Topical antibiotic treatment of impetigo with mupirocin. Topical mupirocin versus topical neosporin in the treatment of cutaneous infections. Topical antibiotic treatment of impetigo with tetracycline. Pyoderma in childhood. Topical 2% mupirocin versus 2% fusidic acid ointment in the treatment of primary and secondary skin infections. Fusidic acid cream in the treatment of impetigo in general practice: double blind randomised placebo controlled trial. Randomized clinical trial of topical mupirocin versus oral erythromycin for impetigo. Comparison of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid (augmentin) for the treatment of nonbullous impetigo. Efficacy and safety of retapamulin ointment as treatment of impetigo: randomized double-blind multicentre placebo-controlled trial. 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. Once daily cefadroxil therapy for pyoderma. Clinical pharmacology of cefadroxil in infants and children. Impetigo: a reassessment of etiology and therapy. Impetigo contagiosa: a comparison of erythromycin and dicloxacillin therapy. Impetigo contagiosa III. Comparative efficacy of oral erythromycin and topical mupirocin. A comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of azithromycin and cefaclor in the treatment of children with acute skin and/or soft tissue infections. A clinical trial of hydrocortisone/potassium hydroxyquinoline sulphate ('Quinocort') in the treatment of infected eczema and impetigo in general practice. Topical retapamulin ointment, 1%, versus sodium fusidate ointment, 2%, for impetigo: a randomized, observer-blinded, noninferiority study. Azithromycin, erythromycin and cloxacillin in the treatment of infections of skin and associated soft tissues. European Azithromycin Study Group. Impetigo. Comparison of mupirocin and erythromycin in the treatment of impetigo. [Superficial pyoderma requiring oral antibiotic therapy: fusidic acid versus pristinamycin]]. Impetigo. Current etiology and comparison of penicillin, erythromycin, and cephalexin therapies. Impetigo:an assessment of etiology and appropriate therapy in infants and children. Co-operative double-blind trial of an antibiotic/corticoid combination in impetiginized atopic dermatitis. Comparative efficacy and safety of oral fleroxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium in skin and soft tissue infections. Mupirocin vs terbinafine in impetigo. A comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerance of azithromycin, dicloxacillin and flucloxacillin in the treatment of children with acute skin and skin-structure infections. [Treatment of impetigo in general practice. Comparison of 3 locally administered antibiotics]. A comparison of sodium fusidate ointment and mupirocin ointment in superficial skin sepsis. Cost-effectiveness of erythromycin versus mupirocin for the treatment of impetigo in children. Topical mupirocin vs. systemic erythromycin treatment for pyoderma. The influence of hexachlorophene scrubs on the response to placebo or penicillin therapy in impetigo. Double-blind, double-dummy comparison of azithromycin and cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Treatment of impetigo and ecthyma. A comparison of sulconazole with miconazole. Study of use of cefdinir versus cephalexin for treatment of skin infections in pediatric patients. The Cefdinir Pediatric Skin Infection Study Group. Hydrogen peroxide cream: an alternative to topical antibiotics in the treatment of impetigo contagiosa. Topical antibiotics in the treatment of superficial skin infections in general practice--a comparison of mupirocin with sodium fusidate. Cefdinir vs. cephalexin for mild to moderate uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections in adolescents and adults. Cefdinir versus cephalexin for the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections. The Cefdinir Adult Skin Infection Study Group. Treatment of staphylococcal skin infections: a comparison of cephalexin and dicloxacillin. Oral amoxicillin vs. oral erythromycin in the treatment of pyoderma in Bamako, Mali: an open randomized trial. The treatment of pyoderma with gentamicin. Topical mupirocin versus oral erythromycin in the treatment of primary and secondary skin infections. Evaluation of bacitracin ointment in the treatment of impetigo. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of mupirocin cream and cephalexin in the treatment of secondarily infected eczema. Topical mupirocin treatment of impetigo is equal to oral erythromycin therapy. Comparison of oral cephalexin, topical mupirocin and topical bacitracin for treatment of impetigo.
Because the effectiveness of topical antimicrobials in the treatment of ecthyma, impetigo, and pyoderma is not well established, the US Food and Drug Administration has recently proposed guidelines for tests of topical antimicrobial efficacy in primary skin infections. The guidelines require both comparison with the agent's base and microbiologic documentation of efficacy. These guidelines were followed in this double-blind, eight-day evaluation of impetigo/ecthyma treated with mupirocin, a new agent that is only active topically. All cultures, before and after therapy, were taken using swabs dipped in neutralizing broth plus 10% fetal bovine serum to minimize antimicrobial "carry over" to the culture plate. Staphylococcus aureus, which was isolated from 94% of the patients before therapy, was eliminated in 88% of the mupirocin-treated patients and 47% of the vehicle-treated patients. Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci were eliminated in 100% of the mupirocin-treated and 0% of the vehicle-treated patients. To our knowledge, this is the first topical antibacterial treatment for primary skin infections proved superior to its vehicle using the proposed US Food and Drug Administration guidelines. nan Forty-nine children aged 0.2-13 years with bullous and eroded lesions, from which Staphylococcus aureus was isolated, were diagnosed with impetigo and entered into a randomized, open-labeled trial of topical oxytetracycline hydrochloride (tetracycline) compared with a combination of topical tetracycline and oral antibiotics. After one week of topical tetracycline treatment, 22 of the 28 patients were clinically cured, and the remaining six patients had improved. In the other treatment group, 14 patients of 21 were clinically cured and 7 patients improved by the combination of topical tetracycline and oral antibiotics. There were no significant differences between the two groups. Therefore, the present study suggests that topical tetracycline treatment is effective for the treatment of impetigo. nan The efficacy and side effects of topical mupirocin (Bactroban) and fusidic acid (Fucidin) ointment were compared in a double-blind, randomized trial in 70 patients who came to the Dermatologic Clinic of L'Enfant Jésus Hospital with primary or secondary (or both) skin infections. Thirty-five patients were treated with mupirocin and 35 patients were treated with fusidic acid three times a day for seven days. Clinical and bacteriologic assessments were conducted before and after treatment. The efficacy of mupirocin, in terms of resolution and improvement of clinical signs and symptoms of infection, as well as of the elimination of infecting organisms, was similar to that of fusidic acid. Of 34 patients (1 could not be evaluated) treated with mupirocin, a clinical cure was achieved in 18, and significant improvement was demonstrated in 15. Similarly, of 35 patients treated with fusidic acid, a clinical cure was achieved in 18 and improvement occurred in 15. Bacteriologic cure rates were 97% (30 of 31 patients evaluated) in the mupirocin-treated group, compared with 87% (27 of 31 patients evaluated) in the fusidic acid-treated group. No side effects were observed in either treatment group. Because topical 2% mupirocin has little or no potential for irritation, systemic side effects, or cross-resistance with other antibiotics, its efficacy is likely to make this new compound a useful agent for the treatment of superficial skin infections. To test the hypothesis that fusidic acid would not increase the treatment effect of disinfecting with povidone-iodine alone in children with impetigo.
                Randomised placebo controlled trial.
                General practices in Greater Rotterdam.
                184 children aged 0-12 years with impetigo.
                Clinical cure and bacterial cure after one week.
                After one week of treatment 55% of the patients in the fusidic acid group were clinically cured compared with 13% in the placebo group (odds ratio 12.6, 95% confidence interval 5.0 to 31.5, number needed to treat 2.3). After two weeks and four weeks the differences in cure rates between the two groups had become smaller. More children in the placebo group were non-compliant (12 v 5) and received extra antibiotic treatment (11 v 3), and more children in the placebo group reported adverse effects (19 v 7). Staphylococcus aureus was found in 96% of the positive cultures; no strains were resistant to fusidic acid.
                Fusidic acid is much more effective than placebo (when both are given in combination with povidone-iodine shampoo) in the treatment of impetigo. Because of the low rate of cure and high rate of adverse events in the placebo group, the value of povidone-iodine in impetigo can be questioned. The safety and efficacy of a new topical antiinfective agent, mupirocin, was compared with that of oral erythromycin ethylsuccinate in the treatment of impetigo in children. Sixty-two children aged 5 months to 13 years with impetigo were assigned to be treated with either mupirocin in three daily applications or erythromycin ethylsuccinate (40 mg/kg of body weight per day divided into four doses) according to a randomized treatment schedule. On the initial visit, exudate or cleansed infected sites or both were cultured and therapy was begun. All patients were treated for 8 days. Patients were seen again on days 4 to 5 of therapy, at the end of therapy, and 7 days after the end of therapy. Sites of infection were comparable between the groups, as were bacteriologic responses. At the first visit, 24 of 30 children in the mupirocin group and 14 of 32 children in the erythromycin group were cured or had at least a 75% reduction in size of the lesions. At the end of the study, all 29 of the children in the mupirocin group who came to follow-up, compared with 27 of 29 in the erythromycin group, were cured. Side effects were few. Five children in the erythromycin group developed mild diarrhea. Thus, mupirocin appears to be safe and effective in treating impetigo in children. Our data show a trend toward more rapid clinical response with mupirocin than with erythromycin. We undertook a prospective double-blind controlled study to compare the efficacy of a drug that usually has no antistaphylococcal activity (amoxicillin trihydrate) with the efficacy of the same drug with an addition of a beta-lactamase inhibitor (amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid [Augmentin]) in the treatment of nonbullous impetigo. Fifty-one culture-positive patients, aged 6 months to 9 years, were included, 26 in the amoxicillin group and 25 in the Augmentin group. The study groups were clinically and bacteriologically comparable at the start of the study. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from all patients and beta-hemolytic streptococcus from 14 (29%). All staphylococci were sensitive to Augmentin but resistant to amoxicillin. Forty-nine patients completed the study. The clinical response was significantly better among the Augmentin recipients (marked improvement in 71% and 95% of patients after 2 and 5 days, respectively; no new lesions during the treatment course) than among the amoxicillin recipients (marked improvement in 44% and 68% of patients after 2 and 5 days, respectively; new lesions appeared in 20% of patients). Recurrence within 3 weeks occurred in 12 (26%) of 49 patients, and no difference was observed between the two groups. We conclude that S aureus is common in nonbullous impetigo, and that at least in some cases it plays an important role in the course of the disease that can be altered by specific therapy. Impetigo is a common skin infection, primarily caused by Staphylococcus aureus and mainly occurring in children. It is usually treated topically with antibiotics to achieve a quick cure and prevent spread of the infection. Worldwide, resistance rates of S. aureus against commonly used antibiotics are rising. Retapamulin belongs to a newly developed class of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated skin infections.
                Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of topical application of retapamulin ointment with topical placebo ointment in the treatment of primary impetigo.
                In a randomized, double-blind, multicentre study, patients received either topical retapamulin ointment 1% twice daily for 5 days or topical placebo. Patients were enrolled into the study for 14 days and attended the clinic for three visits during which clinical and laboratory evaluations were performed.
                Two hundred and thirteen patients were randomized, with 139 evaluable patients in the retapamulin group and 71 in the placebo group. Based on the primary efficacy endpoint of clinical response after 7 days (intention to treat), retapamulin ointment was superior to placebo (success rate 85.6% vs. 52.1%; P<0.0001). Similar results were found in the per protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients who had a pathogen isolated at baseline. The most common adverse effect, pruritus at the application site, was reported by 6% and 1% of patients in the retapamulin and placebo groups, respectively.
                This study shows that topical retapamulin is effective and safe in the treatment of primary impetigo, offering a new treatment option. Uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections are commonly observed in medical practice. Because these infections typically are confined to the superficial layers and seldom lead to the destruction of skin structures and resultant systemic dissemination, in general they can be treated with an oral antibiotic with potent microbiologic activity against gram-positive pathogens.
                This paper compares the efficacy and tolerability of 3 beta-lactam antibiotics in patients with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections.
                Two double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group studies were conducted, in which patients aged > or = 12 years with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections were randomized to receive cefditoren 200 or 400 mg, cefuroxime 250 mg, or cefadroxil 500 mg, each BID for 10 days. Study 1 compared cefditoren with cefuroxime; Study 2 compared cefditoren with cefadroxil. Clinical and microbiologic responses were assessed at a posttreatment visit (within 48 hours of treatment completion) and test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after treatment completion). Patients were monitored closely throughout the study with the use of physical examinations, clinical laboratory tests, and assessment of adverse events.
                A total of 1,685 patients (855 males, 830 females; mean age, 41.1 years [range, 12-95 years]) were enrolled. Within both studies, the 3 treatment groups were similar at baseline based on demographic characteristics and types of infection. Cellulitis (26%), wound infection (25%), and simple abscess (15%) were the most common infections. Clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were 85% (443/523) for cefditoren 200 mg, 83% (427/516) for cefditoren 400 mg, 88% (234/265) for cefuroxime, and 85% (211/248) for cefadroxil. At the test-of-cure visit, cefditoren 200 mg had eradicated significantly fewer of the causative pathogens isolated before treatment in microbiologically evaluable patients than did cefuroxime in Study 1 (P = 0.043) but significantly more of the pathogens than did cefadroxil in Study 2 (P = 0.018). Eradication rates for the most commonly isolated pathogens were generally similar in the 3 treatment groups in both studies, with the only significant difference favoring cefditoren 200 and 400 mg over cefadroxil for Peptostreptococcus species in Study 2 (P = 0.016 and P = 0.003, respectively). A minority of patients (< or = 5% in any treatment group) discontinued study-drug treatment prematurely due to a treatment-related adverse event, with statistically higher rates for cefditoren 400 mg than for cefditoren 200 mg and the comparator cephalosporins (each P < 0.05). All 3 cephalosporins were generally well tolerated. Most adverse events (>93%) were categorized as mild to moderate, with the most common being diarrhea, nausea, and headache.
                In this population of patients with uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections, including those due to Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pyogenes, the clinical cure rate and tolerability of cefditoren were comparable to those of cefuroxime and cefadroxil. nan The pharmacokinetics of cefadroxil suspension were studied in 30 children, 13 months to 12 years of age (mean age, 5.7 years). Average peak concentrations in serum of 11 to 14 mug/ml and of 7 to 10 mug/ml after 15- and 10-mg/kg doses, respectively, were not substantially affected by the feeding status. The serum half-life values were 1.3 to 1.5 h. Cefadroxil was detected in saliva of all children 2 h after 15-mg/kg doses: the levels ranged from 0.17 to 2.6 mug/ml (mean, 0.46 mug/ml). The average concentrations in urine were 1,700 and 2,620 mug/ml at 0 to 2 and 2 to 4 h, respectively, after 15-mg/kg doses. In a randomized controlled study of 50 children with impetigo, cefadroxil was as effective as penicillin G in curing existing lesions and in preventing development of new lesions. Cefadroxil may be useful for therapy of mucocutaneous and urinary tract infections in infants and children. Traditional concepts regarding the bacteriology and therapy of nonbullous impetigo have been reexamined. Although in the United States the disease is considered primarily of streptococcal origin and amenable to penicillin therapy, we found that Staphylococcus aureus was the most common isolate in 71 patients studied. Only two patients yielded pure cultures of group A beta-hemolytic streptococci. All but two isolates of S. aureus were resistant to penicillin; one of these two isolates was also resistant to erythromycin. Erythromycin appeared to be more efficacious than penicillin for the treatment of impetigo. One hundred patients with impetigo were prospectively enrolled in a study to determine the current etiology and comparative therapeutic efficacy of two oral antimicrobial agents active against both group A beta-hemolytic streptococci (GABS) and Staphylococcus aureus. After obtaining a bacterial culture from a representative impetiginous lesion, the children were randomized to receive 10 days of either erythromycin (40 mg/kg/day) or dicloxacillin (25 mg/kg/day). S. aureus alone was isolated from 46 children, and in association with GABS from 25 children. GABS alone was isolated from nine patients. Of the 59 evaluable children with S. aureus isolates, 28 of 29 treated with erythromycin and 29 of 30 treated with dicloxacillin were cured or improved on follow-up examination. Thus, we conclude that erythromycin is the drug of choice for impetigo in our midwestern locale because of its high efficacy and relatively low cost. Ninety-seven patients with impetigo were prospectively enrolled in a study to determine the comparative efficacy of systemic and topical antibiotic therapy. After obtaining a bacterial culture from a representative lesion, the children were randomized to receive seven days of either oral erythromycin or topical mupirocin administered three times daily. Staphylococcus aureus alone was isolated from 51% and in association with group A beta-hemolytic streptococci (GABS) from 29%; GABS alone was isolated from 4% of patients. Of 48 children who received erythromycin, 43 (90%) were clinically improved or cured, and 11 of 17 were bacteriologically cured. Of 49 children who received mupirocin, 47 (96%) were clinically improved or cured, and 10 of 14 were bacteriologically cured. At three-week follow-up, clinical cure rates and number of secondary household cases of impetigo were equivalent in both treatment groups. Mupirocin appears to be a well-tolerated, albeit expensive, alternative to erythromycin for the treatment of impetigo. An open, multicentre study was carried out in 200 paediatric patients between 6 months and 12 years of age with skin and/or soft tissue infections (mild-to-moderate dermatological conditions and abscesses) to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin and cefaclor oral suspensions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either azithromycin (10 mg/kg once daily for 3 days) or cefaclor (20 mg/kg/day in three divided doses for 10 days). The clinical efficacy of both treatments was comparable: 92/98 (94%) of the evaluable azithromycin patients were cured or improved as were 93/98 (95%) of those treated with cefaclor. Before treatment, 74 pathogens were isolated from 60 of the azithromycin- and 80 pathogens from 66 of the cefaclor-treated patients. In the azithromycin group, 70/74 (95%) pathogens were eradicated, as were 79/80 (99%) pathogens in the cefaclor group. All 200 patients were evaluable for safety analyses. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a low incidence of side-effects: 3/100 (3%) in the azithromycin group and 2/100 (2%) in the cefaclor group. No patient in either treatment group withdrew from the study because of adverse events. In conclusion, azithromycin is as effective and as well tolerated as cefaclor in the treatment of children with skin and/or soft tissue infections. A double-blind, multi-centre study was carried out in general practice in 76 patients with infected eczema and 43 with impetigo to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of treatment with 1% hydrocortisone plus 0.5% potassium hydroxyquinoline sulphate cream compared with that of 1% hydrocortisone plus 2% miconazole nitrate cream. Patients were allocated at random to receive treatment with one or other preparation, applied twice daily, over a period of 2 weeks. Assessments were made of total symptom severity scores on entry and at the end of each week, as also were bacteriological investigations. The results showed that both combinations produced marked clinical and bacteriological improvement or cure in approximately 90% of patients with infected eczema and the success rate was similar with each preparation. In the case of patients with impetigo, hydrocortisone/potassium hydroxyquinoline sulphate proved significantly more effective than the other combination, the success rates being 92% and 74%, respectively. Patient assessment of the two topical preparations in terms of greasiness, odour and staining showed that, whilst both were considered acceptable by most, there was a trend in favour of the hydrocortisone/potassium hydroxyquinoline sulphate cream. No systemic or local side-effects were reported. Retapamulin is a novel pleuromutilin antibacterial developed for topical use.
                To compare the efficacy and safety of retapamulin ointment, 1% (twice daily for 5 days), with sodium fusidate ointment, 2% (3 times daily for 7 days), in impetigo.
                A randomized (2:1 retapamulin to sodium fusidate), observer-blinded, noninferiority, phase III study in 519 adult and pediatric (aged > or = 9 months) subjects.
                Retapamulin and sodium fusidate had comparable clinical efficacies (per-protocol population: 99.1 and 94.0%, respectively; difference: 5.1%, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-9.0%, p = 0.003; intent-to-treat population: 94.8 and 90.1%, respectively; difference: 4.7%, 95% confidence interval: -0.4 to 9.7%, p = 0.062). Bacteriological efficacies were similar. Success rates in the small numbers of sodium-fusidate-, methicillin- and mupirocin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were good for retapamulin (9/9, 8/8 and 6/6, respectively). Both drugs were well tolerated.
                Retapamulin is a highly effective and convenient new treatment option for impetigo, with efficacy against isolates resistant to existing therapies.
                2007 S. Karger AG, Basel Azithromycin (total dose 1.5 g) given orally in five or six doses over 5 days was compared with erythromycin and cloxacillin both given orally as 500 mg four times daily for 7 days in two multicentre studies of patients with skin and associated soft-tissue infections. Azithromycin eradicated baseline pathogen(s), mainly Staphylococcus aureus, in 89% compared with in 78%, of erythromycin-treated patients (P = 0.501) and in 78% compared with in 59% of cloxacillin-treated patients (P = 0.421). No statistically significant difference in clinical cure was reported between azithromycin (74%) and erythromycin (75%, P = 1.00) and between azithromycin (60%) and cloxacillin (47%, P = 0.301) treatment groups. The side-effects reported for azithromycin were mainly mild or moderate gastro-intestinal complaints and there were no major abnormalities in laboratory parameters. It is concluded that azithromycin was as effective as, but better tolerated than, either erythromycin or cloxacillin and short-course therapy may improve patient compliance. nan nan This study was aimed to compare the clinical and antibacterial efficacy of fusidic acid 500 mg twice a day, per os, over 7.5 days) to pristinamycin 1 g twice a day, per os, over 10 days).
                Patients aged over 18, suffering from a superficial pyoderma requiring antibiotherapy and having given their informed consent were enrolled in a controlled, multicentre, double blind double dummy, parallel groups study. From day 0 to day 10, the patients received the randomised treatment. Those who were cured at day 11 had a visit at day 25 without any treatment between day 11 and day 25. A swab was performed on days 0, 11 and 25. The two treatment groups were compared in terms of efficacy, safety and global cost.
                334 patients seen in dermatologic consultation were included in the study. 313 patients were analysed on an intent-to-treat basis. 158 received fusidic acid (FA) and 155 were treated with pristinamycin (P). At D11, 126 patients were cured in the FA group (79.7%) and 118 in the P group (76.1%) (p = 0.44). The bacteriological success rate was 85.2% in the FA group and 82.7 in the P group (p = 0.67). The recovery was confirmed in 92.6% of the FA patients and 90.4% of the P patients at D25 (p = 0.56). Digestive tolerance was better with fusidic acid than with pristinamycin. In economic terms, fusidic acid was cheaper than pristinamycin: 443 French francs in the FA group versus 545 FF in the P group.
                Therefore we conclude that an oral course of 7.5 days with fusidic acid is an efficient and cheaper alternative to a treatment with pristinamycin over 10 days. We attempted to determine the causative bacterial pathogens of impetigo in children in our area, to compare the effectiveness of three frequently used oral antimicrobial treatment regimens, and to correlate the antimicrobial sensitivity of the bacterial isolates with clinical responses to treatment. Seventy-three children with impetigo were randomly assigned to receive penicillin V potassium or cephalexin monohydrate, both administered in dosages of 40 to 50 mg/kg per day, or erythromycin estolate administered in a dosage of 30 to 40 mg/kg per day. All drugs were given in three divided doses for 10 days. Treatment failure was defined as persistence of lesions 8 to 10 days after initiation of drug therapy as determined by examiners blinded to the treatment therapies. Forty-five (62%) cultures showed Staphylococcus aureus only, 14 (19%) showed S aureus and group A beta-hemolytic streptococci, six (8%) showed group A beta-hemolytic streptococci only, and eight (11%) showed no growth or other organisms. Treatment failure occurred in six (24%) of 25 patients treated with penicillin V, one (4%) of 25 patients treated with erythromycin estolate, and no patients treated with cephalexin. We conclude that S aureus is the most common cause of impetigo in children in our study population, that cephalexin is the most effective treatment, that erythromycin estolate is nearly equally effective and may be preferred on a cost-effectiveness basis, and that penicillin V is inadequate for treatment of this infection. We found that mixed organisms of S.aureus and GABHS were the most common cause of impetigo in children in our study; that, of the two regimens evaluated, cloxacillin is the most effective treatment; that penicillin is equally effective in cases of mild to moderate forms and may be preferred on the basis of cost-effectiveness. This double-blind study of an antibiotic coritcosteroid combination, the antibiotic alone and the corticosteroid alone, compared their clinical and microbiological effect in infected atopic dermatitis. Combination therapy reduced the mean scores for infection, inflammation and overall severity to a greater extent than the antibiotic or corticosteroid alone. The clinical and microbiological date are discussed in terms of relevance to clinical use. The objective of this open-label, randomized, multicenter study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fleroxacin, 400 mg administered orally once daily, and amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium (AMX/CP), 500 mg/125 mg administered orally three times daily, for 4-21 days to patients with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). The specific diagnoses in both groups were primarily skin abscess, impetigo, and skin ulcer, as well as wound infection erysipelas, folliculitis, cellulitis, and lymphangitis. A total of 285 patients were randomized to treatment in a 2:1 ratio, 190 in the fleroxacin group and 95 in the AMX/CP group. Adult male or female inpatients or outpatients were included in the trial and were followed up after 3-5 days of therapy and 3-9 days after completion of therapy for assessment of bacteriologic, clinical, and safety parameters. The most frequently isolated pathogen in both treatment groups was Staphylococcus aureus. Bacteriologic cures were observed in 87 (76%) of 115 evaluable patients in the fleroxacin group and in 41 (72%) of 57 evaluable patients in the AMX/CP group. Clinical cure was seen in 86 (75%) of 114 patients in the fleroxacin group and 45 (79%) of 57 patients in the AMX/CP group. Clinical adverse events related to the trial medication were reported by 40 (21%) of 189 patients in the fleroxacin group and by 16 (17%) of 95 patients in the AMX/CP group. In both groups, most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and involved the digestive system (primarily diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting). In the fleroxacin group, adverse events affecting the central nervous system (mainly dizziness, insomnia, somnolence) also were reported. In this study, both fleroxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Terbinafine is an antifungal drug known to have also antibacterial activity against certain Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. It seems that antibacterial and antifungal activity of terbinafine may have an advantage in the treatment of mixed fungal and bacterial superficial skin infections. Nevertheless, clinical relevance of the antibacterial part of its action has not been investigated efficiently. To compare the efficacy and safety of terbinafine with those of mupirocin, which has already proven antibacterial action, in the treatment of impetigo.
                Children clinically diagnosed as having impetigo were treated with topical mupirocin or topical terbinafine in a randomized fashion. Patients' lesions were examined clinically on days 0, 4, 7, 10 and bacteriologic cultures were obtained on days 0 and 10.
                A total of 62 patients were included in the study. Forty-eight of these patients were eligible for the efficacy and safety analysis. Twenty-five and 23 patients were treated with mupirocin and terbinafine, respectively. The clinical cure rates were 100% for the mupirocin group and 70% for the terbinafine group (p < 0.05). The bacteriological eradication rate for mupirocin-treated children was 100% and that for terbinafine-treated children was 78% (p < 0.05). Presence of bullous lesions appeared to be a factor for poor clinical outcome in the terbinafine group. Mild local adverse effects were noted in a small percentage of patients in each group.
                Antibacterial activity of terbinafine is not strong enough to be an alternative in the treatment of impertigo. It is advisable that terbinafine could be used in combination with an antibacterial drug for superficial skin infections caused by both fungi and bacteria. An open, randomized, multicentre study was undertaken to compare a three-day regimen of azithromycin with a seven-day course of dicloxacillin or flucloxacillin in the treatment of 118 children (aged 2-12 years) with clinically diagnosed acute skin and skin-structure infections. Sixty patients received a single daily dose of azithromycin of 10 mg/kg for three days, whilst 58 received a cloxacillin ester: either dicloxacillin (n = 49) at a daily dose of 12.5-25 mg/kg (depending on severity of infection); or flucloxacillin (n = 9) at 250-2000 mg/day (depending on age). Both cloxacillin esters were administered in four divided doses for seven days. Clinical, safety and, where possible, bacteriological assessments were made before therapy and after 3 to 5 and 7 to 10 days of treatment. A successful clinical response (cure and improvement) was recorded in 57 of 59 (97%) of evaluable azithromycin patients, and in 57 of 58 (98%) of cloxacillin ester patients. Eradication of the key pathogens was 31 of 34 (91%) and 34 of 35 (97%) for Staphylococcus aureus, and 5 of 5 and 4 of 4 for Streptococcus pyogenes in the azithromycin and cloxacillin ester groups, respectively. Both medications were well tolerated, with mild to moderate side-effects (abdominal pain and vomiting) occurring in two patients in each group, and laboratory abnormalities (elevated eosinophil count) in one patient in each group. There were no withdrawals from therapy. The results of this study suggest that azithromycin is as effective and as well tolerated as a cloxacillin ester antibiotic in the treatment of children with acute skin and skin-structure infections. nan Sodium fusidate ointment and mupirocin ointment were compared in 354 patients with superficial skin sepsis. The ointments were applied 3-times daily, or once daily when covered by a dressing, and the response assessed after 6 to 8 days. Both preparations proved effective clinically with 86% of patients responding. There was no difference between the two preparations in cases of primary infection (85% to both ointments), including a sub-group with impetigo (sodium fusidate 88% and mupirocin 84%), or secondary infection (sodium fusidate 81% and mupirocin 89%). Sodium fusidate ointment (98%) was significantly better (p less than 0.05) than mupirocin (82%) in patients with other superficial infections. Both ointments were equally effective in cases where Gram-positive, Gram-negative or mixed Gram-positive/Gram-negative bacteria were isolated. Adverse effects were reported in 1.0% of patients using sodium fusidate ointment and in 7.4% of patients using mupirocin ointment. The majority of complaints concerned the greasiness of mupirocin ointment. A new topical antibiotic, mupirocin, has been found to be as effective as erythromycin for the treatment of impetigo, but concerns about its expense have been raised. This controlled clinical trial sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of erythromycin (E) and mupirocin (M). Ninety-three children, aged 3 months to 16 years, were randomly assigned to receive 10 days of oral erythromycin (n = 46) or topical mupirocin (n = 47). Costs and effects were measured through structured interviews. Cost per case differed significantly by group (E = $56.85; M = $62.30; P less than .05) due chiefly to extra visits and medication changes needed by those treated with mupirocin. Erythromycin and mupirocin were equally effective. The likelihood of side effects (E = 43%, M = 22%) approached significance (P less than .07); those treated with erythromycin were willing to pay more for a different medicine to avoid the side effects experienced (P less than .05). Working parents and school-age children were more likely to alter their daily activities when the patient was taking erythromycin (P less than .04). Compliance and parental satisfaction did not differ by treatment group; however, parents of children treated with erythromycin were more likely to prefer the alternate drug regimen. It is concluded that the type of medication prescribed can be based on parental preference because the increased cost of mupirocin is offset by increased side effects and number of schooldays and workdays lost with erythromycin. Although topical antibiotics have been considered less than effective agents in the treatment of "impetigo," recent experience suggests that topical therapy has a place as primary treatment of pyoderma and impetigo. This bacteriologically controlled, randomized study compared the safety and efficacy of mupirocin with oral erythromycin in the treatment of pyoderma and impetigo. A total of 29 mupirocin-treated and 30 erythromycin-treated patients completed the study. None of the mupirocin-treated patients reported adverse experiences compared with 4 erythromycin-treated patients who reported 6 adverse experiences. The mupirocin-treated group had a significantly higher benefit:risk ratio than the erythromycin-treated group as measured by the investigator's global evaluation (P = 0.01). Both treatments eradicated 100% of the two most common pathogens, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. Results from this study demonstrate that mupirocin is as effective as systemic erythromycin ethylsuccinate for treatment of pyoderma and impetigo. nan 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. In a randomized, double-blind, parallel comparative study of 80 patients, impetigo and ecthyma were treated effectively by sulconazole nitrate 1% cream and miconazole nitrate 2% cream applied to lesions twice daily for 14 days. When treatment began, bacterial cultures from all pyodermal lesions yielded Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci or pathogenic staphylococci. Among the 32 sulconazole-treated impetigo patients, bacterial cultures from 26 (69%) were negative by treatment day 4, and those from all 32 (100%) were negative by treatment day 7; among the 34 miconazole-treated impetigo patients, cultures from 17 (50%) were negative by treatment day 4, cultures from 32 (94.1%) were negative by treatment day 7, and cultures from 29 (97%) were negative by treatment day 14. Each treatment promptly relieved the pyodermal signs (crusts, vesicles, pustules, bullae, and exudate). Both agents were considered to be safe and effective medications for treating impetigo and ecthyma. Three hundred ninety-four patients, aged 6 months to 12 years, entered a multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigator-blind study comparing cefdinir, 7 mg/kg of body weight twice a day, with cephalexin, 10 mg/kg four times a day, each given for 10 days. The most common infections treated were impetigo and secondary infection of preexisting dermatitis. The most common pathogens isolated were Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. Two hundred thirty-one patients were microbiologically evaluable. Microbiologic eradication rates were 164 of 165 pathogens (99.4%) in the cefdinir group and 152 of 156 pathogens (97.4%) in the cephalexin group (P = 0.14). Clinical cure rates were 116 of 118 patients (98.3%) in the cefdinir group and 106 of 113 patients (93.8%) in the cephalexin group (P = 0.056). Sixteen percent of cefdinir patients and 11% of cephalexin patients experienced adverse events (P = 0.11), the most common being diarrhea, which affected 8% of the cefdinir group and 4% of the cephalexin group. Cefdinir appears to be an effective and well-tolerated agent for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections in pediatric patients. In total, 256 patients with bacteriologically verified impetigo contagiosa were included in three double-blind, parallel group, randomized, multi-centre trials, where the efficacy of hydrogen peroxide cream (Microcid) was compared with that of fusidic acid cream/gel (Fucidin). The trials were performed at 47 centres in three countries, Sweden, Germany and UK, and the results are compiled in the present report. During the course of the 3-week treatment period, 92 patients out of 128 (72%) in the Microcid group were classified as healed, compared to 105 patients out of 128 (82%) in the Fucidin group. This difference was not statistically significant. The reduction in composite sign severity score (the sum of the score for erythema, vesiculation/bullae, weeping and crusting divided by four) in each separate study was 73%, 78% and 84% in the Microcid group and 85%, 85% and 84% in the Fucidin group. No statistically significant differences were found in the separate studies or when compiling the studies in a meta-analysis. When the patients had been classified as healed, beta-haemolytic streptococci were eliminated in all patients treated with Microcid cream. Since treatment started before the result of the bacteriology was known, another 135 patients with negative skin culture were enrolled in the trials, i.e. 391 patients were included in the safety analysis. Out of these, 23 patients reported the occurrence of adverse events, mainly classified as mild. In conclusion, Microcid cream has been documented as a topical alternative to fusidic acid in the treatment of impetigo. A total of 413 eligible patients took part in an observer-blind randomised multicentre clinical trial in order to compare the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of mupirocin (Bactroban) ointment with sodium fusidate (Fucidin) ointment for treating superficial skin infections seen in general practice. Mupirocin was applied twice daily and sodium fusidate thrice daily for a period of 7 days. Both treatments were similarly effective with 97% patients treated with mupirocin and 93% patients treated with sodium fusidate responding. Mupirocin was significantly more effective in the treatment of acute primary skin infections and in the treatment of a subgroup of patients with impetigo (P less than 0.01). Of the organisms detected before treatment began, 93% were not found after treatment with mupirocin compared with 89% after treatment with sodium fusidate. Staphylococcus aureus and/or beta-haemolytic streptococci appeared to be eliminated in significantly more patients treated with mupirocin (96%) compared with those treated with sodium fusidate (88%), (P = 0.03). Both treatments were well tolerated. To compare the efficacy and safety of cefdinir to that of cephalexin in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (USSSI).
                This was an investigator-blinded, multicenter study in which patients at least 13 years of age with USSSI were randomized to receive 10 days of cefdinir 300 mg twice daily (BID) or cephalexin 250 mg four times daily (QID). Patients were evaluated at baseline, by telephone on Days 3-5, and during office visits on Days 12-14 (end-of-therapy [EOT] visit) and Days 17-24 (test-of-cure [TOC] visit).
                Clinical response was evaluated at the TOC visit. Patient reported outcomes, including a usefulness questionnaire, were also assessed.
                Three hundred and ninety-one patients were treated. The treatment groups were well matched with regard to demographic characteristics and types of infection. Abscess(es) (26%), wound infection (24%), and cellulitis (21%) were the most common infections. At the TOC visit, the clinical cure rate for both treatment groups was 89% (151/170 for cefdinir and 154/174 for cephalexin) in clinically evaluable patients (95% CI for difference in cure rates [-6.7 to 7.3]). In the intent-to-treat analysis, cure rates were 83% for cefdinir vs. 82% for cephalexin. Clinical cure rates for infections caused by methicillin-susceptible (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant (MRSA) Staphylococcus aureus were 93% (37/40) and 92% (35/38) for cefdinir vs. 91% (29/32) and 90% (37/41) for cephalexin (p > 0.999 comparing treatment groups for MSSA; p > 0.999 for MRSA). The usefulness questionnaire demonstrated that cefdinir was more highly rated in the mean composite score (87.4 vs. 83.6, p = 0.04), with the difference primarily due to the respondents' preference for the convenience of taking the study medication (mean score 93.5 vs. 74.1 for cephalexin, p < 0.001). The study had the following limitations: the requirement for culture at baseline likely skewed the enrollment of patients towards those with abscesses; the results of culture in patients with USSSIs are often nonspecific; in some patients entering the study with a diagnosis of cellulitis, the cellulitis was associated with an abscess; and, incision and drainage (I&D), spontaneous drainage, and needle aspiration are likely to have contributed to clinical response for purulent infections, and in particular MRSA-associated infections. Both study drugs were well tolerated. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (10% cefdinir, 4% cephalexin, p = 0.017), nausea (3% and 6%, respectively, p = 0.203), and vaginal mycosis (3% and 6% of females, respectively, p = 0.500).
                This study demonstrated that empiric coverage of USSSIs with cephalosporin therapy remains an appropriate clinical strategy. MRSA infections responded well in both arms of the study, suggesting that the choice of a cephalosporin did not adversely affect patient outcome. However, cephalosporins do not have accepted, clinically relevant in vitro activity against MRSA. Hence, the clinical response rates seen in this study against MRSA infections must be interpreted with caution. Cefdinir was more highly rated than cephalexin in a composite usefulness assessment. Because of increasing resistance to older antimicrobial agents, newer drugs need to be evaluated for the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections (SSSIs). This double-masked, randomized, comparative, multicenter study enrolled patients aged 13 years or older with SSSIs to receive either cefdinir 300 mg BID or cephalexin 500 mg QID for 10 days. Nine hundred fifty-two patients (474 in the cefdinir group and 478 in the cephalexin group) took part, primarily white males between 18 and 65 years of age. There were two follow-up visits, with efficacy determined at the test-of-cure visit, 7 to 16 days posttherapy. Many patients were not microbiologically assessable, primarily because of negative cultures at study admission. Patients who required surgical intervention (e.g., incision and drainage) at the site of infection more than 24 hours after the initiation of drug therapy were defined as treatment failures. Significantly more isolated pathogens were resistant to cephalexin than to cefdinir. In the 178 efficacy-assessable cefdinir-treated patients, the rate of pathogen eradication was 93% (200/215), and the rate of successful clinical response was 88% (157/178), compared with 89% (221/247) and 87% (177/204), respectively, in the 204 efficacy-assessable cephalexin-treated patients. Using confidence-interval analysis, the microbiologic and clinical response rates of the cefdinir-treated patients were statistically equivalent to those of the cephalexin-treated patients. At the follow-up visits, patients were questioned about any adverse events occurring since their previous visit. Any untoward symptom occurring during or within 2 days after completion of drug treatment was considered an adverse reaction if the investigator judged it to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to the study drug. One hundred twenty-three (26%) cefdinir-treated patients and 77 (16%) cephalexin-treated patients experienced at least one adverse reaction, a statistically significant difference. Study drug was discontinued for adverse reactions in 20 (4%) cefdinir-treated patients and 13 (3%) cephalexin-treated patients; in the two groups, 10 and 7 patients, respectively, were discontinued for diarrhea. Cefdinir taken BID was as effective as cephalexin taken QID in the treatment of mild-to-moderate SSSIs and was well tolerated by most patients. The increased antibacterial activity of cefdinir must be balanced against the higher rate of diarrhea seen in patients treated with this drug. Cephalexin, given twice daily, and dicloxacillin, given four times daily, were compared in a randomly controlled study for the treatment of staphylococcal skin and skin structure infections. Among 70 evaluable patients, 57 had staphylococcal bullous impetigo. The remaining 13 patients had bullous impetigo with streptococcal or mixed streptococcal-staphylococcal cultures (6 patients), abscess (4 patients), or cellulitis with pyoderma (3 patients). Staphylococci were recovered from lesions of 64 of the 70 evaluable patients; all strains were sensitive to both cephalexin and dicloxacillin, but only 2 of the 64 strains were susceptible to penicillin G. Cephalexin and dicloxacillin proved equally effective. Treatment failures were uncommon (1 patient in each group), and recurrences (3 patients in each group) were limited to patients with bullous impetigo. In general, patients with staphylococcal bullous impetigo responded promptly, with clearing of lesions evident within the first week, but delayed healing with persistence of staphylococci in lesions was more common in the group receiving dicloxacillin. Twice-daily dosing with oral antibiotics is obviously convenient and may enhance compliance. Twice-daily therapy with cephalexin for staphylococcal skin and skin structure infections can be recommended with confidence. Pyoderma (bacterial superficial skin infection) is an extremely common disorder in tropical developing countries. In these settings, Streptococcus pyogenes is considered to be the main etiological agent. Apart from epidemics of poststreptococcal glomerulonephritis where mass treatment with intramuscular benzathine-penicillin is recommended, no recommendation exists for the treatment of pyoderma in this setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of oral amoxicillin in the treatment of pyoderma in Mali, by comparison with oral erythromycin.
                In Bamako, 132 patients with pyoderma, diagnosed and graded as "severe" on clinical grounds, were randomly assigned to an oral treatment by either amoxicillin (50 mg/kg per day) or erythromycin; infections of the follicular appendage were excluded. Both drugs were associated with the topical application of povidone iodine. The patients were evaluated openly at the seventh day of treatment for cure or marked improvement of the clinical features, indicating successful treatment.
                Three patients were lost to follow-up. Treatment was successful in 57 of 64 patients treated with amoxicillin vs. 58 of 65 patients treated with erythromycin (P = 0.00).
                Amoxicillin was as efficacious as erythromycin in the treatment of severe pyoderma in Mali. Owing to its efficacy, added to high availability and low cost, this compound should be considered a first-line treatment of this disorder in this country, and perhaps in other countries where this condition presents in a similar way. nan nan nan The efficacy and safety of mupirocin calcium cream were compared with those of oral cephalexin in the treatment of secondarily infected eczema. In this multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy study, 159 patients with secondarily infected eczema (suitable for treatment with topical antimicrobials) and a total skin infection rating scale score of 8 or more were randomized to receive either topical mupirocin cream three times daily or oral cephalexin, 250 mg four times daily, for 10 days (intent-to-treat group). Clinical success (per-protocol group), defined in part as a patient with a response of improvement in the skin infection rating scale, was similar in the two groups: 89% for mupirocin (n = 44) and 82% for cephalexin (n = 38) [P = 0.29; 95% confidence interval (-8.4%, 22.5%)]. Bacteriological success (intent-to-treat group), defined as a patient with a response of eradication, improvement or colonization of bacteria at the end of therapy, however, was significantly higher for mupirocin [50% and 28% in the mupirocin (n = 48) and cephalexin (n = 47) groups, respectively; P=0.005]. Mupirocin cream was as well tolerated as cephalexin; 9% and 13% of patients reported adverse events related or possibly related to study medication in the mupirocin and cephalexin groups, respectively. The most common adverse events overall were diarrhoea and nausea. Mupirocin cream applied three times daily is as effective clinically and superior bacteriologically compared with oral cephalexin given four times daily in the treatment of secondarily infected eczema of limited depth and severity. Mupirocin cream is as well tolerated as oral cephalexin, and more patients prefer the topical regimen, which should improve patient compliance. Topical antimicrobial therapy has not been effective in the past against cutaneous bacterial infections. In this study, a new topical antibiotic ointment, mupirocin, was compared with oral erythromycin ethylsuccinate in the treatment of impetigo. Seventy-five patients clinically diagnosed as having impetigo and with positive cultures of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, or both were examined in an investigator-blinded study. Patients used topical mupirocin applied three times daily or the usual oral dose of erythromycin ethylsuccinate (30 to 50 mg/kg per day). Patients' lesions were examined clinically and cultured bacteriologically on days 0, 3, and 8, and 1 week after treatment. Susceptibility testing was performed on pathogens isolated to determine antibiotic resistance. Mupirocin treatment produced similar clinical results to oral erythromycin and was superior in the eradication of S aureus, including antibiotic-resistant S aureus. These results show topical mupirocin to be a safe and effective alternative to oral antibiotic therapy in the treatment of impetigo. nan
There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.