Comparative Efficacy of 0.75% Chloramphenicol Ointment and 2% Mupirocin Ointment in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Skin and Soft Tissue Infections | CMAC

Comparative Efficacy of 0.75% Chloramphenicol Ointment and 2% Mupirocin Ointment in the Treatment of Community-Acquired Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2007; 9(1):57-65

​ Belkova Yu.А., Stratchounski L.S., Krechikova O.I., Ivanchik N.V., Dekhnich A.V.
skin and soft tissue infection mupirocin chloramphenicol Staphylococcus aureus Streptococcus pyogenes
Section
Antimicrobials
Type
Journal article
Publication
Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2007; 9(1):57-65

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess clinical efficacy of topical chloramphenicol in comparison to topical mupirocin in the treatment of mild to moderate communityacquired skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI). A total of 150 adult immunocompetent patients (109 men, 41 women) with mild to moderate SSTI aged from 17 to 80 years were randomized to receive either topical 0.75% chloramphenicol ointment (n=50) or 2% mupirocin ointment (n=100) three times daily. Deep swabs were performed in all patients before the start of antibacterial therapy. Identification of pathogens and susceptibility testing were performed according to CLSI/NCCLS guidelines (2005). The cure rate was significantly lower in chloramphenicol group compared to mupirocin group (80% vs. 97%, respectively; p=0.01) on day 7-9, but almost similar on day 15–17 (96% vs. 100%; p=0.1). The mean time to clinical cure was 7±2.2 days for patients who received chloramphenicol compared to 4.4±1.8 days for those who received mupirocin (p<0.0001). The main causative agents of SSTI were Staphylococcus aureus (61.4%) and Streptococcus pyogenes (35.7%). Only 66.9% of S. aureus strains and 81% of S. pyogenes strains were susceptible to chloramphenicol, while all isolated strains were susceptible to mupirocin. Topical mupirocin was significantly more effective as compared to topical chloramphenicol in the treatment of community-acquired SSTI, was associated with more rapid recovery (less time to clinical cure) and therefore can be recommended for the treatment of this group of infections.

  • 1. Масюкова С.А., Гладько В.В., Устинов М.В., Владимирова Е.В., Тарасенко Г.Н., Сорокина Е.В. Бактериальные инфекции кожи и их значение в клинической практике дерматолога. Consilium medicum 2004; 6(3):180-5.
  • 2. Новиков А.И., Логинова Э.А. Болезни кожи инфекционного и паразитарного происхождения. Руководство для врачей. Москва: Медицинская книга; 2001.
  • 3. Jones M.E., Karlowsky J.A., Draghi D.C., Thornsberry C., Sahm D.F., Nathwani D. Epidemiology and antibiotic susceptibility of bacteria causing skin and soft tissue infections in the USA and Europe: a guide to appropriate antimicrobial treatment. Int J Antimicrob Agent 2003; 22:406-19.
  • 4. Korting H.C., Neubert U., Abeck D. Current antimicrobial susceptibility of cutaneous bacteria to first line antibiotics. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1998; 10(2):165-8.
  • 5. Новосёлов В.С., Плиева Л.Р. Пиодермии. РМЖ 2004; 12(5):327-35.
  • 6. Каламкарян А.А., Архангельская Е.И., Глухенький Б.Т., Масюкова С.А. Гнойничковые заболевания кожи. В: Скрипкин Ю.К., Мордовцева В.Н., редакторы. Кожные и венерические болезни. 2 изд. Москва: Медицина; 1999. Том 1. с. 213-57.
  • 7. Иванова О.Л. Кожные и венерические болезни. Москва: Медицина; 1997. с. 197-200.
  • 8. Шляпников С.А., Федорова В.В. Использование макролидов при хирургических инфекциях кожи и мягких тканей. РМЖ 2004; 12(4):204-8.
  • 9. Stevens D.L., Bisno A.L., Chambers H.F., Everett E.D., Dellinger P., Goldstein E.J.C., et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:1373-406.
  • 10. Кубанова А.А., ред. Методические материалы по диагностике и лечению наиболее распространенных инфекций, передаваемых половым путем (ИППП), и заболеваний кожи. Протоколы ведения больных, лекарственные средства. М.: ГЭОТАР–МЕД; 2003.
  • 11. Об утверждении стандарта медицинской помощи больным абсцессом кожи, фурункулом и карбункулом: Приказ Министерства здравоохранения и социального развития РФ от 11.02.05 № 126.
  • 12. Об утверждении стандарта медицинской помощи больным рожей: Приказ Министерства здравоохранения и социального развития РФ от 11.02.05 № 127.
  • 13. Doern G.V., Jones R.N., Pfaller M., Kugler K., Beach M.L. and The SENTRY study group. Bacterial pathogens isolated from patients with skin and soft tissue infections: frequency of occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns from SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program (USA and Canada, 1997). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1999; 34:65-72.
  • 14. Страчунский Л.С., Дехнич А.В., Белькова Ю.А., группа исследователей проекта СтЭнт. Сравнительная активность антибактериальных препаратов, входящих в лекарственные формы для местного применения, в отношении Staphylococcus aureus: результаты российского многоцентрового исследования. Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.2002; 4(2):157-63.
  • 15. Козлов Р.С., Сивая О.В., Шпынев К.В., Агапова Е.Д., Розанова С.М., Гугуцидзе Е.Н., и соавт. Антибиотикор езистентность Streptococcus pyogenes в России: результаты многоцентрового проспективного исследования ПеГАС-I. Клин микробиол антимикроб химиотер 2002; 4(2):154-67.
  • 16. Antimicrobial Therapy Guide. Meyers B.R., Anzueto A., File Th.M. Jr., editors. 17th ed. Newtown: Antimicrobial Prescribing, Inc; 2005.
  • 17. The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy. Gilbert D.N., Moellering R.C. Jr., Eliopoulos G.M., Sande M.A., editors. 35rd ed. New York: Antimicrobial Therapy, Inc; 2005.
  • 18. Богданович Т.М., Страчунский Л.С. Мупироцин: Уникальный антибиотик для местного применения. Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.1999; 1(1):57-65.
  • 19. Jones P.G., Sura T., Harris M., Strother A. Mupirocin resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24(4):300-1.
  • 20. Nishijima S., Kurokawa I. Antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from skin infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002; 19(3):241-3.
  • 21. Schmitz F.J., Lindenlauf E., Hofmann B., Fluit A.C., Verhoef J., Heinz H.P., et al. The prevalence of low- and high-level mupirocin resistance in staphylococci from 19 European hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998; 42(4):489-95.
  • 22. Afset J.E., Maeland J.A. Susceptibility of skin and softtissue isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes to topical antibiotics: indications of clonal spread of fusidic acid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Scand J Infect Dis 2003; 35(2): 84-9.
  • 23. Sutherland R., Boon R.J., Griffin K.E., Masters P.J., Slocombe B., White A.R. Antibacterial activity of mupirocin (pseudomonic acid), a new antibiotic for topical use. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27(4): 495-8.
  • 24. Bass J.W., Chan D.S., Creamer K.M., Thompson M.W, Malone F.J., Becker T.M., et al. Comparison of oral cephalexin, topical mupirocin and topical bacitracin for treatment of impetigo. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997: 16(7):708-10.
  • 25. Dagan R., Bar-David Y. Double-blind study comparing erythromycin and mupirocin for treatment of impetigo in children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36(2):287-90.
  • 26. Britton J.W., Fajardo J.E., Krafte-Jacobs B. Comparison of mupirocin and erythromycin in the treatment of impetigo. J Pediatr 1990; 117(5):827-9.
  • 27. Kraus S.J., Eron L.J., Bottenfield G.W., Drehobl M.A., Bushnell W.D., Cupo M.A. Mupirocin cream is as effective as oral cephalexin in the treatment of secondarily infected wounds. J Fam Pract 1998; 47(6):429-33.
  • 28. Rice T.D., Duggan A.K., DeAngelis C. Cost effectiveness of erythromycin versus mupirocin for the treatment of impetigo in children. Pediatrics 1992; 89(2):210-4.
  • 29. Rist T., Parish L.C., Capin L.R., Sulica V., Bushnell W.D., Cupo M.A. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of mupirocin cream and cephalexin in the treatment of secondarily infected eczema. Clin Exp Dermatol 2002; 27(1):14-20.
  • 30. Isenberg H.D. Collection, transport, and manipulation of clinical specimens and initial laboratory concerns. In: Isenberg H.D., editor. Essential Procedures for Clinical Microbiology. Washington: ASM Press; 1998. p. 1-36.
  • 31. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute/NCCLS, 2005. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  • 32. Recommendation du Comité de l’Antibiogramme de la Société Française de Microbiologie. 2005, Paris.
  • 33. WHO Model Prescribing Information - Drugs used in bacterial infections. World Health Organization, 2001. Available from: http://www.who.int/medicines/library/bacterial_model_pres/bacterial_content.shtml.
  • 34. Elston D.M. Epidemiology and prevention of skin and soft tissue infections. Cutis 2004; 73(Suppl 5):3-7.
  • 35. Eron L.J., Lipsky B.A., Low D.E., Nathwani D., Tice A.D., Volturo G.A. Managing skin and soft tissue infection: expert panel recommendations key decision points. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52(Suppl.S1):i3-i17.
  • 36. Murakawa G.J. Common pathogens and differential diagnosis of skin and soft tissue infections. Cutis 2004; 73(Suppl 5):7-10.
Views
0 Abstract
0 PDF
0 Crossref citations
Shared