IPSIndian Journal of Pharmacology
Home  IPS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online : 200 
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
  Search
 
  
Resource Links
   Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
   Article in PDF (219 KB)
   Citation Manager
   Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
In This Article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1586    
    Printed43    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded117    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
 Table of Contents    
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 48  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 96
 

Comparative evaluation of 2 g single dose versus conventional dose azithromycin in uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections


Department of Pharmacology, KIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Date of Web Publication20-Jan-2016

Correspondence Address:
Subham Das
Department of Pharmacology, KIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.174577

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Das S, Mohanty M. Comparative evaluation of 2 g single dose versus conventional dose azithromycin in uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections. Indian J Pharmacol 2016;48:96

How to cite this URL:
Das S, Mohanty M. Comparative evaluation of 2 g single dose versus conventional dose azithromycin in uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online] 2016 [cited 2021 Dec 7];48:96. Available from: https://www.ijp-online.com/text.asp?2016/48/1/96/174577


Sir,

This letter is in context to the article published in your journal titled, "Comparative evaluation of 2 g single dose versus conventional dose azithromycin in uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections." [1] I have certain queries regarding the methodology and conclusion of this article.

In this article, the researchers compared the efficacy of 2 g single dose azithromycin with that of conventional 5 days dose of azithromycin. The primary outcome measure in this study was clinical response characterized by cessation of spread of redness, edema, and induration around the lesion or reduction of the size of the lesion at 72 h. The investigators have reported that "this study was conducted to show the efficacy of single dose regimen…" However, the researchers also concluded on the basis of this study that "…single 2 g dose of azithromycin, given under supervision, is generally well-tolerated and can achieve clinical cure rates comparable to conventional azithromycin dosing within 7 days." This conclusion drawn on the basis of this particular study is inappropriate as the design of this study was intended to test superiority of single dose regimen, and in such a designed trial, nonsignificant P values cannot be considered as a proof of equality. [2] In this article, the single dose and conventional dose group are not significantly different from each other for primary end-point. However, as nonsignificant P value cannot prove the null hypothesis, on the basis of this study, it cannot be said that both drugs are equally effective. In addition, the conclusion drawn by the authors that "the difference in treatment adherence was highly significant (P < 0.001) in favor of the single dose arm" is highly influenced by observer bias as the 2 g single dose of azithromycin was taken in direct supervision of the observers which is bound to result in 100% adherence in this group. Furthermore, the feasibility of such observed treatment remains doubtful in actual clinical scenario.

Financial Support and Sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Dey SK, Das AK, Sen S, Hazra A. Comparative evaluation of 2 g single dose versus conventional dose azithromycin in uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections. Indian J Pharmacol 2015;47:365-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Jaykaran D, Saxena D, Yadav P, Kantharia ND. Nonsignificant P values cannot prove null hypothesis: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2011;3:465-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

Site Map | Home | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer
Online since 20th July '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow