A comparison of the efficacy and safety of XXXX and @entity10188 in the treatment of @entity1729 .

@entity2261 @entity1244 @entity1 @entity2172 @entity115 @entity7551 @entity294 @entity5389 @entity798 @entity9127 @entity10188 @entity1729
@entity9127 (CAE), an orally absorbed prodrug of @entity2261 , was evaluated for its efficacy and safety in the treatment of @entity1729 ( @entity5389 , @entity7551 , @entity1244 and @entity2172 ) in general practice in the United Kingdom. A total of 385 @entity1 aged 14 or over were enrolled in a randomized study to compare @entity9127 250 mg b.d. for 5 days with @entity115 / @entity798 ( @entity10188 , AUG) 375 mg t.d.s. for 5 days. Of 175 clinically assessable @entity1 treated with @entity9127 , 136 were cured and 33 improved (97% success rate). Of 188 assessable @entity1 given @entity10188 , 155 were cured and 29 improved (98% success rate). Sixty-four @entity1 treated with @entity9127 were evaluable for bacteriological response: 47 (73%) of the causative pathogens were eradicated, as compared with 62 of 86 (72%) in @entity1 treated with @entity10188 . Thirteen out of 181 (7%) @entity1 treated with @entity9127 experienced drug-related adverse events, including 4% with @entity294 . In the @entity10188 group 24 out of 204 (12%) @entity1 had a drug-related adverse event, including 5% with @entity294 . In conclusion, @entity9127 at a dose of 250 mg b.d. appears to be as safe and effective as @entity10188 at the higher dose of 375 mg t.d.s. in the treatment of @entity1729 .
