ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

Clinical and Experimental Dermatology

Clinical and Experimental Dermatology

Volume 27 Issue 1, Pages 14 - 20

Published Online: 8 Apr 2002

Journal compilation © 2010 British Association of Dermatologists



< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 160K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

Clinical dermatology • Original article
A comparison of the efficacy and safety of mupirocin cream and cephalexin in the treatment of secondarily infected eczema
T. Rist , L. C. Parish* L. R. Capin V. Sulica W. D. Bushnell§ and M. A. Cupo§
  Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Knoxville, Tennessee,   *Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Biology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,   Rockey Mountain Research Association, Aurora, Colorado,   Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, and   §SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Collegeville, Pennsylvania, USA
Correspondence: L. C. Parish, 1819 JF Kennedy Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA. Tel.: +1215 5638333. Fax: +1215 5633044. E-mail: lawrence.parish@mail.tju.edu
Copyright © 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd

ABSTRACT

Summary The efficacy and safety of mupirocin calcium cream were compared with those of oral cephalexin in the treatment of secondarily infected eczema. In this multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy study, 159 patients with secondarily infected eczema (suitable for treatment with topical antimicrobials) and a total skin infection rating scale score of 8 or more were randomized to receive either topical mupirocin cream three times daily or oral cephalexin, 250 mg four times daily, for 10 days (intent-to-treat group). Clinical success (per-protocol group), defined in part as a patient with a response of improvement in the skin infection rating scale, was similar in the two groups: 89% for mupirocin (n = 44) and 82% for cephalexin (n = 38) [P = 0.29; 95% confidence interval (−8.4%, 22.5%)]. Bacteriological success (intent-to-treat group), defined as a patient with a response of eradication, improvement or colonization of bacteria at the end of therapy, however, was significantly higher for mupirocin [50% and 28% in the mupirocin (n = 48) and cephalexin (n = 47) groups, respectively; P = 0.005]. Mupirocin cream was as well tolerated as cephalexin; 9% and 13% of patients reported adverse events related or possibly related to study medication in the mupirocin and cephalexin groups, respectively. The most common adverse events overall were diarrhoea and nausea. Mupirocin cream applied three times daily is as effective clinically and superior bacteriologically compared with oral cephalexin given four times daily in the treatment of secondarily infected eczema of limited depth and severity. Mupirocin cream is as well tolerated as oral cephalexin, and more patients prefer the topical regimen, which should improve patient compliance.


Accepted for publication 30 August 2001

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1046/j.0307-6938.2001.00960.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


Sign Up Now
Sign Up Now
Sign Up Now
Wiley Medical Twitter