Ozenoxacin 1% versus mupirocin 2% for topical treatment of impetigo and other uncomplicated skin infections: A randomized controlled trial
Sukanya Dasa, Subhrangsu Chatterjeeb, Avijit Hazrab, Sumit Senc
- aDepartment of Pharmacology, Jalpaiguri Government Medical College and Hospital, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, India
- bDepartment of Pharmacology, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
- cDepartment of Dermatology, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Papers open inside SciRah from the original publisher or repository; SciRah never hosts them.
Abstract
Abstract Background: Topical therapy is the primary treatment for uncomplicated skin infections such as impetigo, and mupirocin is commonly used. However, growing resistance to topical agents is of concern. Ozenoxacin, a nonfluorinated quinolone, is a promising new agent due to its bactericidal action and low minimum inhibitory concentrations against skin pathogens. We assessed the effectiveness of ozenoxacin in comparison to mupirocin in the topical treatment of impetigo and other uncomplicated skin infections in a hospital outpatient setting. Materials and Methods: A parallel-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial (CTRI/2023/04/051498) was done with subjects (≥2 months age) having impetigo, folliculitis, or other uncomplicated skin infections at various sites, with a Skin Infection Rating Scale (SIRS) score of at least 4. Ninety patients were randomized and received either mupirocin 2% ointment or ozenoxacin 1% cream twice daily for 7 days (45 each). Skin lesion size was determined using graduated tracing paper, and the 7-component SIRS score was assessed on a four-point scale. Treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded. Results: The median skin lesion area significantly decreased in both the groups. Change in SIRS score was 7.0 (5.0–9.0) (median [interquartile range]) in the mupirocin group versus 6.5 (5.0–8.0) in the ozenoxacin group ( P = 0.872). Clinically, 81.8% of the participants on mupirocin showed success at the end of 7 days of treatment compared to 85% on ozenoxacin ( P = 0.875). Complete resolution was observed in 70.5% versus 75%, respectively ( P = 0.807). No significant adverse events emerged, and adherence was good to excellent in both arms. Conclusions: Topical ozenoxacin is effective in clearing uncomplicated skin infections with satisfactory adherence. It is an evidence-based alternative to mupirocin and can be tried if mupirocin resistance is encountered.