Context Impetigo affects millions of children worldwide. Most guidelines recommend antibiotics as first-line treatment however topical antiseptics present a potentially valuable, understudied, antibiotic-sparing treatment for mild impetigo. Objective We aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing efficacy of soft white paraffin (SWP), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and mupirocin for mild impetigo. Study Design The study was designed in keeping with the SPIRIT statement and designed in accordance with the CONSORT statement for pilot RCTs Setting, population studied Consecutive patients presenting with mild impetigo were recruited from two private general practices in North Queensland, Australia. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: soft white paraffin (SWP), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and mupirocin ointment. Outcome measures: Size and number of lesions were measured at the initial consultation and day six. Post-recruitment, interviews with General Practitioners were transcribed and themes identified to determine protocol acceptability, recruitment barriers and avenues to improve delivery. Results Two participants received SWP (n=1) and mupirocin (n=1). Both commenced oral antibiotics following failure of topical treatment. Recruitment barriers included reduced presentation of impetigo due to COVID-19, pre-treatment with existing at-home medications and moderate/severe infection. Childcare centers and pharmacies were identified as alternative venues to improve recruitment rate. Conclusions Valuable insight was gained into the practicality of conducting a RCT of impetigo treatments in general practice. Future trials should consider recruiting outside of general practice clinics to capture patients at earlier, more mild stages of infection. Further investigation into the prevalence and impact of use of at-home expired antibiotics may be beneficial.
Read full abstract