Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

Treatment of respiratory tract infections with erythromycin acistrate and two formulations of erythromycin base.

Author: FlygareU, HildénM, HurmeJ, JärvinenH, LeskinenJ, PynnönenS, RiikonenA, SalomaaV, SeuriM, WuolijokiE

Clinical TrialA clinical trial is a planned study conducted on humans to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and treatment methods. It aims to explore the possibilities of new treatments and improve the health of patients.
Comparative StudyResearch that compares multiple groups/interventions to determine differences/similarities in outcomes/characteristics.
Controlled Clinical TrialA clinical trial that evaluates the effectiveness of a treatment by comparing a group that receives the intervention with a group that receives a placebo or standard treatment.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.
Randomized Controlled TrialA clinical trial that randomly assigns participants to treatment and control groups to evaluate the effects of an intervention.

Overview

Erythromycin acistrate (EA) was equally effective as erythromycin base formulations in treating respiratory tract infections but caused significantly less gastrointestinal side effects.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
Erythromycin acistrate (EA)--a new ester of erythromycin--was compared with erythromycin base as enterocoated pellets in capsules (EB enterocapsules) and enterocoated tablets of erythromycin base (EB enterotablets) in the treatment of respiratory tract infections. The present double-blind, multicent...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/21.suppl_d.107

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

Treating Respiratory Infections: Erythromycin Acistrate vs. Base

In the vast desert of respiratory infections, researchers are always searching for the most effective oasis of treatment. This study ventured into the arid landscape of erythromycin, exploring the efficacy of erythromycin acistrate (EA) compared to two formulations of erythromycin base (EB) in treating respiratory tract infections. The researchers used a double-blind, multicenter study involving 474 patients, a true caravan of individuals! They found that all three preparations were equally effective in curing respiratory infections, but EA was associated with significantly fewer gastrointestinal side effects, like nausea and abdominal pain. Imagine the relief of a weary traveler escaping the discomfort of a desert storm!

EA: A Gentle Journey Through the Desert

The study revealed that EA caused statistically significantly fewer gastrointestinal side effects than the two erythromycin base formulations. This finding is akin to discovering a hidden oasis with clear, refreshing water, free of the harsh salts and minerals that plague other watering holes. This makes EA a more pleasant and tolerable journey through the desert of respiratory illness.

Navigating the Side Effects

While all three treatments were effective, EA proved to be gentler on the stomach. This is crucial because gastrointestinal side effects can significantly impact a patient's well-being and adherence to treatment. It's like finding a smooth, well-maintained path through the desert instead of a rocky, treacherous one. Consider these findings when discussing treatment options with your doctor.

Dr. Camel's Conclusion

EA emerged as a potential winner in this battle against respiratory infections. While all the options were effective, EA offered the added benefit of minimizing the unpleasant side effects, making it a more comfortable and enjoyable journey through the desert of illness. It's a testament to the ongoing quest for better therapies that are both effective and gentle.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 1988-08-24
  2. Date Revised 2019-05-10
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

3391872

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

10.1093/jac/21.suppl_d.107

SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.