mirabilis 1.76% (3/170) and E. cloacae 0.6% (1/170) from UTI only. Gram-positive pathogens were mainly S. pneumoniae

10% (17/170) from both LRTIs and UTIs samples followed by E. faecalis 4.11% (7/170), S. aureus 3.52% (6/170) and coagulase-negative staphylococci 1.76% (3/170) from UTIs only. Elores eradicated all gram-positive and gram-negative organisms except 4 pathogens, one A. baumannii recovered from LRTIs and 3 E. coli recovered from UTIs. Contrary to this, ceftriaxone failed to eradicate 16 pathogens, 2 of A. baumannii (recovered from LRTIs), 7 of E. coli (recovered from UTI), 2 each of E. faecalis and S. pneumoniae obtained from UTIs and one each of K. pneumoniae, K. oxytoca (recovered from Anticancer Compound Library in vitro www.selleckchem.com/screening/kinase-inhibitor-library.html LRTI) and P. mirabilis (recovered from UTIs). In UTIs, the bacterial eradications rates

were 95% (57/60) and 80.64% (50/62) for Elores and ceftriaxone, respectively and bacteriological failure rates were 5% (3/60) and 19.37% (12/62), for Elores and ceftriaxone, respectively. Similarly for LRTIs, the bacterial eradication rates were 97.05% (33/34) and 71.42% for Elores and ceftriaxone, respectively, and bacteriological failure rates were 2.94% (1/34) and 28.57% (4/14) for Elores and ceftriaxone, respectively. In UTIS, the clinical cure rates were 83.33% (85/102) and 34.31% (35/102) for Elores and ceftriaxone, respectively. Similarly for LRTI, the clinical cure rates were 91.30% (42/46) and 31.91% (15/47) for Elores and ceftriaxone, respectively, suggesting that Elores is superior than ceftriaxone. In UTIs, 6.86% (7/102) and 8.8% (9/102) patients were failed to respond to Elores and ceftriaxone, respectively. In LRTI, 100% (91.3% cured and 8.69% improved) and 4.89% (7/47) patients of failed to respond to Elores (Table 2). Approximately, 20.59% (21/102) and 15.22% (7/46) for Elores in the

UTIs and LRTIs, respectively compared to 36.27% (37/102) and 31.91% (15/47) of the patients for ceftriaxone in the UTIs and LRTIs, respectively were experienced at least one adverse reactions (Tables 3 and 4). Treatment of patients with LRTIs and UTIs represents a significant Oxymatrine therapeutic challenge since these patients often have multiple underlying risk factors. The prime objective of this study was to compare clinical and bacteriological efficacy of Elores compared with ceftriaxone. Most of infections are caused by gram-negative bacteria. 58.8% (100/170) in UTI and 22.35% (38/170) in LRTI. Overall, clinical cure rate was high in the group of patients treated with Elores in comparison to ceftriaxone. The enhanced susceptibility of Elores (ceftriaxone plus EDTA plus sulbactam) against gram-positive and gram-negative organisms are likely to be associated with synergistic activity of ceftriaxone plus sulbactam plus disodium edetate.