ABSTRACT
Background: Impetigo is a contagious bacterial skin infection that affects both adults and children. Topical antibacterials such as mupirocin and fusidic acid are the most commonly used in both primary and secondary impetigo. Clinical trials have shown high efficacy of retapamulin in the treatment of secondary impetigo. However, its use in primary impetigo is limited. To this purpose, we compared the safety, efficacy and adherence to treatment of fusidic acid with retapamulin in primary impetigo.Methods: A total of 50 patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary impetigo, between 2-12 years of age, having <10 lesions, 3/5 signs and symptoms, skin infection rating score ?4 and pus score ? one were involved. Patients who were having secondary impetigo leions were excluded. Twenty-five patients received 2% fusidic acid cream three times a day, and the remaining 25 patients received 1% retapamulin ointment two times a day for seven days. Skin Infection Rating Scale (SIRS) was used to assess the severity of disease at baseline and end of treatment. Clinical success was considered when SIRS score of zero each for pus, crust and pain and 0/1 each for erythema and itching. Clinical failure is a SIRS score of ?1 for pus.Results: Baseline disease characteristics such as a number of lesions, the severity of disease (SIRS) and pus scores were statistically similar between the two groups. The clinical improvement observed with both fusidic acid and Retapamulin (20/25, 80%) and (21/25, 84%) treatments was not statistically different (p>0.05). Both drugs were well tolerated.Conclusions: Both fusidic and retapamulin showed similar clinical success in patients with primary impetigo. Since fusidic acid has anti-inflammatory property and its treatment is cost-effective, it can be considered as first-line treatment and retapamulin in fusidic acid-resistant impetigo.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The in vitro activities of retapamulin and fusidic acid against clinical isolates of mupirocin-resistant and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Korea are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the activities of retapamulin and fusidic acid against clinical isolates of mupirocin-resistant MRSA. METHODS: Clinical isolates of mupirocin-resistant MRSA were collected from two tertiary hospitals. The minimal inhibitory concentrations of mupirocin, fusidic acid, and retapamulin were determined using agar dilution method. Polymerase chain reaction was used to confirm the identity of the species and the presence of resistance genes. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) patterns of chromosomal DNA were used to determine the genetic similarity of high-level mupirocin-resistant isolates. RESULTS: Of the 497 MRSA isolates tested, 22 (4.4%) were mupirocin-resistant. Of these, 9 (1.8%) and 13 (2.6%) had high-level and low-level mupirocin resistance, respectively. Analysis of the PFGE patterns of the high-level mupirocin-resistant MRSA isolates identified five clusters. All 13 of the low-level mupirocin-resistant isolates were resistant to fusidic acid but susceptible to retapamulin. However, among the 9 high-level mupirocin-resistant isolates, 56% were resistant to fusidic acid, and all were susceptible to retapamulin. CONCLUSION: Retapamulin is highly active in vitro against Korean clinical isolates of high-level mupirocinand methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with different genetic backgrounds. Fusidic acid is more active against high-level mupirocin-resistant MRSA than low-level mupirocin-resistant MRSA.
Subject(s)
Agar , DNA , Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field , Furosemide , Fusidic Acid , Korea , Methicillin Resistance , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Mupirocin , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Tertiary Care CentersABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The in vitro activities of retapamulin and fusidic acid against clinical isolates of mupirocin-resistant and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Korea are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the activities of retapamulin and fusidic acid against clinical isolates of mupirocin-resistant MRSA. METHODS: Clinical isolates of mupirocin-resistant MRSA were collected from two tertiary hospitals. The minimal inhibitory concentrations of mupirocin, fusidic acid, and retapamulin were determined using agar dilution method. Polymerase chain reaction was used to confirm the identity of the species and the presence of resistance genes. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) patterns of chromosomal DNA were used to determine the genetic similarity of high-level mupirocin-resistant isolates. RESULTS: Of the 497 MRSA isolates tested, 22 (4.4%) were mupirocin-resistant. Of these, 9 (1.8%) and 13 (2.6%) had high-level and low-level mupirocin resistance, respectively. Analysis of the PFGE patterns of the high-level mupirocin-resistant MRSA isolates identified five clusters. All 13 of the low-level mupirocin-resistant isolates were resistant to fusidic acid but susceptible to retapamulin. However, among the 9 high-level mupirocin-resistant isolates, 56% were resistant to fusidic acid, and all were susceptible to retapamulin. CONCLUSION: Retapamulin is highly active in vitro against Korean clinical isolates of high-level mupirocinand methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with different genetic backgrounds. Fusidic acid is more active against high-level mupirocin-resistant MRSA than low-level mupirocin-resistant MRSA.