Clinical evaluation of telithromycin in patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Phase III double-blind comparative study of telithromycin versus cefdinir

Jirô Arata, Hiroshi Shimizu, Shinichi Watanabe, Yoshiki Miyachi, Keji Iwatsuki, Masutaka Furue, Makoto Ono, Tomohide Sato, Masaru Iwasaki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of telithromycin (TEL), an oral ketolide antibiotic, was evaluated in a double-blind, parallel-group, noninferiority comparative study with cefdinir (CFDN) as the control drug under minimized randomization method. Patients with deep-seated skin infections were assigned either to the TEL group (TEL 600 mg once daily for 5 days) or the CFDN group (CFDN 100 mg 3 times daily for 5 days). 1. Clinical outcome In the 228 patients evaluated for clinical outcome, clinical efficacy was 88.9% (104/117) in the TEL group and 82.9% (92/111) in the CFDN group, and the noninferiority of TEL compared to CFDN was confirmed. 2. Bacteriological outcome The bacteriological outcome was evaluated in 223 patients, and bacteriological efficacy in 143 patients, excluding 80 patients for whom the bacteriological outcome could not be determined, was 98.6% (71/72) in the TEL group and 93.0% (66/71) in the CFDN group. Total eradication, the sum of eradications for all causative pathogen isolated prior to administration, was 100.0% (114/114) in the TEL group and 94.1% (96/102) in the CFDN group. 3. Safety Safety was evaluated in 245 patients. The incidence of side effects in 242, excluding 3 for whom safety could not be determined, was 30.6% (37/121) in the TEL group and 35.5% (43/121) in the CFDN group, with no significant difference between groups. Findings thus suggest that TEL 600 mg once daily for 5 days is as clinically effective and safe as CFDN 100 mg 3 times daily for 5 days in the management of skin and soft tissue infection.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)183-206
Number of pages24
JournalJapanese Journal of Chemotherapy
Volume53
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1 2005

Fingerprint

cefdinir
Soft Tissue Infections
Double-Blind Method
Skin
Safety
Ketolides
telithromycin
Drug and Narcotic Control

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Clinical evaluation of telithromycin in patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Phase III double-blind comparative study of telithromycin versus cefdinir. / Arata, Jirô; Shimizu, Hiroshi; Watanabe, Shinichi; Miyachi, Yoshiki; Iwatsuki, Keji; Furue, Masutaka; Ono, Makoto; Sato, Tomohide; Iwasaki, Masaru.

In: Japanese Journal of Chemotherapy, Vol. 53, No. 3, 01.03.2005, p. 183-206.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Arata, Jirô ; Shimizu, Hiroshi ; Watanabe, Shinichi ; Miyachi, Yoshiki ; Iwatsuki, Keji ; Furue, Masutaka ; Ono, Makoto ; Sato, Tomohide ; Iwasaki, Masaru. / Clinical evaluation of telithromycin in patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Phase III double-blind comparative study of telithromycin versus cefdinir. In: Japanese Journal of Chemotherapy. 2005 ; Vol. 53, No. 3. pp. 183-206.
@article{8b530ed7eb564b2383a2cdeb81dcec8b,
title = "Clinical evaluation of telithromycin in patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Phase III double-blind comparative study of telithromycin versus cefdinir",
abstract = "The efficacy and safety of telithromycin (TEL), an oral ketolide antibiotic, was evaluated in a double-blind, parallel-group, noninferiority comparative study with cefdinir (CFDN) as the control drug under minimized randomization method. Patients with deep-seated skin infections were assigned either to the TEL group (TEL 600 mg once daily for 5 days) or the CFDN group (CFDN 100 mg 3 times daily for 5 days). 1. Clinical outcome In the 228 patients evaluated for clinical outcome, clinical efficacy was 88.9{\%} (104/117) in the TEL group and 82.9{\%} (92/111) in the CFDN group, and the noninferiority of TEL compared to CFDN was confirmed. 2. Bacteriological outcome The bacteriological outcome was evaluated in 223 patients, and bacteriological efficacy in 143 patients, excluding 80 patients for whom the bacteriological outcome could not be determined, was 98.6{\%} (71/72) in the TEL group and 93.0{\%} (66/71) in the CFDN group. Total eradication, the sum of eradications for all causative pathogen isolated prior to administration, was 100.0{\%} (114/114) in the TEL group and 94.1{\%} (96/102) in the CFDN group. 3. Safety Safety was evaluated in 245 patients. The incidence of side effects in 242, excluding 3 for whom safety could not be determined, was 30.6{\%} (37/121) in the TEL group and 35.5{\%} (43/121) in the CFDN group, with no significant difference between groups. Findings thus suggest that TEL 600 mg once daily for 5 days is as clinically effective and safe as CFDN 100 mg 3 times daily for 5 days in the management of skin and soft tissue infection.",
author = "Jir{\^o} Arata and Hiroshi Shimizu and Shinichi Watanabe and Yoshiki Miyachi and Keji Iwatsuki and Masutaka Furue and Makoto Ono and Tomohide Sato and Masaru Iwasaki",
year = "2005",
month = "3",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "183--206",
journal = "Japanese Journal of Chemotherapy",
issn = "1340-7007",
publisher = "Japan Society of Chemotherapy",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical evaluation of telithromycin in patients with skin and soft tissue infections. Phase III double-blind comparative study of telithromycin versus cefdinir

AU - Arata, Jirô

AU - Shimizu, Hiroshi

AU - Watanabe, Shinichi

AU - Miyachi, Yoshiki

AU - Iwatsuki, Keji

AU - Furue, Masutaka

AU - Ono, Makoto

AU - Sato, Tomohide

AU - Iwasaki, Masaru

PY - 2005/3/1

Y1 - 2005/3/1

N2 - The efficacy and safety of telithromycin (TEL), an oral ketolide antibiotic, was evaluated in a double-blind, parallel-group, noninferiority comparative study with cefdinir (CFDN) as the control drug under minimized randomization method. Patients with deep-seated skin infections were assigned either to the TEL group (TEL 600 mg once daily for 5 days) or the CFDN group (CFDN 100 mg 3 times daily for 5 days). 1. Clinical outcome In the 228 patients evaluated for clinical outcome, clinical efficacy was 88.9% (104/117) in the TEL group and 82.9% (92/111) in the CFDN group, and the noninferiority of TEL compared to CFDN was confirmed. 2. Bacteriological outcome The bacteriological outcome was evaluated in 223 patients, and bacteriological efficacy in 143 patients, excluding 80 patients for whom the bacteriological outcome could not be determined, was 98.6% (71/72) in the TEL group and 93.0% (66/71) in the CFDN group. Total eradication, the sum of eradications for all causative pathogen isolated prior to administration, was 100.0% (114/114) in the TEL group and 94.1% (96/102) in the CFDN group. 3. Safety Safety was evaluated in 245 patients. The incidence of side effects in 242, excluding 3 for whom safety could not be determined, was 30.6% (37/121) in the TEL group and 35.5% (43/121) in the CFDN group, with no significant difference between groups. Findings thus suggest that TEL 600 mg once daily for 5 days is as clinically effective and safe as CFDN 100 mg 3 times daily for 5 days in the management of skin and soft tissue infection.

AB - The efficacy and safety of telithromycin (TEL), an oral ketolide antibiotic, was evaluated in a double-blind, parallel-group, noninferiority comparative study with cefdinir (CFDN) as the control drug under minimized randomization method. Patients with deep-seated skin infections were assigned either to the TEL group (TEL 600 mg once daily for 5 days) or the CFDN group (CFDN 100 mg 3 times daily for 5 days). 1. Clinical outcome In the 228 patients evaluated for clinical outcome, clinical efficacy was 88.9% (104/117) in the TEL group and 82.9% (92/111) in the CFDN group, and the noninferiority of TEL compared to CFDN was confirmed. 2. Bacteriological outcome The bacteriological outcome was evaluated in 223 patients, and bacteriological efficacy in 143 patients, excluding 80 patients for whom the bacteriological outcome could not be determined, was 98.6% (71/72) in the TEL group and 93.0% (66/71) in the CFDN group. Total eradication, the sum of eradications for all causative pathogen isolated prior to administration, was 100.0% (114/114) in the TEL group and 94.1% (96/102) in the CFDN group. 3. Safety Safety was evaluated in 245 patients. The incidence of side effects in 242, excluding 3 for whom safety could not be determined, was 30.6% (37/121) in the TEL group and 35.5% (43/121) in the CFDN group, with no significant difference between groups. Findings thus suggest that TEL 600 mg once daily for 5 days is as clinically effective and safe as CFDN 100 mg 3 times daily for 5 days in the management of skin and soft tissue infection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=17144400366&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=17144400366&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 53

SP - 183

EP - 206

JO - Japanese Journal of Chemotherapy

JF - Japanese Journal of Chemotherapy

SN - 1340-7007

IS - 3

ER -