title: Interventions for impetigo.
abstract: 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.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.
  
  
  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.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.
  
  
  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.
  
  
  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.
authors.affiliation: Department of General Practice, ErasmusMedical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
authors.forename: Sander
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Koning
authors.forename: Renske
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: van der Sande
authors.forename: Arianne P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Verhagen
authors.forename: Lisette W A
authors.initials: LW
authors.lastname: van Suijlekom-Smit
authors.forename: Andrew D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Morris
authors.forename: Christopher C
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Butler
authors.forename: Marjolein
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Berger
authors.forename: Johannes C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: van der Wouden
mesh_terms: D000284:Administration, Oral; D000287:Administration, Topical; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D004917:Erythromycin / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005672:Fusidic Acid / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use; D006801:Humans; D007169:Impetigo / Q000188:drug therapy*; D016712:Mupirocin / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use; D010406:Penicillins / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D010406:Penicillins; D005672:Fusidic Acid; D004917:Erythromycin; D016712:Mupirocin