BACKGROUND: New antibacterial agents with activity against pathogenic strains resistant to established antibiotics are needed to treat patients with secondarily infected dermatitis (SID). OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the clinical safety and efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1% versus oral cephalexin for the treatment of SID. METHODS:Patients with SID were randomly assigned to retapamulin ointment 1% (twice daily [bid]) for 5 days, or oral cephalexin (500 mg bid) for 10 days. The primary efficacy end point was clinical response at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included microbiologic response at follow-up, safety, and compliance. RESULTS:Retapamulin was as effective as cephalexin (clinical success rates at follow-up: 85.9% and 89.7%, respectively). Microbiologic success rates at follow-up were 87.2% for retapamulin and 91.8% for cephalexin. Retapamulin was well tolerated and the topical formulation was preferred over the oral drug. LIMITATIONS: An imbalance existed in the number of patients with the clinical outcome "unable to determine" (15 retapamulin, 2 cephalexin), mainly because of their failure to attend the study visit. If those who failed to attend visits (who did not withdraw as a result of drug-related events) are removed from the analysis, the clinical success rates are 89.9% for retapamulin and 89.7% for cephalexin. CONCLUSIONS:Retapamulin ointment 1% (bid) for 5 days was as effective as oral cephalexin (bid) for 10 days in treatment of patients with SID, and was well tolerated.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: New antibacterial agents with activity against pathogenic strains resistant to established antibiotics are needed to treat patients with secondarily infected dermatitis (SID). OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the clinical safety and efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1% versus oral cephalexin for the treatment of SID. METHODS:Patients with SID were randomly assigned to retapamulin ointment 1% (twice daily [bid]) for 5 days, or oral cephalexin (500 mg bid) for 10 days. The primary efficacy end point was clinical response at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included microbiologic response at follow-up, safety, and compliance. RESULTS:Retapamulin was as effective as cephalexin (clinical success rates at follow-up: 85.9% and 89.7%, respectively). Microbiologic success rates at follow-up were 87.2% for retapamulin and 91.8% for cephalexin. Retapamulin was well tolerated and the topical formulation was preferred over the oral drug. LIMITATIONS: An imbalance existed in the number of patients with the clinical outcome "unable to determine" (15 retapamulin, 2 cephalexin), mainly because of their failure to attend the study visit. If those who failed to attend visits (who did not withdraw as a result of drug-related events) are removed from the analysis, the clinical success rates are 89.9% for retapamulin and 89.7% for cephalexin. CONCLUSIONS:Retapamulin ointment 1% (bid) for 5 days was as effective as oral cephalexin (bid) for 10 days in treatment of patients with SID, and was well tolerated.
Authors: Sander Koning; Renske van der Sande; Arianne P Verhagen; Lisette W A van Suijlekom-Smit; Andrew D Morris; Christopher C Butler; Marjolein Berger; Johannes C van der Wouden Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-01-18
Authors: Sreedhar Kilaru; Catherine M Collins; Amanda J Hartley; Andy M Bailey; Gary D Foster Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Chen Davidovich; Anat Bashan; Tamar Auerbach-Nevo; Rachel D Yaggie; Richard R Gontarek; Ada Yonath Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-03-08 Impact factor: 11.205