones  R.  Rook’s Textbook of Dermatology. Vol 3. 9th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2016.
2.
British Lymphology Society; Lymphoedema Support Network. Consensus document on the management of cellulitis in lymphoedema. https://www.lymphoedema.org/images/pdf/CellulitisConsensus.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019.
3.
Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST). Guideline on the Management of Cellulitis in Adults. Belfast, UK: CREST; 2005. http://www.acutemed.co.uk/docs/Cellulitis%20guidelines,%20CREST,%2005.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2019.
4.
Eron  LJ, Lipsky  BA, Low  DE, Nathwani  D, Tice  AD, Volturo  GA; Expert Panel on Managing Skin and Soft Tissue Infections.  Managing skin and soft tissue infections: expert panel recommendations on key decision points.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52(suppl 1):i3-i17. doi:10.1093/jac/dkg466PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Stevens  DL, Bisno  AL, Chambers  HF,  et al; Infectious Diseases Society of America.  Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America  [published correction appears in Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(9):1448].  Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):e10-e52. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu296PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Societe Francaise de Dermatologie.  Erysipèle et fasciite nécrosante: prise en charge  [Management of erysipelas and necrotizing fasciitis].  Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2001;128(3 Pt 2):463-482.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Dong  SL, Kelly  KD, Oland  RC, Holroyd  BR, Rowe  BH.  ED management of cellulitis: a review of five urban centers.  Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19(7):535-540. doi:10.1053/ajem.2001.28330PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Williams  OM, Brindle  RJ; South West Regional Microbiology Group (SWRMG).  Audit of guidelines for antimicrobial management of cellulitis across English NHS hospitals reveals wide variation.  J Infect. 2016;73(3):291-293. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2016.06.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Kilburn  SA, Featherstone  P, Higgins  B, Brindle  R.  Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(6):CD004299.PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Manager  R.  5. RevMan, Version 5.3. Copenhagen, Denmark: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
11.
Jüni  P, Altman  DG, Egger  M.  Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.  BMJ. 2001;323(7303):42-46. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Higgins  JPT, Green  S, eds.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Version 5.1.0; Updated March 2011. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
13.
Schünemann  H, Brożek  J, Guyatt  G, Oxman  A, eds. Introduction to GRADE Handbook: Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation Using the GRADE Approach. The GRADE Working Group. http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Updated October 2013. Accessed May 9, 2019.
14.
Bucko  AD, Hunt  BJ, Kidd  SL, Hom  R.  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.  Clin Ther. 2002;24(7):1134-1147. doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(02)80024-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Daniel  R; European Azithromycin Study Group.  Azithromycin, erythromycin and cloxacillin in the treatment of infections of skin and associated soft tissues.  J Int Med Res. 1991;19(6):433-445. doi:10.1177/030006059101900602PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Corey  GR, Wilcox  MH, Talbot  GH, Thye  D, Friedland  D, Baculik  T; CANVAS 1 investigators.  CANVAS 1: the first Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(suppl 4):iv41-iv51. doi:10.1093/jac/dkq254PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wilcox  MH, Corey  GR, Talbot  GH, Thye  D, Friedland  D, Baculik  T; CANVAS 2 investigators.  CANVAS 2: the second Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(suppl 4):iv53-iv65. doi:10.1093/jac/dkq255PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Tack  KJ, Littlejohn  TW, Mailloux  G, Wolf  MM, Keyserling  CH; Cefdinir Adult Skin Infection Study Group.  Cefdinir versus cephalexin for the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections.  Clin Ther. 1998;20(2):244-256. doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(98)80088-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Schwartz  R, Das-Young  LR, Ramirez-Ronda  C, Frank  E.  Current and future management of serious skin and skin-structure infections.  Am J Med. 1996;100(6A):90S-95S. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(96)00111-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Jorup-Rönström  C, Britton  S.  Recurrent erysipelas: predisposing factors and costs of prophylaxis.  Infection. 1987;15(2):105-106. doi:10.1007/BF01650206PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Snodgrass  WR, Anderson  T.  Prontosil in erysipelas.  Br Med J. 1937;2(3993):101-104. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.3993.101PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Snodgrass  WR, Anderson  T.  Sulphanilamide in the treatment of erysipelas.  Br Med J. 1937;2(4014):1156-1159. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.4014.1156PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Chan  JC.  Ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefazolin or cefoxitin in the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections of bacterial etiology.  Adv Ther. 1995;12(2):139-146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Sachs  MK, Pilgrim  C.  Ampicillin/sulbactam compared with cefazolin or cefoxitin for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections.  Drug Investig. 1990;2(3):173-183. doi:10.1007/BF03259192Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Vinen  J, Hudson  B, Chan  B, Fernandes  C.  A randomised comparative study of once-daily ceftriaxone and 6-hourly flucloxacillin in the treatment of moderate to severe cellulitis.  Clin Drug Investig. 1996;12(5):221-225. doi:10.2165/00044011-199612050-00001Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Grayson  ML, McDonald  M, Gibson  K,  et al.  Once-daily intravenous cefazolin plus oral probenecid is equivalent to once-daily intravenous ceftriaxone plus oral placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe cellulitis in adults.  Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34(11):1440-1448. doi:10.1086/340056PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Iannini  PB, Kunkel  MJ, Link  ASJ, Simons  WJ, Lee  TJ, Tight  RR.  Multicenter comparison of cefonicid and cefazolin in hospitalized patients with skin and soft tissue infections.  Adv Ther. 1985;2(5):214-224.Google Scholar
28.
Bernard  P, Plantin  P, Roger  H,  et al.  Roxithromycin versus penicillin in the treatment of erysipelas in adults: a comparative study.  Br J Dermatol. 1992;127(2):155-159. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1992.tb08048.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Bernard  P, Chosidow  O, Vaillant  L; French Erysipelas Study Group.  Oral pristinamycin versus standard penicillin regimen to treat erysipelas in adults: randomised, non-inferiority, open trial.  BMJ. 2002;325(7369):864-869. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7369.864PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Baig  A, Grillage  MG, Welch  RB.  A comparison of erythromycin and flucloxacillin in the treatment of infected skin lesions in general practice.  Br J Clin Pract. 1988;42(3):110-115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Kiani  R.  Double-blind, double-dummy comparison of azithromycin and cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections.  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10(10):880-884. doi:10.1007/BF01975848PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Thomas  MG.  Oral clindamycin compared with sequential intravenous and oral flucloxacillin in the treatment of cellulitis in adults: a randomized, double-blind trial.  Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2014;22(6):330-334. doi:10.1097/IPC.0000000000000146Google Scholar
33.
Ferreira  A, Bolland  MJ, Thomas  MG.  Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing a penicillin or cephalosporin with a macrolide or lincosamide in the treatment of cellulitis or erysipelas.  Infection. 2016;44(5):607-615. doi:10.1007/s15010-016-0895-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Covington  P, Davenport  JM, Andrae  D,  et al.  Randomized, double-blind, phase II, multicenter study evaluating the safety/tolerability and efficacy of JNJ-Q2, a novel fluoroquinolone, compared with linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(12):5790-5797. doi:10.1128/AAC.05044-11PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Giordano  P, Song  J, Pertel  P, Herrington  J, Kowalsky  S.  Sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin versus intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam followed by oral amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection.  Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005;26(5):357-365. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.07.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
O’Riordan  W, Mehra  P, Manos  P, Kingsley  J, Lawrence  L, Cammarata  S.  A randomized phase 2 study comparing two doses of delafloxacin with tigecycline in adults with complicated skin and skin-structure infections.  Int J Infect Dis. 2015;30:67-73. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2014.10.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Boucher  HW, Wilcox  M, Talbot  GH, Puttagunta  S, Das  AF, Dunne  MW.  Once-weekly dalbavancin versus daily conventional therapy for skin infection.  N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2169-2179. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1310480PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Corey  GR, Good  S, Jiang  H,  et al; SOLO II Investigators.  Single-dose oritavancin versus 7-10 days of vancomycin in the treatment of gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the SOLO II noninferiority study.  Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(2):254-262. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu778PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Noel  GJ, Bush  K, Bagchi  P, Ianus  J, Strauss  RS.  A randomized, double-blind trial comparing ceftobiprole medocaril with vancomycin plus ceftazidime for the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections.  Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(5):647-655. doi:10.1086/526527PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Kauf  TL, McKinnon  P, Corey  GR,  et al.  An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection.  BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:503-512. doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1261-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Pertel  PE, Eisenstein  BI, Link  AS,  et al.  The efficacy and safety of daptomycin vs. vancomycin for the treatment of cellulitis and erysipelas.  Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63(3):368-375. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01988.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Noel  GJ, Strauss  RS, Amsler  K, Heep  M, Pypstra  R, Solomkin  JS.  Results of a double-blind, randomized trial of ceftobiprole treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive bacteria.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(1):37-44. doi:10.1128/AAC.00551-07PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Prince  WT, Ivezic-Schoenfeld  Z, Lell  C,  et al.  Phase II clinical study of BC-3781, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, in treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(5):2087-2094. doi:10.1128/AAC.02106-12PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Weigelt  J, Itani  K, Stevens  D, Lau  W, Dryden  M, Knirsch  C; Linezolid CSSTI Study Group.  Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(6):2260-2266. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.6.2260-2266.2005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Moran  GJ, Fang  E, Corey  GR, Das  AF, De Anda  C, Prokocimer  P.  Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.  Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(8):696-705. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70737-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Prokocimer  P, De Anda  C, Fang  E, Mehra  P, Das  A.  Tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: the ESTABLISH-1 randomized trial.  JAMA. 2013;309(6):559-569. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.241PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Miller  LG, Daum  RS, Creech  CB,  et al; DMID 07-0051 Team.  Clindamycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for uncomplicated skin infections.  N Engl J Med. 2015;372(12):1093-1103. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1403789PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Pallin  DJ, Binder  WD, Allen  MB,  et al.  Clinical trial: comparative effectiveness of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus cephalexin alone for treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis: a randomized controlled trial.  Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(12):1754-1762. doi:10.1093/cid/cit122PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Moran  GJ, Krishnadasan  A, Mower  WR,  et al.  Effect of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs cephalexin alone on clinical cure of uncomplicated cellulitis: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(20):2088-2096. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.5653PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
DiMattia  AF, Sexton  MJ, Smialowicz  CR, Knapp  WH  Jr.  Efficacy of two dosage schedules of cephalexin in dermatologic infections.  J Fam Pract. 1981;12(4):649-652.PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Fabian  TC, File  TM, Embil  JM,  et al.  Meropenem versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparative study.  Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2005;6(3):269-282. doi:10.1089/sur.2005.6.269PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Leman  P, Mukherjee  D.  Flucloxacillin alone or combined with benzylpenicillin to treat lower limb cellulitis: a randomised controlled trial.  Emerg Med J. 2005;22(5):342-346. doi:10.1136/emj.2004.019869PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Brindle  R, Williams  OM, Davies  P,  et al.  Adjunctive clindamycin for cellulitis: a clinical trial comparing flucloxacillin with or without clindamycin for the treatment of limb cellulitis.  BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e013260. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013260PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Rao  B, See  RC, Chuah  SK, Bansal  MB, Lou  MA, Thadepalli  H.  Ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid versus moxalactam in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections.  Am J Med. 1985;79(5B):126-129. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(85)90144-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Tarshis  GA, Miskin  BM, Jones  TM,  et al.  Once-daily oral gatifloxacin versus oral levofloxacin in treatment of uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections: double-blind, multicenter, randomized study.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(8):2358-2362. doi:10.1128/AAC.45.8.2358-2362.2001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Zeglaoui  F, Dziri  C, Mokhtar  I,  et al.  Intramuscular bipenicillin vs. intravenous penicillin in the treatment of erysipelas in adults: randomized controlled study.  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2004;18(4):426-428. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2004.00938.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Hepburn  MJ, Dooley  DP, Skidmore  PJ, Ellis  MW, Starnes  WF, Hasewinkle  WC.  Comparison of short-course (5 days) and standard (10 days) treatment for uncomplicated cellulitis.  Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(15):1669-1674. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.15.1669PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Aboltins  CA, Hutchinson  AF, Sinnappu  RN,  et al.  Oral versus parenteral antimicrobials for the treatment of cellulitis: a randomized non-inferiority trial.  J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(2):581-586. doi:10.1093/jac/dku397PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Smith  E, Patel  M, Thomas  KS.  Which outcomes are reported in cellulitis trials? results of a review of outcomes included in cellulitis trials and a patient priority setting survey.  Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(5):1028-1034. doi:10.1111/bjd.16235PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Carter  K, Kilburn  S, Featherstone  P.  Cellulitis and treatment: a qualitative study of experiences.  Br J Nurs. 2007;16(6):S22-S24, S26-S28. doi:10.12968/bjon.2007.16.Sup1.27089PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close