CC BY
13# Research Results in Pharmacology
Research Results in Pharmacology 6(3): 51-57 UDC: 615.036.8; 616.5; 338 DOI 10.3897/rrpharmacology. 6.50797
3 Research Article
Clinical feasibility study of an immunotropic drug for treatment of complicated pyodermas
Roman A. Khmel'nitskij1, Andrej V. Vislobokov1
1 Budgetary Health Care Institution of Oryol Oblast "Oryol VD clinic, 68 Pushkin St., Oryol 302030, Russia Corresponding author: Andrej V. Vislobokov (visl57@yandex.ru)
Academic editor: Tatyana Pokrovskaya ♦ Received 4 February 2020 ♦ Accepted 16 July 2020 ♦ Published 25 September 2020
Citation: Khmel'nitskij RA, Vislobokov AV (2020) Clinical feasibility study of an immunotropic drug for treatment of complicated pyodermas. Research Results in Pharmacology 6(3): 51-57. https://doi.org/10.3897/rrpharmacology.6.50797
Abstract
Introduction: Given a wide range of pathogenesis of the inflammatory process in pyoderma, which involves a variety of links in the immune response, work is underway to find ways to optimize immunocorrection in this pathology. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and economic effectiveness of immunocorrection in severe and chronic forms of pyoderma with drugs from different pharmacological groups.
Materials and methods: The data sources were prospective randomized comparative studies of therapy of 107 pyoderma patients aged 18 to 60 years, divided into groups. The patients of the first group additionally used a biologically active additive containing immunoactive molecules and transfer factors (TF) as an immunomodulator; the patients of the second group used glucosaminylmuramildipeptide (GMDP). The clinical effectiveness of regression of inflammatory symptoms on day 10 of treatment was analyzed. Based on the obtained data, the following types of pharmacoeconomi-cal analysis were performed: calculation of the course price, the cost/effectiveness ratio, and the availability coefficient.
Results and discussion: The results of the study showed that the number of cured patients was 91.4% in the first group and 97.2% in the second group of patients. The treatment cost when using the drug is by 970 rubles smaller; the cost/ effectiveness ratio (CER) per patient was 1.8 higher for a drug containing transfer factors and amounted to 25.9. The calculation of the availability coefficient (AC) revealed a difference in glucosaminylmuramyldipeptide which was 2.1 times smaller.
Conclusion: It was found that a drug based on glucosaminylmuramildipeptide is a more effective and cost-effective means of immunocorrection in severe forms of pyoderma. This confirms a faster regression of clinical manifestations of the disease and lower cost/effectiveness ratio and availability coefficient.
Keywords
antimicrobial activity, conditionally pathogenic microorganisms, cyclic aminoindoles, non-cyclic aminoindoles, pyrroloquinolones.
Copyright Khmel'nitskij RA, Vislobokov AV. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Introduction
Given a wide range of pathogenesis of the inflammatory process in pyoderma, which involves a variety of links in the immune response, work is underway to find ways to optimize immunocorrection in this pathology (Paul and Seder 1994; Kilburn et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011; Steven et al. 2014).
Currently, there are convincing clinical and experimental data on the use of immunomodulators, the stimulating effect of which is expressed in the activation of the monocytic-macrophage link of the immune system, in particular, glucosaminylmuramyldipeptide (GMDP), which is a systemic analogue of muramyl peptide, an active fragment of the cell wall of bacteria (Karabinskaya et al. 2000; Skripkin et al. 2013). Monocytic-macrophage cells are the main target of GMDP in the body. In these cells, the drug enhances a microbicidal function, generation of ROIs, activity of lysosomal enzymes, stimulates cytotoxicity of NK cells, T-killers in relation to infected cells, expression of HLA-DR antigens, and synthesis of y-interferon, IL-1 and TNF (Khaitov and Pinegin 1996). In this way, GMDP stimulates all forms of body anti-infection protection.
It has been established that immunity from one person can be transferred to another person through the administration of leukocyte extract containing signal immunoac-tive molecules, which were called transfer factors (TF) (Lawrence and Borkowsky 1996). Transfer factors are natural immunocorrectors and have a complex effect on the immune system, regulating the function of cells: T-sup-pressors, T-killers and macrophages. Also, TF can activate macrophage reactions in a non-specific way, facilitating complete phagocytosis, recognition of any antigens by macrophages and their presentation to other immunocompetent cells (Matz 2001; Vorob"ev et al. 2004). One of the research lines is an attempt to use transfer factors in complex pharmacotherapy, the clinical effectiveness of which has not been studied so far in the treatment of pyoderma.
In addition to full recovery in the treatment of the disease and no need for rehabilitation, the cost of treatment should also be taken into account (Yagudina et al. 2019). Organization of a rational pharmacotherapy is one of the priorities in the applied medicine (Logman et al. 2010). All this necessitates a comparative analysis of the recommended pyoderma treatment schemes, and a local clinical and economic study is one of the methods of obtaining reliable data.
Aim
To substantiate the inclusion of natural immunomodulators, transfer factors and glucosaminylmuramyldipeptid in the complex therapy of severe and chronic pyodermas based on the evaluation of clinical and pharmacoecono-mic effectiveness.
Objectives
1) to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of treatment with immunomodulators of glucosaminylmuramyldipeptide and transfer factors in comparison with the standard an-
tibacterial therapy in patients with pyodermas; 2) to perform a pharmacoeconomic evaluation with determination of the course cost of the studied drugs and the cost/effectiveness ratio; 3) to calculate the availability coefficient for the drugs; 4) to make a comparative analysis of the therapy outcomes.
Materials and methods
A comparative open prospective randomized clinical trial has been conducted in the regional healthcare facilities in two cities of the Russian Federation (Oryol and Kursk). The program of the thesis work was approved at the meeting of the Ethical Committee of Kursk State Medical University (Minutes of meeting № 4 of April 14, 2014) in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Legislation of the Russian Federation "On Public Health".
There were 107 persons under study, 61 (57.0%) of whom were men, and 46 (43.0%) of whom were women (average age 40.1±15.8 years). Among them, 30 (28.0%) were diagnosed with furunculosis; 17 (6.5%) were diagnosed with hydradenitis; 16 (15.0%) were diagnosed with sycotism; 23 (21.5%) were diagnosed with acne conglo-bata; 7 (6.5%) were diagnosed with echtima; 11 (10.3%) were diagnosed with abscesses and infected wounds; 3 (2.8%) were diagnosed with chronic ulcerative pyoderma. In 78 patients, the process was widespread and chronic with localization on the face, the torso, and the extremities; in 29 patients, there was local acute inflammation of the skin and the soft tissue.
The patients enrolled in the study were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 and divided by blind sampling into three statistically comparable groups. When dividing into groups, the following aspects were taken into account: sex, age of a patient, form of pyoderma, occurrence of the skin process, severity of the disease, degree of microbial contamination, and laboratory findings.
The criteria for inclusion in the study were willingness to participate in the study, a signed informative consent; male and female patients aged 18 to 60 years undergoing in-patient treatment for severe and chronic pyodermas; indications for systemic antimicrobial and immunotropic therapy; no resistance to the antibiotic used.
The exclusion criteria were history of allergic reactions and individual intolerance to the components contained in the studied drugs; pregnancy, concomitant chronic conditions in the acute phase; use of systemic drugs (cytokines/anti-cytokines, retinoids, immunosup-pressors) for other diseases.
All the patients received the basic antibacterial therapy according to the Standard of Medical Care for Pyoderma Patients (Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 2005). It included: ceftriaxone (1 g once a day for 10 days), alternating injections of vitamins (1 ml of 5% solution for thiamine chloride (B1) injections) and (1 ml of 5% solution of pyridoxine hydrochloride (B6) once a day for 10 days). Fucorcin (2 times a day), zinc oxide ointment and 30% ichthammol ointment were applied topically.
In addition to the standard treatment scheme, the patients of the first (n=35) study group were prescribed a biologically active additive, Transfer FactorClassiC by 4Life Research, USA, as an immunotropic drug (RC registration No. 77.99.11.003 E, certificate of registration 004976.03.11 dated 03.03.2011) in a dose of 2 capsules 3 times a day for 10 days (Vorob"ev et al. 2004).
The patients of the second (n=36) study group were prescribed an immunomodulator drug, Licopid (produced by Russian company Peptek, and containing glucosami-nylmuramyldipeptide) 10 mg, according to the following scheme: 1 tablet once a day, 30 minutes before meals, for 10 days (Likopid (tablets of 10 mg) (Vidal).
The patients in the third group (n=36) (control group) received only the basic therapy.
The following dermatological criteria were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment: complete absence of all signs of the disease, i.e. clinical recovery; a decrease in the severity of clinical implications by more than 85%, i.e. a significant decrease; 50-85% symptom reduction, i.e. improvement; a decrease in the symptoms from 20 to 50%.e. a slight decrease; no improvement - no effect (Adaskevich 2014).
A pharmacoeconomic analysis of the treatment outcomes was conducted with a ten-day time horizon. The nature of the considered direct medical and direct non-medical costs was determined at the stage of selection of a study design, where they were the same for all patient groups, and thereafter did not impact the calculations during the cost-effectiveness analysis.
The cost/effectiveness ratio was calculated using the following formula 1 (Yagudina et al. 2019):
CER =
cost(RUB) Ef(%)
(1)
Where: CER - cost-effectiveness coefficients of the compared treatment methods;
Cost (RUB) - costs associated with this method in monetary terms;
Ef (%) - clinical effectiveness expressed in appropriate units.
The availability coefficient (Ac) was calculated using formula 2 (Kotlyarova et al. 2019):
(Ac) =
(Acj + Ac2 + Ac3 + Ac4)
(2)
4
average price of a drug „.,„„ average price of a drug „.,„„ cost of a treatment course .,„„ cost of a treatment course .,„„
-1-5—*100 H--1-5— *100 H--*100 H--*100
Ac _ average wage in the region regional subsistence level average wage in the region average wage in the region
c _ 4
Where: Acj = (average price of a drug / average wage in the region) * 100;
Ac2 = (average price of a drug / regional subsistence level) *100;
Ac3= (cost of a treatment course / average wage in the region) * 100;
Ac4 = (cost of a treatment course / regional subsistence level) *100.
SPSS 6.0 statistical software package was used for statistical analysis. The statistical significance of differences was determined using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test.
Results and discussion
According to the obtained data (Table 1), it can be concluded that both treatment methods with the prescription of immunomodulators showed almost comparable clinical effectiveness in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Clinical recovery by the tenth day was observed in 91.4% of group I patients, and 97.2% of group II patients (p<0.05), while in group III patients, who had received only the standard antibacterial treatment, this percentage was significantly lower and amounted to 66.6% (p=0.001). It is worth mentioning that in the groups that used additional immunomodulators, the therapy was ac-
companied by faster resolution of the infection: by the 5th treatment day - in 60.0% (21 persons) of group I and 66.7% (24 persons) of group II in comparison with the patients of group III, in total 27.8% (10 patients).
Analyzing the average recovery time of patients (Table 2), we can see that it was also shorter in the groups using immunocorrection. This was especially evident in the patients who were treated with glucosaminylmu-ramyldipeptide as an immunomodulator; this difference was more statistically significant (p = 0.001).
The analysis of the dynamics of local inflammatory symptoms showed statistically significant earlier resolution of the pain syndrome and local edema with infiltration. In the patients treated with GMDP immunomodulator, compared to the conventional therapy, 4.5 and 7 days for pain (p < 0.05); 6.0 and 9.5 days for local edema (p < 0.05), respectively. Epithelialization of erosive and ulcerative defects occurred on day 8 on average in the patients receiving GMDP; epithelialization following the conventional therapy occurred only on day 12 of treatment.
The analysis of the regression dynamics of local symptoms of skin and soft tissue infection between the patients in the control groups who received additional immunotropic drugs showed that statistically significant differences were found in erythema resolution (p < 0.05); it occurred on day 8 in the first group, and on day 6 in the second group.
Table 1. Clinical effectiveness of therapy in patients of control groups depending on diagnosis on tenth day of comparison.
Diagnosis Therapy + TF n = 35 (100%) Therapy + Licopid n = 36 (100%) P Conventional therapy n = 36 (100%) P
Tenth day
Furunculosis 9 (90) 10 (100) - 6 (60) 0.01
Hydradenite 6(100) 5 (100) - 4 (66.7) 0.28
Sycosis vulgaris 4(100) 6 (100) - 6 (100) -
Acne conglobata 6 (75.0) 6 (85.7) 0.05 5 (62.5) 0.035
Abscesses and infected wounds 4 (100) 4 (100) - 2 (66.7) 0.12
Ecthyma vulgaris 2(100) 3 (100) - 1 (50) 0.7
Chronic ulcer pyoderma 1 (100) 1 (100) - 0 (0) -
Total 32 (91.4) 35 (97.2) 0.05 24 (66.6) 0.001
Note: the percentage of patients with clinical recovery from the total number of patients in the group is given in brackets; where p<0.05 (statistically significant differences between groups); TF - transfer factors.
Table 2. Recovery time of patients in control groups depending on main diagnosis (M ± m).
Diagnosis Average recovery time (days)
Therapy + TF Therapy + Licopid P Conventional therapy P
Furunculosis 7.4 ± 2.7 6.4 ± 3.1 0.05 8.4 ± 3.7 0.01
Sycosis vulgaris 4.7 ± 1.8 4.5 ± 1.6 0.56 6.1 ± 2.3 0.03
Acne conglobata and acne phlegmonosa 11.8 ± 3.7 10.1 ± 3.2 0.12 14.3 ± 3.7 0.05
Abscesses and infected wounds 7.2 ± 2.1 6.8 ± 2.8 - 8.9 ± 3.2 -
Hydradenite 5.3 ± 1.7 4.2 ± 1.1 0.05 9.7 ± 2.4 0.04
Ecthyma 9.0 ± 1.0 8.0 - 11.0 -
Pyoderma gangrenosum and chronic ulcer pyoderma 10.0 9.0 - 13.0 -
Average 7.6 ± 2.4 6.2 ± 2.9 0.1 11.2 ± 3.1 0.001
Note: p<0.05 - statistically significant differences between groups; TF - transfer factors.
In the pharmacoeconomic studies at stage one of the cost analysis, costs per course of treatment of one pyoderma patient in hospital conditions were calculated. We took into account only the costs of drugs used in complex treatment. For this purpose, the price of one package and the unit cost of the prescribed drug were determined at the beginning.
The cost of a ten-day course of treatment with the drugs used in the conventional therapy, including the price of one package, the number of units of the substance in the package, the and the frequency of use, was the same for all three groups of patients (Table 3). Therefore, further studies on the economic feasibility of the schemes used were not taken it into account.
Due to the fact that the studied immune drugs have the relevant indications for use, both comparison drugs are original drugs registered in Russia (RLS 2017; Vidal 2018; RU-Transfer factor); therefore, they are comparable.
At the second stage of the cost analysis of the studied comparison drugs, the course costs for treatment of one pyoderma patient were also calculated with determination of the price of one package and the cost per unit of the prescribed drug.
The comparison drugs included in our pharmacoecono-mic analysis are presented in Table 4. When determining the price of one package of the drugs shown in the table, the average 2018 prices of Licopid were used, calculated based on the data from Katren price-lists portal (Apteka.ru; Katren; Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation 2005).
Since the biologically active additive Transfer FactorClassic does not participate in public procurement, its cost was calculated based on the price provided by the manufacturer (RU-Transfer factor).
Table 3. Cost of standard course of treatment (direct medical costs).
Drug Form Number of Package Frequency Course
units per price of use ADD Price
package (rubles) (rubles)
Ceftriaxone Bottle, 1 g 1 units ind. 18 1 time i/m 180
pack. i g
Vit. B1 1 ml amp., 10 units 20 1 time i/m 10
5% solution 1 ml
Vit. B6 1 ml amp., 10 units 20 1 time i/m 10
5% solution 1 ml
Fucorcin 1 bottle 10 ml 25 2 times 25
(topical) 0.5 ml
Ichthammol 1 bottle 25 g 80 2 times 1* g 64
ointment
(topical)
Zinc oxide 1 bottle 25 g 35 2 times 1* g 28
ointment
(topical)
Total cost 317
Note: * - The amount of ointment required for application to the foci was equal to two finger-tip units; one finger-tip unit weighs 0.5 g (Hebif 2016).
At the next stage of pharmacoeconomic studies, the cost of the prescribed active unit of the studied drugs was determined (Table 5).
The cost of the active unit of the prescribed drug, based on the price per package and the number of units in the package, amounted to 140 rubles for Licopid, and 39.5 rubles for a biologically active additive Transfer FactorClassic.
After determining the cost of the prescribed active unit of each of the compared medicinal drugs, the cost of treatment of one patient was calculated (Table 6).
Calculation of the course price of the immunotropic comparison drugs included the frequency and the number of units of prescription. In spite of the fact that the cost of
Table 4. Comparison drugs included in pharmacoeconomic analysis.
INN Commercial name Manufacturer Form Registration certificate Price per package (rubles)
Glucosaminyl- Licopid Peptek, Russia Tablets No.10 № LP-002737 dd. 1.400
muramyldipeptide (10 mg) 02.12.14.
Transfer factor Transfer FactorCla™ 4 Life Research, L.C, USA Capsules No.90 No. 77.99.23.3. U.7085. 3.560
(200 mg) dd. 10.12.04
Note: INN - International Nonproprietary Names.
Table 5. Calculation of cost of prescribed unit.
Drug Form Number of units per package Price per package (rubles) Price per unit (rubles)
Licopid Tablets 10 mg No. 10 1.400 140 Transfer FactorClassic_Capsules 200 mg_No. 90_3.560_395_
Table 6. Cost analysis of studied drugs for one course of treatment. Table 7. Availability coefficient for immune drugs compared.
Commercial Price per unit Frequency of Cost of ADD Cost of Commercial name AC1 ac2 AC3 AC4 Total (AC)
name (rubles) use ADD (rubles) one course (rubles) Licopid Tablets No. 10 (10 mg) 5.0 15.1 5.0 15.1 10.1
Licopid 140 one tablet 1 140 1.400 Transfer FactorClass'c 12.7 38.3 8.5 25.5 21.3
Transfer 39.5 time a day 2 capsules 3 237 2.370 Capsules No. 90 (200 mg)
times a day
Note: ADD - approximate daily dose.
one unit of transfer factor is lower than that of Licopid, due to the fact that one approximate daily dose (ADD) of Transfer factorClassiC was 6 units (capsules), and one ADD of licopid was one unit (capsule), the cost of the daily dose of Licopid was considerably lower than that of the biologically active additive Transfer FactorClassic, and accordingly, the course cost was 970 rubles less.
Based on the proven clinical effectiveness of Licopid as an immunomodulator over the biologically active additive, and the analysis of the cost of pharmacotherapy, the cost/effectiveness ratio was calculated by the formula (3):
= 2370(rubles) > = 1400(rubles) (3)
Note: AC- availability coefficient.
91.4(%)
97.2(%)
Group 1 Group 2
Figure 1. Cost/effectiveness ratio values in the comparison drugs.
The data presented in Table 7 show that the total availability coefficient of the drug is 2.1 times lower than that of the biologically active additive.
where CERj is for Transfer FactorClassic, and CER2 is for Licopid.
Calculation of the ratio using the incremental analysis approach showed that in the first group of patients, where the transfer factor as used with the course cost of 2,370 rubles and the effectiveness of clinical recovery in 91.4% of the patients, the cost/effectiveness ratio, CERj = 25.9, which is higher than that in the licopid group with CER2 = 14.4. Preference is given to the drugs with the lowest ratio (Yagudina et al. 2014).
The cost/effectiveness ratio values are shown in Figure 1.
The cost of medical services and drugs was not discounted, as the modelling horizon did not exceed 12 months (Zyryanov et al. 2015).
Calculation of the availability coefficient (AC) for each comparison drug used the average wage calculated based on the official statistics for the Kursk and Oryol regions for 2018, which was 27.977 rubles, and the reasonable subsistence, which was 9.286 rubles (Cost of living in Kursk region; Cost of living in Oryol region; FINCAN).
Conclusion
The recommendation of drugs should be decided on the basis of criteria of their effectiveness, safety and affordability.
The analysis of treatment outcomes for patients with severe and chronic pyodermas with immunotropic correction by drugs from different pharmacological groups revealed differences in their clinical effectiveness and economic feasibility.
It was proven that addition of immunomodulators to the combined therapy of severe and chronic pyodermas accelerates the onset of stable clinical recovery in comparison with the conventional antimicrobial therapy (the share of cured patients by day 10 is more than 90% versus 66.6% p<0.001, respectively), contributes to a faster subsidence of all local symptoms of inflammation (pain, edema, erythema and purulent exudate), and significant reduction of recovery time by an average of 4 days, which is associated with direct stimulation of the immunobio-logical strength of the macroorganism (Akhtyamova
2016; Thiboutot et al. 2018; Williams et al. 2011). This was more effective with glucosaminylmuramyldipeptide, where the number of clinically recovered patients was 30% more than with conventional therapy and 6% more with the use of transfer factor molecules.
Due to the necessity of pharmacoeconomic methods of the study, which can substantiate the choice of drugs, the conducted complex analysis of costs, including the study of each component of the cost of in-patient treatment of pyoderma patients, found that with equivalent direct medical costs the course treatment cost by Licopid was significantly by 40.9% lower than that by a biologically active additive Transfer FactorClassic.
If two or more medical interventions have the same objective, but may differ in effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness analysis is the most appropriate measure, and the choice of an effectiveness criterion is an important component (Bae and Mullins 2014; Verhoef and Morris 2015). The number of patients with full clinical recovery out of the total number of patients in the group on day 10 of observation was taken as the effectiveness criterion.
Calculation of the cost/effectiveness ratio (CER) also proved the advantage of Licopid, for which it was 14.4 with full clinical recovery of 97.2% of patients, whereas for Transfer FactorClassic it was 25.9 with full clinical recovery of 91.4% of patients.
In addition, the identified difference in the availability coefficient (AC), which is 2.1 times less in Licopid than in Transfer FactorClassic once again confirms the advantages of the drug over the biologically active additive. The lower the ratio, the greater the availability (Kotlyarova et al. 2019).
Due to good clinical effectiveness and economic feasibility, Licopid can be recommended as a starting drug for the nonspecific immunocorrection in the complex therapy of pyoderma in adult patients, and biologically active additive Transfer FactorClassic can be used only as an alternative method.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
References
■ Adaskevich VP (2014) Diagnostic Indices in Dermatology. Panfilo-va Publisher, BINOMIAL. Laboratory of Knowledge, Moscow, 352 pp. [in Russian]
■ Akhtyamova NE (2016) New approaches in the treatment of purulent-inflammatory processes of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Russian Medical Journal [Russkii Medicinskii Zhurnal] 8: 508-510. [in Russian]
■ Apteka.ru: Likopid tabl. 10 mg https://apteka.ru/product/likop-id-001-n10-tabl-5e3266d1ca7bdc000192c081/
■ Bae YH, Mullins CD (2014) Do value thresholds for oncology drugs differ from non oncology drugs? Journal of Managed care & Specialty Pharmacy 20(11): 1086-1092. https://doi.org/10.18553/ jmcp.2014.20.11.1086 [PubMed]
■ Cost of living: Cost of living in Kursk region http://potrebkor.ru/ minimum-kurskaia.html
■ Cost of living: Cost of living in Oryol region http://potrebkor.ru/min-imum-orlovskaia.html
■ FINCAN: The average salary in Russia by region http://fincan.ru/ articles/119_srednyaja-zarplata-v-rossii-po-regionam-v-2020-godu/
■ Hebif TP (2016) Skin Diseases: Diagnosis and Treatment. 4th ed. MEDpress-inform, Moscow, 704 pp. [in Russian]
■ Karabinskaya LF, Chernetsova PB, Zotov GA (2000) Lycopid in the treatment of recurrent furunculosis in children. Tyumen Medical Journal [Tyumenskii Meditsinskii Zhurnal] 2: 20-21. [in Russian]
■ Khaitov RM, Pinegin BV (1996) Immunomodulators and some aspects of their clinical use. Clinical Medicine [Klinicheskaya Medit-sina] 8: 7-13. [in Russian]
■ Kilburn SA, Featherstone P, Higgins B, Brindle R (2010) Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (6): CD004299. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858. CD004299.pub2 [PubMed]
■ Kotlyarova AA, Grigoryeva IV, Schetinina LG (2019) Pharma-coeconomic analysis of immunomodulatory drugs. Scientific Forum: Medicine, Biology and Chemistry 2(20): 33-38. [in Russian]
■ Lawrence HS, Borkowsky W (1996) Transfer Factor current status and future prospects. Biotherapy 9 (1-3): 1-5. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02628649 [PubMed]
■ Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, Kaplan SL, Karchmer AW, Levine DP, Murray BE, Rybak MJ, Talan DA, Chambers HF (2011) Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of America for the treatment of methicil-lin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clinical Infectious Diseases: an Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 52(3): 18-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ cid/cir034 [PubMed]
■ Logman JF, Stephens J, Heeg B, Haider S, Cappelleri J, Nathwani D, Tice A, van Hout BA (2010) Comparative effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of MRSA complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Current Medical Research and Opinion 26(7): 1565-1578. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2010.481251 [PubMed]
■ Matz AN (2001) Again about the drugs "transfer factor" as a medium for specific immunotherapy. Medical Immunology (Russia) [Med-itsinskaya Immunologiya] 2(3): 328-329. [in Russian]
■ Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (2005) Order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation of 12.09.2005 G. №565 with applications and updates dd 01.07.2016 "On Approval of the Standard of Medical Care for Patients with Pyoderma", Moscow, 1-6 pp. [in Russian]
■ Paul WE, Seder RA (1994) Lymphocyte responses and cytokines. Cell 76(2): 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(94)90332-8 [PubMed]
■ RU-Transfer factor: Transfer Faktor Klassik https://ru-transferfactor. ru/transfer-faktor-klassik
■ Skripkin YuK, Butov YuS, Ivanov OL (2013) Dermatovenerologiya. National Guidance. GEOTAR-Media, Moscow, 319-355. [in Russian]
■ Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein EJC, Gorbach SL, Hirschmann JV, Kaplan SL, Montoya JG, Wade JC (2014) Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin
and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical Infectious Diseases 59(2): e10-52. https:// doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu296 [PubMed]
■ Thiboutot DM, Dréno B, Abanmi A, Alexis AF, Araviiskaia E, Barona Cabal MI, Bettoli V, Casintahan F, Chow S, da Costa A, El Ouazzani T, Goh CL, Gollnick HPM, Gomez M, Hayashi N, Herane MI, Honeyman J, Kang S, Kemeny L, Kubba R, Lambert J, Layton AM, Leyden JJ, López-Estebaranz JL, Noppakun N, Ochsendorf F, Oprica C, Orozco B, Perez M, Piquero-Martin J, See JA, Suh DH, Tan J, Lozada VT, Troielli P, Xiang LF (2018) Practical management of acne for clinicians: An international consensus from the Global Alliance to improve outcomes in acne group. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 78(1): S1-S23.e1. https://doi. org/10.1016/jjaad.2017.09.078 [PubMed]
■ Verhoef TI, Morris S (2015) Cost-effectiveness and pricing of antibacterial drugs. Chemical Biology and Drug Design 85(1): 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/cbdd.12417 [PubMed]
■ Vidal: Likopid https://www.vidal.ru/drugs/licopid_1354
■ Vorob"ev A.A, Telnykh YuV, Khalturina EO, Kiselevsky MV (2004) Immunorehabilitation in Infectious-inflammatory and Somatic Diseases Using Transfer Factors. Methodical Letter, Moscow, 36 pp. [in Russian]
■ Williams DJ, Cooper WO, Kaltenbach LA, Dudley JA, Kirschke DL, Jones TF, Arbogast PG, Griffin MR, Creech CB (2011) Comparative effectiveness of antibiotic treatment strategies for pediatric skin and soft-tissue infections. Pediatrics 128(3): e479-487. https:// doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3681 [PubMed] [PMC]
■ Yagudina RI, Kulikov AYu, Serpik VG, Kostina EO (2019) A comparative analysis of the methodology of the clinical and economic (pharmacoeconomic) assessment according to the original (dated 08.28.2014) and current (dated 29.10.2018) version of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 871. Pharmacoeconom-ics: Theory and Practice [Farmakoekonomika: Teoriya i Praktika] 7(1): 7-16. https://doi.org/10.30809/phe.L2019.53 [in Russian]
■ Yagudina RI, Serpik VG, Sorokovikov IV (2014) Methodological foundations of the cost/effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics: Theory and Practice [Farmakoekonomika: Teoriya i Praktika] 2(2): 23-28. [in Russian] https://doi.org/10.30809/phe.2.2014.1
■ Zyryanov SK, Belousov DYu, Afanasyev EV (2015) Comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of the use of ceftaroline phosphamyl in the treatment of complicated infections of the skin and soft tissues. Pharmacoeconomics: Theory and Practice [Farmakoekonomika: Te-oriya i Praktika] 3(3): 42-59. [in Russian]
Author contributions
■ Roman A. Khmel'nitskij, dermatovenerologist, e-mail: hmellorel@mail.ru, ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1128-9239. The author played a leading role in conducting the studies, interpreting the data, and writing the article.
■ Andrej V. Vislobokov, Doctor Habil. of Medical Sciences, dermatovenerologist, e-mail: visl57@yandex.ru, ORCID ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2484-1827. The author was a research supervisor in selecting and developing the design of this study.
