• S J Kraus, L J Eron, G W Bottenfield, M A Drehobl, W D Bushnell, and M A Cupo.
• Kanuai Medical Clinic, Hawaii, USA.
• J Fam Pract. 1998 Dec 1; 47 (6): 429-33.

BackgroundTopical antimicrobials have been considered for treatment of secondarily infected wounds because of the potential for reduced risk of adverse effects and greater patient convenience. We compared mupirocin cream with oral cephalexin in the treatment of wounds such as small lacerations, abrasions, or sutured wounds.MethodsIn 2 identical randomized double-blind studies, 706 patients with secondarily infected wounds (small lacerations, abrasions, or sutured wounds) received either mupirocin cream topically 3 times daily or cephalexin orally 4 times daily for 10 days.ResultsClinical success at follow-up was equivalent in the two groups: 95.1% and 95.3% in the mupirocin cream and the cephalexin groups, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.0% to 3.6%; P = .89). The intention-to-treat success rate was 83% in both groups. Bacteriologic success at follow-up was also comparable: 96.9% in the mupirocin cream and 98.9% in the cephalexin groups (95% CI, -6.0% to 2.0%; P = .22). The occurrence of adverse experiences related to study treatment was similar for the 2 groups, with fewer patients in the mupirocin cream group reporting diarrhea (1.1% vs 2.3% for cephalexin).ConclusionsMupirocin cream applied topically 3 times daily is as effective as oral cephalexin given 4 times daily for the treatment of secondarily infected wounds and was well tolerated.

27 keywords...

hide…