OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether retapamulin 1% is clinically superior to a placebo in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. DESIGN: The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. SETTING:Patients were recruited from 5 countries. PATIENTS: The aforementioned patients were all 2 months or older and diagnosed with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. INTERVENTIONS: Study medication was applied twice daily for 5 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point: clinical response (success/failure) at follow-up. Secondary efficacy end points included clinical and microbiological outcomes at end of therapy (on days 7-9); microbiological and therapeutic responses at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS:A total of 508 patients were recruited for the study; 359 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis population (246 receivedretapamulin; 113 received the placebo). Secondarily infected abrasions were the most common secondarily infected traumatic lesions present (56.3%), Staphylococcus aureus being the most frequently isolated pathogen at baseline (60.1%); 15.1% infections were methicillin-resistant. At follow-up, patients receiving retapamulin had higher clinical success rates than those receiving the placebo (74.8% vs 66.4%, respectively) in the primary efficacy analysis population; however, the treatment difference was not statistically significant (8.4%; 95% confidence interval, -1.6 to 18.4). The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events, which were typically mild or moderate in severity, was similar between the retapamulin (5.6%, 19/342) and placebo groups (4.8%, 8/165). CONCLUSION:Clinical success rates were higher with retapamulin versus placebo in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions, but the difference between treatment groups was not significant. Retapamulin was well tolerated.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether retapamulin 1% is clinically superior to a placebo in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. DESIGN: The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. SETTING:Patients were recruited from 5 countries. PATIENTS: The aforementioned patients were all 2 months or older and diagnosed with secondarily infected traumatic lesions. INTERVENTIONS: Study medication was applied twice daily for 5 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point: clinical response (success/failure) at follow-up. Secondary efficacy end points included clinical and microbiological outcomes at end of therapy (on days 7-9); microbiological and therapeutic responses at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 508 patients were recruited for the study; 359 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis population (246 received retapamulin; 113 received the placebo). Secondarily infected abrasions were the most common secondarily infected traumatic lesions present (56.3%), Staphylococcus aureus being the most frequently isolated pathogen at baseline (60.1%); 15.1% infections were methicillin-resistant. At follow-up, patients receiving retapamulin had higher clinical success rates than those receiving the placebo (74.8% vs 66.4%, respectively) in the primary efficacy analysis population; however, the treatment difference was not statistically significant (8.4%; 95% confidence interval, -1.6 to 18.4). The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events, which were typically mild or moderate in severity, was similar between the retapamulin (5.6%, 19/342) and placebo groups (4.8%, 8/165). CONCLUSION: Clinical success rates were higher with retapamulin versus placebo in the treatment of patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions, but the difference between treatment groups was not significant. Retapamulin was well tolerated.