Chitosan Loaded Mucoadhesive Microspheres of Gliclazide - Journal

different combination were mild in nature and none were
serious and life threatening. Also, cost effective analysis
endorsed the fact that azithromycin with cefotaxime
combination was more cost effective.
Hence, it is concluded that combination of azithromycin with
cefotaxime was best among the three in treating LRTI.
LIMITATIONS
Several limitations of the present study should be addressed.
1. Microbiological studies were not routinely carried out on
sputum samples before initiation of the antibiotic therapy, to
determine the causative organism and to follow the
appropriate treatment guidelines.
2. Subsequently microbiological tests should also be carried
out on sputum samples at the end of the therapy in order to
determine the efficacy of the antibiotics used and complete
removal of causative micro-organism.
3. The prolongation of stay in the hospital of many of the
patients could have been indirectly due to the underlying
concomitant illness.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Principal and Management of Al-Ameen college of
Pharmacy, Bangalore, India for providing the necessary
funding and support and The Medical Superintendent of
St.Martha's Hospital for permitting us to carry out the study
in their hospital.
REFERENCES
Imran Ahmad Khan et al./ Assessment of Various Combination of Drugs Used In Treatment of Lower Respiratory Tract Infection
Table. 4 Cost Effectiveness Ratio, Cost Effective ratio = Cost of treatment for 7 days / Reduction of symptoms by 100%
Cost of Treatment = Cost of Drug + Other associated costs (Syringe)
TREATMENT SPUTUM COUGH WHEEZING DYSPNOEA FEVER DISCOLO AVERAGE
PRODUCTION URED
SPUTUM
Azithromycin +
Ceftriaxone
1497 1497 1621 3234 3897 1621 2230
Azithromycin +
Cefotaxime
1251 1042 1158 2408 2841 1202 1650
Azithromycin +
Ceftriaxone
1822 2272 1822 2280 3043 4545 2631
*in Rs for 100% decrease in symptoms
1. L o w e r r e s p i r a t o r y Tr a c t i n f e c t i o n s . A v a i l a b l e f r o m
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=316&secti
onId=9. [24 screens]
145
2. Liberman D, Korsonsky I, et. al. A comparative study of the etiology of
adult upper and lowert respiratory tract infections in the community.
Diag Microb Infec Disesa 2002;42:21-8.
3. Schouten JA,Hulscher MEJL, JWM, Grol RPTM et., al. Quality of
antibiotic use of lower respiratory tract infections at hospitals: (How)
can we measure it? Clin Infec Diseas 2005;41:450-60.
4. Seppa Y, Bloigu A,Honkanen PO, et. al. Severity assessment of lower
respiratory tract infection in elderly patients in primary care. Arch
Intern Med 2001;161:2709-713.
5. Simpson JCG, Hulse P, et. al.Do radiographic features of acute
infection influence management of lower respiratory tract infections in
the community? Eur Respir J.1998;12:1384-7.
6. Liberman D, Shvartzman P, et., al. Diagnosis of ambulatory
community aquired pneumonia. Scand J Prim Health Care 2003;
21:57-60.
7. Hooton TM, Levy SB. Confronting the antibiotic resistance crisis:
making appropriate therapeutic decisions in community medical
practice. Infect Med 2004; 21 (3):114-22.
8. Stolz D, Crain MC, Gencay MM, et., al.Diagnostic values of signs ,
symptoms and laboratory values in lower respiratory tract infection.
Swiss Med Wkly 2006;136:434-40.
9. PlouffeJ, Schwartz DB, et., al. Clinical efficacy of Intravenous followed
by oral azithromycin monotherpy in hospitalized patients with
community-aquired pneumonia. Anti Microb Agents Chemother
200;44:1796-802.
10. Ortqvist A. treatment of community acquired lower respiratory tract
infections in adults. Eur Respir J 2002; 20:40-50.
Address for Correspondence
th
Imran Ahmad Khan, M. Pharm, Biocon India Ltd, 20 KM, Hosur Road,
Electronic City, Bangalore- 560100, Karnataka, India
E-Mail: iam_khan2000@yahoo.co.in