The study was conducted in accordance

with guidelines for clinical trials on pharmaceutical products in India good clinical practice issued by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), Ministry of Health, Government of India. Institutional Ethics Committees of the participating centers approved the study protocol. Informed consent was obtained before enrollment of each subject into the study. MEK activity Enrolled subjects received study drugs as per computer generated treatment randomization chart. Patients randomized to the ceftriaxone group received 2 g of ceftriaxone by intravenous infusion and in Elores group received 3.0 g Elores by intravenous infusion. Stratified randomization by indication and center was adopted in the study. Adult patients of >18 and <65 years old with signs of BJIs and SSSIs were included in study. The exclusion criteria included was subjects with clinically significant cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, gastrointestinal conditions, neurological, psychiatric, respiratory, other severely immunocompromised, hematological

or malignant disease and other condition which may interfere with the assessment. History of uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, HIV and hepatitis-B was excluded. The dose was selected based on the T > MIC, Concentration of ceftriaxone which was higher than the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for most of the gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, indicating that twice daily dose/day is sufficient to treat the disease caused by these

organisms. The primary efficacy variable for this GPCR Compound high throughput screening study was to assess and prove the efficacy of improvement in clinical and bacteriological parameters following administration of Elores and ceftriaxone. Safety of test drug was assessed in terms of drug related adverse effects. Safety was also assessed based on change in vital parameters, laboratory tests, including hematological and biochemical investigations both on screening and completion Adenosine triphosphate of therapy. Efficacy evaluation was done on completion of therapy (day 3–10). The patients were evaluated based on cure, failure and improved. The criteria for microbiological evaluability was eradication, failure and superinfection. The safety response was evaluated on Medra Version 15, by occurrence of AE – Type of AE, frequency of occurrence of adverse events (AE) percentage of study population experiencing AE, Causal relationship to the study drug, seriousness and severity of reaction, assessment of laboratory parameters, assessment of vital parameters and physical examination and the adverse events were graded as mild, moderate and severe. All the laboratory parameters (biochemical and hematological, urine analysis) were analyzed and reviewed by the Principal investigator. Urine analysis was also carried for all the subjects. A PCR assay was performed to detect ESBL and MBL encoding genes using the specific primers, namely, TEM-1, TEM-2, TEM-50, SHV-1, SHV-10, and AMP-C, NDM-1, VIM-1 and IMP-1.