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
Interventions for impetigo.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1:CD003261. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003261.pub3. Epub 2012 Jan 18.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.
SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Impetigo is a common clinical problem seen in general practice. Uncertainty exists as to the most effective treatment, or indeed if treatment is necessary.
AIM: To determine the most effective treatment for impetigo in a systemically well patient.
DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHOD: Databases were searched for relevant studies. The Cochrane highly sensitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) search string was employed and combined with the word 'impetigo' as the MeSH term and keyword. The bibliographies of relevant articles were searched for additional references. RCTs that were either double- or observer-blind, and involved systemically well patients of any age in either primary or secondary care settings, were included. Studies that selected patients on the basis of skin swab results were excluded, as were studies that were not in English. Cure or improvement of impetigo reported at seven to 14 days from start of treatment was the primary outcome measure. Meta-analysis was performed on homogeneous studies.
RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-nine studies were identified, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis demonstrated that topical antibiotics are more effective than placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 2.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.49 to 4.86). There is weak evidence for the superiority of topical antibiotics over some oral antibiotics, such as erythromycin (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.23 to 1.00). There is no significant difference between the effects of mupirocin and fusidic acid (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 0.77 to 4.03).
CONCLUSION: This review found limited high-quality evidence to inform the treatment of impetigo. From that which is available, we would recommend the use of a topical antibiotic for a period of seven days in a systemically well patient with limited disease. Further research is needed on the role of flucloxacillin and non-antibiotic treatments for impetigo.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: More than 3.5 million children aged less than 5 years die from diarrhoea and acute lower respiratory-tract infection every year. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to assess the effect of handwashing promotion with soap on the incidence of acute respiratory infection, impetigo, and diarrhoea.
METHODS: In adjoining squatter settlements in Karachi, Pakistan, we randomly assigned 25 neighbourhoods to handwashing promotion; 11 neighbourhoods (306 households) were randomised as controls. In neighbourhoods with handwashing promotion, 300 households each were assigned to antibacterial soap containing 1.2% triclocarban and to plain soap. Fieldworkers visited households weekly for 1 year to encourage handwashing by residents in soap households and to record symptoms in all households. Primary study outcomes were diarrhoea, impetigo, and acute respiratory-tract infections (ie, the number of new episodes of illness per person-weeks at risk). Pneumonia was defined according to the WHO clinical case definition. Analysis was by intention to treat.
FINDINGS: Children younger than 5 years in households that received plain soap and handwashing promotion had a 50% lower incidence of pneumonia than controls (95% CI (-65% to -34%). Also compared with controls, children younger than 15 years in households with plain soap had a 53% lower incidence of diarrhoea (-65% to -41%) and a 34% lower incidence of impetigo (-52% to -16%). Incidence of disease did not differ significantly between households given plain soap compared with those given antibacterial soap.
INTERPRETATION: Handwashing with soap prevents the two clinical syndromes that cause the largest number of childhood deaths globally-namely, diarrhoea and acute lower respiratory infections. Handwashing with daily bathing also prevents impetigo.
