Mupirocin

What it is

Mupirocin is an antibiotic made by fermenting the soil bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens; the US label calls it “an RNA synthetase inhibitor antibacterial produced by fermentation using the organism Pseudomonas fluorescens”. It is sold as a 2% skin ointment in a polyethylene glycol base and as a 2% cream, each gram of ointment containing 20 mg of mupirocin. It is applied to the skin, not swallowed; radiolabelled ointment applied to intact skin under occlusion produced no measurable blood level. It is chemically unrelated to other antibiotic classes, which is why the label says it does not show cross resistance with them.

What the research says

For the one thing it is approved to treat on the skin — impetigo — the evidence is good: a Cochrane review of 68 randomised trials found topical antibiotics cured impetigo about twice as often as placebo, and mupirocin performed at least as well as oral antibiotics. Beyond that the picture is more mixed. Used in the nose before surgery to clear Staphylococcus aureus carriage, it reliably reduces nasal carriage and reduces S. aureus surgical-site infection, but the largest placebo-controlled trial found no reduction in surgical-site S. aureus infection overall, and a 2026 meta-analysis found no reduction in all surgical-site infections. Resistance is the main long-run problem: a meta-analysis of worldwide surveillance put mupirocin resistance in S. aureus at 7.6%.

Evidence grade: Well established.

How it works

Drug class: Topical antibacterial; an RNA synthetase (bacterial isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase) inhibitor, chemically a monoxycarbolic acid produced by fermentation of Pseudomonas fluorescens

Mupirocin blocks one specific bacterial enzyme, isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase, which bacteria need to load the amino acid isoleucine onto transfer RNA. Without it the bacterium cannot build proteins and stops growing or dies. The binding is reversible and specific to the bacterial enzyme, and at the concentrations reached on the skin surface the label describes the effect as bactericidal. (Source 1)

What it is used for

• A Cochrane review of 68 trials found topical antibiotics cured impetigo roughly twice as often as placebo, and found mupirocin slightly better than oral erythromycin and no clearly different from fusidic acid. The label's own two trials reported cure in 71% on mupirocin versus 35% on vehicle placebo. Evidence: established. (Source 2)
• This is a separate approved indication carried by the mupirocin cream label rather than the ointment label. We found no systematic review restricted to this indication, so the evidence recorded here is the regulator's position in the cream label and not an outcome trial. Evidence: limited. (Source 3)
• Randomised evidence is genuinely split. A 2026 meta-analysis of 17 RCTs (15,533 participants) found mupirocin-based decolonisation reduced S. aureus surgical-site infection (RR 0.67) and nasal colonisation (RR 0.22) but produced no reduction in overall surgical-site infections except in orthopaedic surgery. A 3,864-patient placebo-controlled trial found no overall benefit; a later 917-patient trial combining mupirocin with chlorhexidine in confirmed carriers found a clear benefit. Note that the skin ointment label we read states the product is not for intranasal use; nasal decolonisation uses a different product. Evidence: disputed. (Source 4)

Interactions

• Other topical lotions, creams and ointments applied to the same skin (label): The label instructs that mupirocin ointment is not applied at the same time as other topical products, and states that this combination has not been studied — dilution or altered absorption is the concern, not a measured interaction. (Source 5)
• Oral supplements, foods and alcohol (pharmacokinetic study): No systemic interaction with anything swallowed is expected, because mupirocin applied to intact skin does not reach the bloodstream in measurable amounts. A radiolabelled study under occlusion found no measurable systemic absorption. We found no documented food, alcohol or supplement interaction for the topical product. (Source 6)
• Polyethylene glycol load in people with kidney impairment (label): The ointment base itself, not the antibiotic, is the issue: polyethylene glycol can be absorbed from open wounds and damaged skin and is cleared by the kidneys, so the label advises against use where large quantities could be absorbed in moderate or severe renal impairment. (Source 7)

Stopping it

• There is no withdrawal syndrome and no dependence described for mupirocin. The label's stopping rules are about treatment failure and local reaction: re-evaluate if there is no response within 3 to 5 days, and stop if sensitisation or severe local irritation develops. (Source 5)
• The labelled course is finite: up to 10 days of three-times-daily application, so stopping at the end of the course is the expected path rather than a taper. (Source 5)
• If treatment is never started or is stopped early, the systematic review of untreated impetigo gives the comparison: a sizeable share resolve within about a week on their own, while roughly a quarter do not improve. (Source 8)

What goes wrong

Local skin reactions were the commonest adverse effect in the registration trials. (Source 9)

• Randomized trial, Certainty not rated.
• Size: not stated in the label section (pooled clinical trials of mupirocin ointment)
• Who: people treated with mupirocin ointment in clinical trials.
• How long: trial durations not stated in this section.
• Result: burning, stinging or pain in 1.5% of subjects; itching in 1% of subjects; rash, nausea, erythema, dry skin, tenderness, swelling, contact dermatitis and increased exudate each in less than 1%.
• Funding: not stated (manufacturer-submitted registration trials)

The following local adverse reactions were reported by at least 1% of subjects in connection with the use of mupirocin ointment in clinical trials: burning, stinging, or pain in 1.5% of subjects; itching in 1% of subjects.

Systemic allergic reactions including anaphylaxis have been reported after marketing, at a rate that cannot be estimated. (Source 10)

• Case series, Certainty not rated.
• Size: unknown — spontaneous reports from a population of unknown size.
• Who: people using mupirocin formulations after approval.
• How long: post-approval surveillance.
• Result: no rate can be calculated; the label states estimates of frequency cannot be made.
• Funding: not applicable (regulatory pharmacovigilance)

Systemic allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, urticaria, angioedema, and generalized rash [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1)].

Mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus is common worldwide and has been rising. (Source 11)

• Meta-analysis, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 30 studies for mupirocin-resistant S. aureus and 63 for mupirocin-resistant MRSA, from a search of 2,243 records.
• Who: clinical S. aureus isolates worldwide, 2000 to 2018.
• How long: studies published 2000-2018.
• Result: pooled prevalence 7.6% (95% CI 6.2-9.0%) for mupirocin-resistant S. aureus, 13.8% (95% CI 12.0-15.6%) for mupirocin-resistant MRSA, 8.5% (95% CI 6.3-10.7%) for high-level mupirocin-resistant S. aureus and 8.1% (95% CI 6.8-9.4%) for high-level mupirocin-resistant MRSA.
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

Limit of this finding: These four prevalence figures cannot all be right as printed. High-level mupirocin resistance is by definition a subset of mupirocin resistance, yet the review reports 8.5% for high-level resistant S. aureus and only 7.6% for mupirocin-resistant S. aureus overall. The two estimates were pooled from different sets of studies (27 and 30), which is how the review ends up with a subset larger than the whole. Read the numbers as a rough indication that resistance is in the high single figures to low teens, not as exact or mutually consistent rates.

The analyses revealed pooled and averaged prevalences of MuRSA, MuRMRSA, HLMuRSA and HLMuRMRSA of 7.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.2-9.0%], 13.8% (95% CI 12.0-15.6%), 8.5% (95% CI 6.3-10.7%) and 8.1% (95% CI 6.8-9.4%), respectively.

High-level resistance that defeats treatment is transmissible between staphylococci and is commoner in MRSA. (Source 1)

• Expert review, not systematic, Certainty not rated.
• Size: not stated — a label summary of microbiology data.
• Who: Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci.
• How long: not applicable.
• Result: high-level plasmid-mediated resistance defined as MIC ≥512 mcg/mL.
• Funding: not applicable (regulatory document)

High-level plasmid-mediated resistance (MIC ≥512 mcg/mL) has been reported in increasing numbers of isolates of S. aureus and with higher frequency in coagulase-negative staphylococci.

The polyethylene glycol base can be absorbed through broken skin and is a stated hazard in kidney impairment. (Source 7)

• Official position, Certainty not rated.
• Size: not applicable.
• Who: people with open wounds or damaged skin, especially with moderate or severe renal impairment.
• How long: not applicable.
• Result: no rate given; the label states an avoidance position rather than a measured risk.
• Funding: not applicable (regulatory document)

Polyethylene glycol can be absorbed from open wounds and damaged skin and is excreted by the kidneys.

Antibacterial-associated Clostridium difficile diarrhoea is listed as a risk, ranging to fatal colitis. (Source 12)

• Official position, Certainty not rated.
• Size: not applicable.
• Who: anyone receiving antibacterial drugs.
• How long: can occur over 2 months after the antibacterial is given.
• Result: no rate given for mupirocin specifically.
• Funding: not applicable (regulatory document)

Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) has been reported with use of nearly all antibacterial agents and may range in severity from mild diarrhea to fatal colitis.

What the evidence supports

Topical antibiotics, the class mupirocin belongs to, cured impetigo about twice as often as placebo. (Source 2)

• Systematic review, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 575 participants across 6 studies (within a review of 68 trials and 5,578 participants)
• Who: people with non-bullous, bullous, primary and secondary impetigo, mostly children.
• How long: trial durations not stated in the abstract.
• Result: pooled risk ratio 2.24, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.13.
• Funding: independent (Cochrane Skin Group review)

Limit of this finding: The review's own text prints the pooled risk ratio as "2. 24", with a stray space inside the number. The value is 2.24 (confidence interval 1.61 to 3.13); it is not 2, and it is not 24. The space is a typesetting slip in the published abstract and has been left exactly as the source prints it.

Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants.

Topical mupirocin cured impetigo slightly more often than oral erythromycin. (Source 2)

• Meta-analysis, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 581 participants across 10 studies.
• Who: people with impetigo.
• How long: not stated in the abstract.
• Result: pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13, favouring mupirocin.
• Funding: independent (Cochrane Skin Group review)

In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13).

In the trials the FDA label rests on, mupirocin ointment cured impetigo about twice as often as its own vehicle. (Source 13)

• Randomized trial, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 100 evaluable subjects (49 mupirocin, 51 vehicle placebo)
• Who: adults and children with impetigo.
• How long: 3 times daily for 8 to 12 days.
• Result: clinical efficacy at end of therapy 71% mupirocin versus 35% vehicle placebo; pathogen eradication 94% versus 62%.
• Funding: not stated (manufacturer-submitted registration trials)

Clinical efficacy rates at end of therapy in the evaluable populations (adults and pediatric subjects included) were 71% for mupirocin ointment (n = 49) and 35% for vehicle placebo (n = 51).

Rapid screening plus nasal mupirocin with chlorhexidine soap reduced hospital-acquired S. aureus infection in nasal carriers. (Source 14)

• Randomized trial, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 917 patients in the intention-to-treat analysis, of whom 808 (88.1%) had surgery.
• Who: hospital admissions found to be nasal S. aureus carriers by PCR.
• How long: treatment on admission, infections followed in hospital.
• Result: S. aureus infection 3.4% (17 of 504) with mupirocin-chlorhexidine versus 7.7% (32 of 413) with placebo; relative risk 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75; absolute difference about 4.3 percentage points.
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

The rate of S. aureus infection was 3.4% (17 of 504 patients) in the mupirocin-chlorhexidine group, as compared with 7.7% (32 of 413 patients) in the placebo group (relative risk of infection, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.75).

Pooled across 17 randomised trials, mupirocin decolonisation reduced S. aureus surgical-site infection and nasal carriage. (Source 4)

• Meta-analysis, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 17 RCTs, 15,533 participants.
• Who: adults having elective surgery.
• How long: peri-operative.
• Result: S. aureus surgical-site infection RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.91; nasal colonisation RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.26.
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

In trials with no-treatment or placebo controls, mupirocin-based decolonization reduced SA-SSI (RR 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.91) and nasal colonization (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.18-0.26).

What the evidence does not support

Mupirocin was no better than fusidic acid, the other commonly studied topical antibiotic for impetigo. (Source 2)

• Meta-analysis, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 440 participants across 4 studies.
• Who: people with impetigo.
• How long: not stated in the abstract.
• Result: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11 — confidence interval crosses no difference.
• Funding: independent (Cochrane Skin Group review)

there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11)

In the largest placebo-controlled surgical trial, intranasal mupirocin given to all-comers did not reduce surgical-site S. aureus infection. (Source 15)

• Randomized trial, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 3,864 patients in the intention-to-treat analysis.
• Who: adults having general, gynaecologic, neurologic or cardiothoracic surgery.
• How long: peri-operative prophylaxis.
• Result: S. aureus surgical-site infection 2.3% with mupirocin versus 2.4% with placebo; in the 891 nasal carriers, nosocomial S. aureus infection 4.0% versus 7.7%, odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.92, P=0.02.
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

Overall, 2.3 percent of mupirocin recipients and 2.4 percent of placebo recipients had S. aureus infections at surgical sites.

Pooled decolonisation trials showed no reduction in overall surgical-site infections, only in the S. aureus subset. (Source 4)

• Meta-analysis, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 17 RCTs, 15,533 participants.
• Who: adults having elective surgery.
• How long: peri-operative.
• Result: no reduction in overall SSIs except in orthopaedic surgery, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.99.
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

No reduction was observed for overall SSIs, except in orthopedic surgery (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.99).

A large share of untreated impetigo settles by itself, so the benefit of treating is smaller than cure rates alone suggest. (Source 16)

• Systematic review, Certainty not rated.
• Size: 557 placebo-group participants across 7 randomised trials.
• Who: people with non-bullous impetigo.
• How long: about 7 days.
• Result: resolution at about 7 days ranged from 13% to 74% across studies; 16% to 41% were classified as failure to improve.
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

At about 7 days, the percentage of participants classified as resolved ranged from 13% to 74% across the studies, whereas the percentage classified as 'failure to improve' ranged from 16% to 41%.

Where the research disagrees

Whether mupirocin decolonisation before surgery prevents surgical-site infection

• Perl and colleagues, NEJM 2002, randomised placebo-controlled trial in 3,864 surgical patients, rct: Prophylactic intranasal application of mupirocin did not significantly reduce the rate of S. aureus surgical-site infections overall, but it did significantly decrease the rate of all nosocomial S. aureus infections among the patients who were S. aureus carriers. (Source 17)
• Bode and colleagues, NEJM 2010, randomised placebo-controlled trial in 917 screened nasal carriers, rct: The effect of mupirocin-chlorhexidine treatment was most pronounced for deep surgical-site infections (relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.62). (Source 14)
• 2026 meta-analysis of 17 randomised trials, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, meta-analysis: Targeted preoperative mupirocin, especially when combined with CHG, reduces SA-SSI in elective surgery. The lack of significant impact on overall SSIs is interpreted as a reflection of polymicrobial etiologies in surgical infections. (Source 18)

How much

• Reference intake: Dosing is set by the prescriber, not by the reader. As a regulatory position, the US label for mupirocin ointment 2% (DailyMed SPL published 17 November 2025) directs a small amount applied to the affected area three times daily for up to 10 days. (Source 5)
• Upper limit: The label sets no milligram ceiling. Its stated limits are the duration (up to 10 days), the route (topical only; not intranasal, ophthalmic or other mucosal use) and, for the cream, a lesion size limit of up to 10 cm in length or 100 cm2 in area. (Source 5)
• Studied: In the first registration trial subjects applied mupirocin ointment or vehicle placebo 3 times daily for 8 to 12 days. (Source 13)
• Studied: In the second registration trial mupirocin ointment 3 times daily was compared with 30 to 40 mg per kg oral erythromycin ethylsuccinate per day for 8 days. (Source 13)
• Studied: The cream label's position is application three times daily for 10 days to lesions up to 10 cm in length or 100 cm2 in area. (Source 19)

A common belief, and what the research shows

The belief: Mupirocin is a general-purpose antibiotic cream, so it is a sensible thing to put on any cut, graze or spot.

What the research shows: The approved skin indications are narrow and organism-specific. The ointment label limits it to “the topical treatment of impetigo due to susceptible isolates of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Streptococcus pyogenes (S. pyogenes)”, and the cream to secondarily infected traumatic skin lesions within a size limit. Wider use matters because resistance is already measurable: a worldwide meta-analysis found mupirocin resistance in 7.6% of S. aureus isolates and 13.8% of MRSA isolates, and the label notes that high-level resistance is plasmid-mediated and transmissible. A further point against reflex use: in the untreated arms of impetigo trials, resolution at about 7 days ranged from 13% to 74%.

Questions and answers

What is it?

Mupirocin is an antibiotic produced by fermenting the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens. It is used on the skin, not swallowed, as a 2% ointment in a polyethylene glycol base or a 2% cream. Each gram of the ointment contains 20 mg of mupirocin. Chemically it belongs to no other antibiotic family, which is why the label states it shows no cross resistance with other classes. (Source 1)

What does it do in the body?

It stops bacteria making proteins. It locks onto the bacterial enzyme isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase, which is what loads the amino acid isoleucine onto transfer RNA; without that step protein assembly halts. The binding is reversible and specific to the bacterial version of the enzyme, and at the concentrations reached by putting it on the skin it kills rather than merely slows the bacteria. Essentially none of it gets into the bloodstream from intact skin. (Source 1)

Is it good or bad for you?

It depends entirely on the setting. For impetigo the randomised evidence is favourable: a Cochrane review of 68 trials found topical antibiotics cured impetigo about twice as often as placebo, and judged mupirocin as good as or better than oral antibiotics. Used indiscriminately it is a problem, because mupirocin resistance is already measurable worldwide and high-level resistance is transmissible between staphylococci. Local burning, stinging or itching affects a small percentage, and systemic allergic reactions including anaphylaxis have been reported after marketing. (Source 20)

How do you get more of it?

Mupirocin is a prescription medicine, not a nutrient, so there is no dietary or behavioural way to obtain it and no reason to want more of it in the body. The only route studied is applying the labelled product to the affected skin; what trials gave people was a small amount applied three times daily for 8 to 12 days. Any decision to use it belongs to a prescriber. (Source 5)

If it is harmful, what reduces it?

Because mupirocin applied to intact skin produces no measurable blood level, there is nothing systemic to clear. Clearance of the drug that is absorbed after intravenous or oral dosing is fast — a half-life of 20 to 40 minutes — and the main metabolite, monic acid, has no antibacterial activity and leaves via the kidneys. If a local reaction or sensitisation occurs, the label's instruction is to stop using it. (Source 6)

Why might someone be low in it or missing it?

The question does not apply in the usual sense: mupirocin is a manufactured antibiotic, not something the body makes or stores, so nobody is naturally deficient in it. The closest real version of the question is whether it will still work when used, and there the answer is that resistance can remove the benefit. A worldwide meta-analysis found mupirocin resistance in 7.6% of S. aureus isolates and 13.8% of MRSA isolates, and the label notes resistance is commoner in methicillin-resistant strains. (Source 1)

Which whole foods contain it or feed it?

None. Mupirocin is not present in food and is not made in the body; it is obtained only by fermenting Pseudomonas fluorescens industrially and formulating it as an ointment or cream. The literature we searched describes no dietary source and no food that supplies or feeds it. (Source 1)

What happens if you do not have it?

Not having mupirocin causes nothing in itself. For untreated impetigo specifically, a systematic review of the placebo arms of seven randomised trials found that at about 7 days between 13% and 74% of people had resolved on their own, while 16% to 41% had failed to improve, so a substantial minority stay unwell without treatment. The review's authors concluded that immediate antibiotic use may not be mandatory and that the expected untreated course should be part of the discussion. (Source 8)

How can you test for it?

You do not test for mupirocin in the body; the test that exists is for whether the bacteria are susceptible to it. The label states that high-level mupirocin resistance, defined as a minimum inhibitory concentration of 512 mcg/mL or more, can be measured with standard disk diffusion or broth microdilution, and that because resistance occurs in MRSA it is appropriate to test MRSA populations before using mupirocin. These are laboratory methods run on a swab, not a blood test, and their reliability depends on using a standardised method. (Source 21)

References

1. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 12.4 Microbiology (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source
2. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Interventions for impetigo.. 2012. PMID 22258953, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003261.pub3. Read the source
3. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Cream USP, 2% - 1 INDICATIONS AND USAGE (Full Prescribing Information). 2026. Read the source
4. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Mupirocin-based nasal decolonization to prevent Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infections: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials. (Results). 2026. PMID 41862082, DOI 10.1016/j.ijid.2026.108570. Read the source
5. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 2 DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source
6. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 12.3 Pharmacokinetics (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source
7. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 5.7 Risk of Polyethylene Glycol Absorption (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source
8. British Journal of General Practice. Natural history of non-bullous impetigo: a systematic review of time to resolution or improvement without antibiotic treatment. (Conclusion). 2021. PMID 33558328, DOI 10.3399/bjgp20X714149. Read the source
9. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 6.1 Clinical Trials Experience (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source
10. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 6.2 Postmarketing Experience (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source
11. Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance. Mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Results). 2020. PMID 31442624, DOI 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.07.032. Read the source
12. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 5.4 Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source
13. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 14 CLINICAL STUDIES (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source
14. New England Journal of Medicine. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus.. 2010. PMID 20054045, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa0808939. Read the source
15. New England Journal of Medicine. Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative Staphylococcus aureus infections. (Results). 2002. PMID 12063371, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa003069. Read the source
16. British Journal of General Practice. Natural history of non-bullous impetigo: a systematic review of time to resolution or improvement without antibiotic treatment. (Results). 2021. PMID 33558328, DOI 10.3399/bjgp20X714149. Read the source
17. New England Journal of Medicine. Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative Staphylococcus aureus infections. (Conclusions). 2002. PMID 12063371, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa003069. Read the source
18. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Mupirocin-based nasal decolonization to prevent Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infections: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials. (Conclusion). 2026. PMID 41862082, DOI 10.1016/j.ijid.2026.108570. Read the source
19. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Cream USP, 2% - 2 DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION (Full Prescribing Information). 2026. Read the source
20. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Interventions for impetigo. (Authors' conclusions). 2012. PMID 22258953, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003261.pub3. Read the source
21. DailyMed (US National Library of Medicine), FDA Structured Product Label. Mupirocin Ointment USP, 2% - 12.4 Microbiology: Cross Resistance, Antimicrobial Activity, Susceptibility Test Methods (Full Prescribing Information). 2025. Read the source