Clinical and economic consequences of ozenoxacin vs. other topical antibiotics for the treatment of impetigo: a real-life study in Spain.

Abstract

Background: Impetigo is a common dermatological paediatric infection that can be treated with topical antibiotics: the common are mupirocin (MUP), fusidic acid (FA) and, most recently, ozenoxacin (OZ).

Aim: This study assesses the clinical and economic consequences of the use of OZ vs. MUP and vs. FA for the treatment of impetigo in routine clinical practice in Spain.

Methods: This is a retrospective observational study using real-life data from electronic medical records of patients with impetigo who started treatment with OZ, MUP or FA (maximum follow-up: 3 months; n = 10,974). We compared treatment duration, comorbidities, use of systemic medication, complications, utilization of resources and associated costs across treatments (p<0.05). Cost-effectiveness of OZ was assessed from a social perspective. Complication rates and treatment duration were the effectiveness measures.

Results: Mean age was 12.6 (standard deviation [SD]: 16.6) years; 48.6% were male; treatment: 9.3% (OZ), 56.4% (MUP), 34.5% (FA). The percentage of patients ending treatment after 2 weeks was 87.6% (OZ) vs. 83.2% (MUP) vs. 82.4% (FA); p<0.001; complication rates were 1.8% (OZ), 3.3% (MUP) and 3.2% (FA), p<0.001; mean costs were €158 (OZ), €265 (MUP) and €287 (FA), p<0.001.

Conclusions: OZ is a cost-effective and dominant alternative for the treatment of impetigo.