Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Clinical evaluation of the TMS-19-Q.GC tablet on superficial suppurative disease. A comparative double blind study with midecamycin].

Authors: S, Watanabe; A, Kukita; Y, Miura; I, Tsukinaga; H, Tagami; Y, Tanita; E, Nonami; +3 Authors

[Clinical evaluation of the TMS-19-Q.GC tablet on superficial suppurative disease. A comparative double blind study with midecamycin].

Abstract

Clinical efficacy and safety of TMS-19-Q.GC tablet (TMS), a new macrolide preparation, were compared with those of midecamycin (MDM) in superficial suppurative skin and soft tissue infections. The study was made by the double-blind controlled trial at the dosage of daily 600 mg in TMS group and 1,200 mg in MDM group. Total 218 cases (106 in TMS, 112 in MDM) were analyzed and the final global improvement rating were 82.1% in TMS and 83.9% in MDM. The clinical effectiveness of TMS was favorable and significantly different from MDM in the aged patients (greater than or equal to 60 years old) and the patients infected with susceptible strains (MIC less than or equal to 3.13) of Staphylococcus aureus. TMS is prepared with a specific formulation to make the absorption easier in the patients with lower acidity of gastric juice, and the favorable effect of TMS is considered to be a contribution of the devise in older patients. Slight adverse reactions were observed at 5.0% (6 cases) in TMS and 2.4% (3 cases) in MDM. In conclusion, TMS at the daily half dose of MDM is as effective as MDM in superficial suppurative skin and soft tissue infections.

Keywords

Male, Clinical Trials as Topic, Suppuration, Age Factors, Leucomycins, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Female, Miocamycin, Skin Diseases, Infectious, Tablets

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!