The Pediatric infectious disease journal · 1988
Topical mupirocin vs. systemic erythromycin treatment for pyoderma.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McLinn S
Аннотация
Although topical antibiotics have been considered less than effective agents in the treatment of "impetigo," recent experience suggests that topical therapy has a place as primary treatment of pyoderma and impetigo. This bacteriologically controlled, randomized study compared the safety and efficacy of mupirocin with oral erythromycin in the treatment of pyoderma and impetigo. A total of 29 mupirocin-treated and 30 erythromycin-treated patients completed the study. None of the mupirocin-treated patients reported adverse experiences compared with 4 erythromycin-treated patients who reported 6 adverse experiences. The mupirocin-treated group had a significantly higher benefit:risk ratio than the erythromycin-treated group as measured by the investigator's global evaluation (P = 0.01). Both treatments eradicated 100% of the two most common pathogens, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. Results from this study demonstrate that mupirocin is as effective as systemic erythromycin ethylsuccinate for treatment of pyoderma and impetigo.