CHAMGAP
VERIFIEDPassed the Codex final verification and publication gate. Evidence-verification cutoff: 2026-08-26. AI was used for research and drafting; the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, followed by blind grading, adversarial audit, and build validation. Methodology v0.8.
Verdict No. 2973 · Search date 2026-08-26 · Methodology v0.8

Penicillin V 250 mg twice daily for 12 months in adults with at least two leg-cellulitis episodes in the previous three years,
does it really help with Reduced first recurrence of leg cellulitis during prophylaxis?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 76 · Safety caution
Recurrence fell while penicillin was taken, but protection disappeared after stopping
Participants reporting adverse events numbered 37 versus 48, P=.50. Allergy, gastrointestinal effects, and antimicrobial resistance require clinical supervision.
What the
research shows
Grade B. During prophylaxis, recurrence was 30/136 (22%) versus 51/138 (37%), HR 0.55 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.86), P=.01, absolute difference -15 points, NNT 5 (4 to 9). After treatment stopped, 27% in each group recurred, so protection did not persist.
What the
ads claim
This does not cover prevention after a first episode, other antibiotics, doses, or injection routes. It is not permanent protection after one course.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Penicillin V 250 mg was taken twice daily for 12 months.
  • Recurrences were clinically confirmed, not counted from participant report alone.
  • Both registries preceded recruitment.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2973 · B 76
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

PATCH I randomized 274 participants at 28 hospitals, 136/138. Action Medical Research funded it, the University of Nottingham sponsored it, and pharmaceutical cash, product, or analysis support was not identified.

Axis 6 B0 evidence ① Allocation concealment: "study medications ... were dispensed by a central pharmacy." ② Masking: "double-blind, randomized, controlled trial" ③ Analysis population and missing data: "All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle." ④ Prespecified primary endpoint: "The primary outcome was the time to a first recurrence." — matches ISRCTN34716921 · EudraCT 2006-000381-36

02

Why this is classified as B (76)

A clean single confirmatory trial reduced clinician-confirmed recurrence by 15 points during treatment, giving B with 76 points.

Counterpoint. Allergy, gastrointestinal adverse effects, and antimicrobial resistance remain burdens of long-term antibiotics.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — A 15-point reduction in clinician-confirmed recurrence during prophylaxis, NNT 5, and one confirmatory trial

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced first recurrence during 12 months of treatmentB22% versus 37%, NNT 5.
Persistent protection after discontinuationDBoth groups had 27% recurrence off treatment.

Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate

AI was used for research and drafting. Blind grading, adversarial audit, and the methodology boundary rules were then reapplied before Codex performed the final evidence, grade, copy, and build checks. If a grade cannot be narrowed, both evidence positions and their reasons are published.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Multicenter double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial138Nonprofit funding from Action Medical ResearchTime to first clinician-confirmed recurrence of leg cellulitis30/136 (22%) vs 51/138 (37%); HR 0.55 (0.35 to 0.86), P=.01; NNT 5 (4 to 9)Pivotal trial establishing benefit during treatment
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-26).

Thomas KS, et al. Penicillin to prevent recurrent leg cellulitis. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1695-1703. PMID: 23635049.
checked
UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network. PATCH II. Br J Dermatol. 2012. PMID: 21910701.
checked
Research and draft: AI used · Cross-check: blind grading and adversarial audit
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Verification cutoff: 2026-08-26 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Benefit of Low-Dose Penicillin for Recurrent Leg Cellulitis During Treatment Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Benefit of Low-Dose Penicillin for Recurrent Leg Cellulitis During Treatment — Evidence Grade B·76. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/skin-hair/low-dose-penicillin-recurrent-leg-cellulitis/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.