Cal efficacy The data for the primary endpoint for this study–the clinical response (success or failure) at follow-up in the RES population with MRSA isolated as the baseline pathogen–are summarized in Table 2. Secondary endpoints included clinical responses at follow-up for RES (Table 2), MIC (Table 3), and PED (Table 4). Microbiological efficacy Secondary endpoints included microbiological responses at followup for the RES (Table 2), MIC (Table 3), and PED (Table 4) populations, as well as therapeutic responses at follow-up for RES, MIC, and PED (Table 4). Skin infection rating scale Other secondary endpoints included comparison of signs and symptoms of infection from baseline to follow-up for the MIC, PED, and RES populations (Tables 5?). Table 5 describes skin infection rating scales (SIRS) along with number of patients (reported as frequency and percentage) at baseline and follow-up visit. A decreasing trend in score between two visits was observed in all infection types. For instance, in erythema, 71 of patients had score 2 (moderate) at baseline, whereas 69 had score 1 (minimal) at follow-up (Table 5). However, the interpretation here needs to be cautious, because the score at follow-up visit and baseline are correlated. In the last column, p values from the 2 test areTable 8 Comparison of percent decrease in wound size from baseline to follow-up. MIC population Total (n = 35) Age b18 years (n = 25) Age 18 years (n = 10) MRSA (n = 7) Statistics Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median Baseline 14.43 (25.38) 3.40 18.61 (29.01) 4.80 3.98 (4.42) 2.75 20.61 (24.83) 14.0 Follow-up 4.31 (17.71) 0.30 5.6 (20.92) 0.1 1.09 (1.37) 0.5 2.59 (3.21) 0.3 Mean change (SD) -71.3 (36.0 ) -73.6 (36.5 ) -65.6 (35.8 ) -87.8 (19.1 )Table 4 presents the number of patients and success rates for three responses (clinical, microbiological, and therapeutic) by several prognostic factors. To further evaluate the relationship between some of these prognostic factors and clinical response, logistic regression was performed, and the results were summarized in Table 10, which focuses on the MIC population. Wound area was divided into two groups by its median value, which was chosen for RP5264 custom synthesis convenience but may lack clinical importance. The OR associated with wound area at baseline is 2.60, which indicates that the odds of experiencing successful clinical response for patients with wound size at baseline b 3.4 cm 2 is expected be 2.60 times higher than the odds of experiencing successful clinical response for patients with wound size at baseline 3.4 cm2. However, the related p value is .198, and wound size at baseline is not a statistically significant predictor of clinical response. No significance was found for the other variables. Discussion The objective of this study was to assess the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1 in the treatment of patients with cutaneous bacterial infections, such as impetigo, folliculitis, and other minor soft tissue infections, including secondarily infected eczema presumed to be caused by MRSA. The data for the primary endpoint for this study–the clinical response (success or failure) atThe p value from paired t test that compares logarithms of wound size at visits 1 and 2 is b.00001. Mean change ( ) was defined as (size at baseline ?size at follow-up)/size at baseline.B.R. Bohaty et al. / International Journal of (��)-Zanubrutinib site Women’s Dermatology 1 (2015) 13?0 Table 9 Nu.Cal efficacy The data for the primary endpoint for this study–the clinical response (success or failure) at follow-up in the RES population with MRSA isolated as the baseline pathogen–are summarized in Table 2. Secondary endpoints included clinical responses at follow-up for RES (Table 2), MIC (Table 3), and PED (Table 4). Microbiological efficacy Secondary endpoints included microbiological responses at followup for the RES (Table 2), MIC (Table 3), and PED (Table 4) populations, as well as therapeutic responses at follow-up for RES, MIC, and PED (Table 4). Skin infection rating scale Other secondary endpoints included comparison of signs and symptoms of infection from baseline to follow-up for the MIC, PED, and RES populations (Tables 5?). Table 5 describes skin infection rating scales (SIRS) along with number of patients (reported as frequency and percentage) at baseline and follow-up visit. A decreasing trend in score between two visits was observed in all infection types. For instance, in erythema, 71 of patients had score 2 (moderate) at baseline, whereas 69 had score 1 (minimal) at follow-up (Table 5). However, the interpretation here needs to be cautious, because the score at follow-up visit and baseline are correlated. In the last column, p values from the 2 test areTable 8 Comparison of percent decrease in wound size from baseline to follow-up. MIC population Total (n = 35) Age b18 years (n = 25) Age 18 years (n = 10) MRSA (n = 7) Statistics Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median Baseline 14.43 (25.38) 3.40 18.61 (29.01) 4.80 3.98 (4.42) 2.75 20.61 (24.83) 14.0 Follow-up 4.31 (17.71) 0.30 5.6 (20.92) 0.1 1.09 (1.37) 0.5 2.59 (3.21) 0.3 Mean change (SD) -71.3 (36.0 ) -73.6 (36.5 ) -65.6 (35.8 ) -87.8 (19.1 )Table 4 presents the number of patients and success rates for three responses (clinical, microbiological, and therapeutic) by several prognostic factors. To further evaluate the relationship between some of these prognostic factors and clinical response, logistic regression was performed, and the results were summarized in Table 10, which focuses on the MIC population. Wound area was divided into two groups by its median value, which was chosen for convenience but may lack clinical importance. The OR associated with wound area at baseline is 2.60, which indicates that the odds of experiencing successful clinical response for patients with wound size at baseline b 3.4 cm 2 is expected be 2.60 times higher than the odds of experiencing successful clinical response for patients with wound size at baseline 3.4 cm2. However, the related p value is .198, and wound size at baseline is not a statistically significant predictor of clinical response. No significance was found for the other variables. Discussion The objective of this study was to assess the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1 in the treatment of patients with cutaneous bacterial infections, such as impetigo, folliculitis, and other minor soft tissue infections, including secondarily infected eczema presumed to be caused by MRSA. The data for the primary endpoint for this study–the clinical response (success or failure) atThe p value from paired t test that compares logarithms of wound size at visits 1 and 2 is b.00001. Mean change ( ) was defined as (size at baseline ?size at follow-up)/size at baseline.B.R. Bohaty et al. / International Journal of Women’s Dermatology 1 (2015) 13?0 Table 9 Nu.