Interventions for impetigo

Protocol for the systematic review of the prevention, treatment and public health management of impetigo, scabies and fungal skin infections in resource-limited settings

BACKGROUND

Impetigo, scabies, and fungal skin infections disproportionately affect populations in resource-limited settings. Evidence for standard treatment of skin infections predominantly stem from hospital-based studies in high-income countries. The evidence for treatment in resource-limited settings is less clear, as studies in these populations may lack randomisation and control groups for cultural, ethical or economic reasons. Likewise, a synthesis of the evidence for public health control within endemic populations is also lacking. We propose a systematic review of the evidence for the prevention, treatment and public health management of skin infections in resource-limited settings, to inform the development of guidelines for the standardised and streamlined clinical and public health management of skin infections in endemic populations.

METHODS

The protocol has been designed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols statement. All trial designs and analytical observational study designs will be eligible for inclusion. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature will include PubMed, Excertpa Medica and Global Health. Grey literature databases will also be systematically searched, and clinical trials registries scanned for future relevant studies. The primary outcome of interest will be the clinical cure or decrease in prevalence of impetigo, scabies, crusted scabies, tinea capitis, tinea corporis or tinea unguium. Two independent reviewers will perform eligibility assessment and data extraction using standardised electronic forms. Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data will be tabulated and narratively synthesised. We expect there will be insufficient data to conduct meta-analysis. The final body of evidence will be reported against the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation grading system.

DISCUSSION

The evidence derived from the systematic review will be used to inform the development of guidelines for the management of skin infections in resource-limited settings. The evidence derived will be intended for use by clinicians, public health practitioners and policy makers in the treatment of skin infections and the development of skin infection control programmes. The review will identify any gaps in the current evidence to provide direction for future research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015029453.

A pragmatic strategy for the review of clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SR) of clinical evidence are rightfully considered the basis for developing recommendations to support decisions in current practice. To avoid bias, SRs are expected to be systematic in their research strategy and are exhaustive. The drawback of the latter criteria relies in the substantial work needed to conduct and keep SRs updated. The objective of this paper is to compare a research strategy based on the review of a selected number of core journals, which we consider a 'pragmatic review' (PR), with that derived by an SR in estimating the efficacy of treatments.

METHODS

Five clinical areas were considered for the comparison between the two strategies: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dermatology, heart failure, renal diseases and stroke. We extracted a systematic sample from all the Cochrane SRs pertaining to each area and were published before April 2010. Two groups of journals were considered in the PR: six general journals that commonly published research for the five clinical areas, and five specialist journals with the highest impact factor in each area. To assess the agreement in the findings of SRs and PRs, we considered both the direction of the estimates and P-values.

RESULTS

A sample of 27 SRs included 171 overall analyses and 259 subgroup analyses related to primary outcomes. The PR captured one or more clinical trials in 24 of the 27 SRs (89%), and 118 of the 171 overall analyses (69%) were replicated. The PR supported the recommendations to use (or not) the study treatment in 11 of the 13 SRs (85%), which ended with a clinical recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We verified in a sample of SRs that the conclusion of a research strategy based on a pre-defined set of general and specialist medical journals is able to replicate almost all the clinical recommendations of a formal SR.

Interventions for impetigo

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.

SEARCH 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.

MAIN 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.

AUTHORS' 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.

NVC-422 topical gel for the treatment of impetigo

Impetigo is a highly contagious bacterial skin infection affecting children worldwide that is caused by the Gram-positive bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, or both. Staphylococcus species can quickly develop drug resistance rendering mupirocin, fusidic acid, and erythromycin ineffective. Preclinical and clinical studies demonstrated that NVC-422 (N, N-dichloro-2, 2-dimethyltaurine) rapidly kills pathogens without the development of drug resistance. 129 patients with clinically diagnosed impetigo were randomized to three dose groups (0.1, 0.5, or 1.5% NVC-422 topical gel) in a study conducted at 2 centers; 125 patients (97%) had microbiologically confirmed infection. Treatment was administered three times a day (TID) for 7 days to all randomized subjects. Response was measured at the completion of treatment (Day 8) and 1 week post treatment (Day 15) by the Skin Infection Rating Scale (SIRS) and by microbiological response. A total of 120 subjects (96%) completed all 7 days of treatment and were assessed at end of treatment (EOT). Clinical response rate at EOT in the PPC population was excellent in each of the dose groups (84.6%, 87.2%, and 92.3% in the 0.1%, 0.5% and 1.5% dose groups respectively). The majority of the infections were caused by S. aureus, alone (106/125, 85%) of which approximately 10% were MRSA. There were no clinical recurrences in any treatment groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in 5.4% of the subjects (7/129) and were mild to moderate and resolved. NVC-422 topical gel administered TID was well tolerated, with high rates of clinical and microbiological responses for treating impetigo.

National athletic trainers' association position statement: skin diseases

OBJECTIVE

To present recommendations for the prevention, education, and management of skin infections in athletes.

BACKGROUND

Trauma, environmental factors, and infectious agents act together to continually attack the integrity of the skin. Close quarters combined with general poor hygiene practices make athletes particularly vulnerable to contracting skin diseases. An understanding of basic prophylactic measures, clinical features, and swift management of common skin diseases is essential for certified athletic trainers to aid in preventing the spread of infectious agents.

RECOMMENDATIONS

These guidelines are intended to provide relevant information on skin infections and to give specific recommendations for certified athletic trainers and others participating in athletic health care.

Topical retapamulin in the management of infected traumatic skin lesions

Retapamulin is a novel semisynthetic pleuromutilin antibiotic specifically designed for use as a topical agent. The unique mode of action by which retapamulin selectively inhibits bacterial protein synthesis differentiates it from other nonpleuromutilin antibacterial agents that target the ribosome or ribosomal factors, minimizing the potential for target-specific cross-resistance with other antibacterial classes in current use. In vitro studies show that retapamulin has high potency against the Gram-positive bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, and coagulase-negative staphylococci) commonly found in skin and skin-structure infections (SSSIs), including S. aureus strains with resistance to agents such as macrolides, fusidic acid, or mupirocin, and other less common organisms associated with SSSIs, anaerobes, and common respiratory tract pathogens. Clinical studies have shown that twice-daily topical retapamulin for 5 days is comparable to 10 days of oral cephalexin in the treatment of secondarily infected traumatic lesions. A 1% concentration of retapamulin ointment has been approved for clinical use as an easily applied treatment with a short, convenient dosing regimen for impetigo. Given the novel mode of action, low potential for cross-resistance with established antibacterial agents, and high in vitro potency against many bacterial pathogens commonly recovered from SSSIs, retapamulin is a valuable enhancement over existing therapeutic options.

Retapamulin: a review of its use in the management of impetigo and other uncomplicated superficial skin infections

Topical retapamulin (Altabax, Altargo) is the first pleuromutilin antibacterial approved for the treatment of uncomplicated superficial skin infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus (excluding meticillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]) and Streptococcus pyogenes in patients aged > or = 9 months. In the EU, retapamulin is indicated for use in patients with impetigo or with infected small lacerations, abrasions or sutured wounds (without abscesses); in the US, it is indicated for use in patients with impetigo. Retapamulin has a novel site of action on bacterial ribosomes. In clinical trials in patients with impetigo, topical retapamulin 1% ointment twice daily for 5 days (the approved regimen) was superior to placebo; treatment with retapamulin was noninferior to that with topical fusidic acid. In patients with secondarily infected traumatic lesions, treatment with retapamulin was noninferior to that with oral cefalexin, although the efficacy of retapamulin was reduced in patients with MRSA infections or superficial abscesses. Retapamulin was well tolerated in both paediatric and adult patients, and the majority of adverse events were of mild to moderate severity. Thus, the introduction of topical retapamulin 1% ointment extends the treatment options available in the management of impetigo and uncomplicated secondarily infected traumatic lesions.

Increasing hospitalizations and general practice prescriptions for community-onset staphylococcal disease, England

Infections requiring hospitalization and community prescriptions have increased dramatically since 1989.

Rates of hospital-acquired staphylococcal infection increased throughout the 1990s; however, information is limited on trends in community-onset staphylococcal disease in the United Kingdom. We used Hospital Episode Statistics to describe trends in hospital admissions for community-onset staphylococcal disease and national general practice data to describe trends in community prescribing for staphylococcal disease. Hospital admission rates for staphyloccocal septicemia, staphylococcal pneumonia, staphylococcal scalded-skin syndrome, and impetigo increased >5-fold. Admission rates increased 3-fold for abscesses and cellulitis and 1.5-fold for bone and joint infections. In primary care settings during 1991–2006, floxacillin prescriptions increased 1.8-fold and fusidic acid prescriptions 2.5-fold. The increases were not matched by increases in admission rates for control conditions. We identified a previously undescribed but major increase in pathogenic community-onset staphylococcal disease over the past 15 years. These trends are of concern given the international emergence of invasive community-onset staphylococcal infections.

A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions: a comparison with more exhaustive strategies

BACKGROUND

It is generally believed that exhaustive searches of bibliographic databases are needed for systematic reviews of health care interventions. The CENTRAL database of controlled trials (RCTs) has been built up by exhaustive searching. The CONSORT statement aims to encourage better reporting, and hence indexing, of RCTs. Our aim was to assess whether developments in the CENTRAL database, and the CONSORT statement, mean that a simplified RCT search strategy for identifying RCTs now suffices for systematic reviews of health care interventions.

METHODS

RCTs used in the Cochrane reviews were identified. A brief RCT search strategy (BRSS), consisting of a search of CENTRAL, and then for variants of the word random across all fields (random$.af.) in MEDLINE and EMBASE, was devised and run. Any trials included in the meta-analyses, but missed by the BRSS, were identified. The meta-analyses were then re-run, with and without the missed RCTs, and the differences quantified. The proportion of trials with variants of the word random in the title or abstract was calculated for each year. The number of RCTs retrieved by searching with "random$.af." was compared to the highly sensitive search strategy (HSSS).

RESULTS

The BRSS had a sensitivity of 94%. It found all journal RCTs in 47 of the 57 reviews. The missing RCTs made some significant differences to a small proportion of the total outcomes in only five reviews, but no important differences in conclusions resulted. In the post-CONSORT years, 1997-2003, the percentage of RCTs with random in the title or abstract was 85%, a mean increase of 17% compared to the seven years pre-CONSORT (95% CI, 8.3% to 25.9%). The search using random$.af. reduced the MEDLINE retrieval by 84%, compared to the HSSS, thereby reducing the workload of checking retrievals.

CONCLUSION

A brief RCT search strategy is now sufficient to locate RCTs for systematic reviews in most cases. Exhaustive searching is no longer cost-effective, because in effect it has already been done for CENTRAL.