Talk:Moxifloxacin

message: I add an information for patients section because the article is too technical otherwise. KlausFr
:I've removed this section because all the information in it is already noted elsewhere in the article. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information added

message: On 2008/FEB/13 or so, Bayer released a warning that severity of side effects had been underestimated. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: It had been stated that: there is a long-standing saying in Wikipedia (it may even be codified somewhere) that "redirects are cheap".  Therefore it had been suggested that: redirects for trade names are a more appropriate solution than in-article "laundry" lists, because 1) they avoid clutter in the article body, 2) they prevent issues such as an ever-growing list that may be "expanded" with inaccurate information and 3) they make it much easier for someone looking for a particular generic formulation of the drug to get to the actual article.  Since this suggestion is both practical and logical I have removed the list of trade names and used redirects instead.  As such someone searching Wikipedia using a brand name would simply be taken directly to the levaquin article. 
I would now ask that editors not expand the trade name list, but create redirects instead.  Those not familiar with this process may find the following article helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect
Davidtfull (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: trade names

message: Please do not engage in deletions or additions while the article is being updated and revised as needed by the primary editors.  It would be appreciated if potential editors would post all such concerns on this talk page for discussion to avoid unneccasary confusion during this process.  Once these major revisions are completed this notice will be removed and such editors are invited to improve the article as they see fit. Davidtfull (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a side note: I appreciate your contributions, however, no editors own an article, and there are really no primary editors. Any editor can edit any article at any time (assuming its not locked in some manner). The easiest way to make improvements to an article that you don't want others to work on while you are doing is to use a subpage in userspace :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article currently being reviewed and revised as needed

message: This discussion was originally posted on the levaquin talk page with notice given to all editors involved regarding this proposed change as it involved all the fluoroquinolone drug articles.  Similar edits are planned for those other articles as well.  Please refer to that discussion regarding these recent edits involving the regulatory section if you have any questions or concerns regarding them.Davidtfull (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions of the regulator section

message: I have been doing a bit of a clean up of the article and I have almost finished if it weren't for two sections with continuing problems with them. I have some remaining issues which I am raising for discussion. Problem one concerns this section Moxifloxacin#Social_and_economic_impact, see also this diff. Two refs are to a blog, blogs are almost never considered a reliable source, these refs will need to be replaced or else the cited text and blog refs deleted. Another ref is a dead link and needs to be replaced or else deleted along with cited text. Problem two concerns this section Moxifloxacin#Risk.2Fbenefit_ratio, see also this diff. If you look at the diff carefully you will see that I have added 6 hidden comments requesting additional info such as urls and titles for the citations to track them down. There is also a hidden comment which you can see in the edit diff regarding a citation which replaced a 1986 citation without the cited text being updated to reflect the new source.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The article remains extremely unbalanced. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining issues

message: I removed much of the discussion of DNA damage, cytotoxicity, and related speculation regarding side effects of moxifloxacin from this section.  I agree that the topic is an important one, but the problems with the section seemed to be irretrievable.
1) None of the references described results obtained with moxifloxacin, and indeed most were studies of structural analogs of the fluoroquinolones that were never licensed for use in humans. There is no way of knowing whether the results obtained with these analogs are applicable to the compound which is the subject of the article.
2) Many of the references, which claimed to support DNA damage, in fact document related but distinct phenomena, such as inhibition of the synthesis of DNA precursors.  
3) Other cited references refer simply to unsourced statements made in introductory paragraphs of papers published in obscure journals such as the Brazilian Journal of Chemistry.  As a PhD chemist with 20 years of industry experience, I have never encountered this journal until today. 
4) All cited references were in vitro studies, using methods that have been shown in some cases to be highly dependent on variables such as medium ionic strength. Thus their applicability to the in vivo situation is unknown.
Overall, one must ask, if the possibility of DNA damage by the moxifloxacin is mainstream medical thought, why does one need to go to  studies involving non-marketed structural analogs, many of which were published in obscure journals, to find supporting references?
I deleted this material as speculative and placing excess weight on studies that do not involve the subject compound.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred Bertheim (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanism of action 

message: I removed much of the discussion of DNA damage, cytotoxicity, and related speculation regarding side effects of moxifloxacin from this section.  I agree that the topic is an important one, but the problems with the section seemed to be irretrievable.
1) None of the references described results obtained with moxifloxacin, and indeed most were studies of structural analogs of the fluoroquinolones that were never licensed for use in humans. There is no way of knowing whether the results obtained with these analogs are applicable to the compound which is the subject of the article.
2) Many of the references, which claimed to support DNA damage, in fact document related but distinct phenomena, such as inhibition of the synthesis of DNA precursors.  
3) Other cited references refer simply to unsourced statements made in introductory paragraphs of papers published in obscure journals such as the Brazilian Journal of Chemistry.  As a PhD chemist with 20 years of industry experience, I have never encountered this journal until today. 
4) All cited references were in vitro studies, using methods that have been shown in some cases to be highly dependent on variables such as medium ionic strength. Thus their applicability to the in vivo situation is unknown.
Overall, one must ask, if the possibility of DNA damage by the moxifloxacin is mainstream medical thought, why does one need to go to  studies involving non-marketed structural analogs, many of which were published in obscure journals, to find supporting references?
I deleted this material as speculative and placing excess weight on studies that do not involve the subject compound.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred Bertheim (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanism of action 

message: This book has an entire chapter on moxifloxacin, much of it available on Google Books.  May be useful for someone.  :)  EdChem (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Moxifloxacin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090826202547/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/06-1329.pdf to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/06-1329.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified