Tuesta Bryam López, Arones-Santayana Camila A, Sáenz Gustavo A Valderrama, Alberca-Naira Yerson, Torres Hector I Cedillo, Castellanos Abdias Baltazar, Quintanilla Daniel B Müller, Yangali-Vicente Judith, Barboza Joshuan J
Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins, Lima 15072, Peru.
Centro de Investigación en Atención Primaria de Salud, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima 15102, Peru.
J Clin Med. 2025 Mar 21;14(7):2157. doi: 10.3390/jcm14072157.
: Impetigo is a relatively common superficial infection of the skin and soft tissues. Although its prevalence is more significant in childhood, it might also occur in adulthood, affecting the quality of life of our patients. : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ozenoxacin 1% with placebo or mupirocin was conducted. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using I statistics. : Four RCTs with 754 patients met the inclusion criteria. Ozenoxacin significantly improved the clinical success (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.04-1.26, and I = 0%) and reduced the clinical failure (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39-0.75, and I = 0%) compared to the placebo. Microbiological success was also superior (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.05-1.58, and I = 4%), while the microbiological failure was significantly lower (RR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21-0.46, and I = 0%). Comparisons with mupirocin showed similar efficacy, though the estimates were less precise. : Ozenoxacin 1% is an effective treatment for impetigo, significantly improving clinical and microbiological outcomes while reducing the failure rates compared to the placebo. Its efficacy is comparable to mupirocin, suggesting it as a viable alternative for first-line therapy. Given the low heterogeneity observed, these findings support the clinical use of ozenoxacin for impetigo management. Future large-scale RCTs and direct comparative studies are warranted to further validate its therapeutic benefits.
脓疱病是一种相对常见的皮肤和软组织浅表感染。尽管其在儿童期的患病率更高，但也可能发生在成年期，影响患者的生活质量。：对比较1%奥昔沙星与安慰剂或莫匹罗星的随机对照试验（RCT）进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。检索的数据库包括PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和ClinicalTrials.gov。使用随机效应模型估计合并风险比（RR）及95%置信区间（CI），并使用I统计量评估异质性。：四项纳入754例患者的RCT符合纳入标准。与安慰剂相比，奥昔沙星显著提高了临床成功率（RR：1.14，95%CI：1.04-1.26，I=0%）并降低了临床失败率（RR：0.54，95%CI：0.39-0.75，I=0%）。微生物学成功率也更高（RR：1.31，95%CI：1.05-1.58，I=4%），而微生物学失败率显著更低（RR：0.31，95%CI：0.21-0.46，I= 0%）。与莫匹罗星的比较显示出相似的疗效，尽管估计值不太精确。：1%奥昔沙星是脓疱病的有效治疗方法，与安慰剂相比，显著改善了临床和微生物学结果，同时降低了失败率。其疗效与莫匹罗星相当，表明它是一线治疗的可行替代方案。鉴于观察到的低异质性，这些发现支持奥昔沙星在脓疱病治疗中的临床应用。未来有必要进行大规模RCT和直接比较研究，以进一步验证其治疗益处。
