1、Cochrane review - Interventions for Impetigo,Sander KoningKoning S, Verhagen AP, van Suijlekom-Smit LWA, Morris A, Butler CC, van der Wouden JC. The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003,Desiderius Erasmus,Painting by Hans Holbein,1523,Impetigo Background,Third most common skin disorder in children (after
2、 dermatitis/eczema and viral warts) 23 % of children consult GP each year (UK, NL) Rising incidence Treatment mainly by GPsCausative agent: S. aureus (S. pyogenes) Natural course? Complications?,Impetigo Treatment options,(1) no treatment, waiting for natural resolution, hygiene measures (2) topical
3、 disinfectants (e.g. hexachlorophene, povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine);(3) topical antibiotics(e.g. neomycin, bacitracin, polymyxin B, fusidic acid, mupirocin);(4) systemic antibiotics (e.g. penicillin, (flu)cloxacillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, erythromycin, cephalexin)Bacterial resistance in S.
4、 Aureus !,Interventions for Impetigo Rationale for the review,Many options, guidelines vary widelyObjectives To assess the effects of treatments for impetigoTypes of studies Randomised trials Types of participants People with non-bullous or bullous, primary or secondary impetigo Types of interventio
5、ns Any treatment, including antibiotics, disinfectants or any other intervention,Interventions for impetigo Search strategy,Electronic search - Skin Group Specialised Trials Register (March 2002) - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2002) - National Research Register (2002) - MEDLINE (1
6、966 to 2003) - EMBASE (1980 to 2000) - LILACS (2001) Handsearch - Yearbook of Dermatology (1938 - 1966) - Yearbook of Drug Therapy (1949 - 1966) Other - reference lists of articles - contacted pharmaceutical companies.,Interventions for Impetigo Data collection & analysis,Abstract reading and select
7、ion 2 independent reviewers Full copy reading and selection 2 independent reviewers Quality assessment 2 independent reviewers Data extraction 2 independent reviewersPrimary Outcome: (Odds Ratio for) cure after one week of treatmentMeta-analysis (pooling) for comparisons that have been studied more
8、than once,Interventions for Impetigo Results,Studies identified (abstracts) approx. 700 Full copies read 221 Papers included 56 (57 RCTs)Total evaluable patients 3533Language of papers English 49Japanese 3Korean, Thai, Portuguese, Spanish and Danish 1 each,Interventions for Impetigo Results: descrip
9、tion of the 57 included studies,38 different treatments studied 20 oral, and 18 local treatmentsStudies comparing: Two different oral antibiotics: 25(Cephalosporines: 16) (Macrolides (erythrom. or azithrom.): 10)A topical vs an oral antibiotic: 22 (Erythromycin, mupirocin, or both: 19)Antiseptic or
10、disinfecting treatments: 2Placebo-controlled trials: 5,RESULTS Comparison: Topical antibiotic vs placebo(5 studies),No studies OR (95% CI)Mupirocin 3 5.40 (2.79 - 10.45) Fusidic acid 1 8.65 (3.88 - 19.29) Bacitracin 1 3.97 (0.15 to 104.18)Overall 5 6.49 (3.93 - 10.73).,Comparison: Topical antibiotic
11、 versus placebo,Comparison: Topical vs another topical antibiotic (12 studies),No studies OR (95% CI)Fusidic acid with mupirocin 4 1.22 (0.69 to 2.16)All other comparisons were only represented by a single small study without a siginificant difference in results,Comparison: Topical versus another to
12、pical antibiotic,Comparison: Topical versus oral antibiotic (16 studies),no studies OR (95% CI) Mupirocin versus Erythromycin 10 1.76 (1.05 to 2.97 ) Dicloxacillin 1 NS Cephalexin 1 NS Ampicillin 1 NSFusidic acid versus Erythromycin 1 8.38 (1.77 39.69) Cefuroxim 1 NS,Comparison: Topical versus oral
13、antibiotic (16 studies),Mupirocin versus erythromycin, (sensitivity analysis for quality), dicloxacillin,Comparison: Topical antibiotic versus antiseptic (2 studies),Study OR (95% CI)Bacitracin vs hexachlorophene 3.97 (0.15 to 104.18)fusidic acid vs hydrogen peroxide 1.79 (0.99 to 3.25).,Comparison:
14、 Oral versus other oral antibiotic (22 studies),cephalosporin vs another antibiotic (7 studies)no differencesone cephalosporin vs another cephalosporin (4 studies)no differencesmacrolide vs penicillin (6 studies) Erythromycin superior to penicillinmacrolide vs another macrolide (1 study)no differenc
15、epenicillin vs other oral antibiotics (4 studies) Amoxicillin+clavulanic acid superior to amoxicillin aloneCloxacillin superior to penicillin,Interventions for impetigo Discussion,Many small trials of various quality with inconclusive results.Some large trials of good quality.Few placebo-controlled
16、trials.Antiseptic treatment inadequately studied.,Interventions for impetigo Conclusions and Implications for Practice,No evidence for the value of disinfecting measuresTopical antibiotics Good evidence that topical mupirocin and fusidic acid are equal to or possibly more effective than oral treatme
17、nt for people with limited disease. Other topical antibiotics seem less effective.Oral antibiotics No evidence that penicillin is effective. No clear preference for B-lactamase resistant penicillins (cloxacillin, dicloxacillin and flucloxacillin), broad spectrum penicillins (ampicillin, amoxicillin
18、plus clavulanic acid), cephalosporins, and macrolides.,Interventions for impetigo Considerations for treatment,Actual presence of bacterial resistance in the region and specific patient population (for erythromycin, fusidic acid, any antibiotic)Other criteria can be decisive - price - (unnecessary)
19、broadness of spectrum - wish to “save” a particular antibiotic for a specific goal (eradication of MRSA, treatment of severe bone infections),Interventions for impetigo Implications for Research,Trials should: - compare treatments for a specific disease, rather than the effectiveness of a specific antibiotic on a variety of (skin) infections - use objective outcome measures, instead of subjective judgements such as improved, satisfactory.Unknown territory: - mechanisms of bacterial resistance induction - new antibiotics - efficacy of disinfecting treatments - natural course of impetigo,
