Talk:Ofloxacin

message: :This page, in its current form, is atrocious!  Please, if you are able, try to edit it or rewrite it.  Or you can try to contact someone knowledgeable about this drug and have them contribute.  This article currently is a biased interpretation of the warning pamphlet sent out to health care providers and contains very little encylopedic fact.  The article addresses nothing about uses, mechanisms, indications, biochemistry, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, bioavailability, benefits v.s. side effects, etc...  Please help edit this page so that real and worthwhile information on this drug can be obtained!!  (any chance any administrator out there is a pharmacologist?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roijuancarlos (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to work on this article to resolve undue weight issues as well as ref formating issues over the next week.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: OK. I have been prescribed Ofloxacin and I have looked at this article for some information on in. The article reads more like article about a poison. It focuses too much on the potential adverse effects, regulatory history, antibiotic abuse etc. Therefore I think the article is unbalanced. Nazgul02 (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Urgent Rewrite Needed

message: Hey, nice improvements to this page, since I last visited it - congratulations! Iridos 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice 

message: I would beg to differ with your assertion that “pregnant women are at risk of killing or damaging their unborn child” is to be considered a gross distortion of the article cited.  The article in question (Loebstein et al) stated that:
Women treated with quinolones had a tendency for an increased rate of therapeutic abortions...There was a trend toward a higher rate of therapeutic abortions among the quinolone-exposed women (9 of 200 versus 2 of 200 for the control group). This is reflected in a lower live-birth rate among the quinolone-exposed women (173 of 200 versus 188 of 200 for the control group; P 5 0.02). 
If you have 200 patients in the quinolone group, nine have a therapeutic abortion, and then you would have 191 patients as your adjusted live-birth rate in this group.  Yet we find only 173.  Making the same adjustments for the control group (200 – 2) you would have a 198, and yet we find only 188.  The authors failed to note that there was a far higher number spontaneous abortions within the quinolone group (18) as compared to elective abortions, which reduced the number of live births to the 173.  The spontaneous abortions had a far greater impact on the live birth rate than the therapeutic abortions had.  Yet the author focused on the elective abortions while ignoring the spontaneous abortions.  And there were also 10 spontaneous abortions found within the control group, which reduced their numbers to the adjusted 188 as well.  Which also had a far greater impact on the live birth rate of the control group than the number of elective abortions (2).  Furthermore Leobstien states that there may be other medical reasons that would account for the higher number of elective abortions in the quinolone group other than the hysteria he made reference to.  Loebstein stated:
The higher rate of therapeutic abortions observed in the quinolone-exposed women compared to that observed in their controls may be secondary to misinformation and misperception of a major risk related to their use during pregnancy. However, other medical and especially nonmedical reasons can also account for this finding. 
Perhaps elective abortions due to birth defects such as we found within Schaefer et al would have accounted for this higher rate, rather than the author’s bias opinions?  
When we view that statement within the context of Schaefer et al it is NOT to be considered a gross misrepresentation due to the fact that within Schaefer we find 56 spontaneous abortions and 79 elective abortions due to birth defects.  That is a total of 135 abortions out of 549 pregnancies.  Which is about 25%.  It is only logical to assume that the women who opted for a therapeutic abortion within Loebstein did so on the advice of their physician, who no doubt discovered that the fetus was defective (i.e. birth defects).   And Loebsteint readily admits that he is expressing a personal opinion in regards to reasons for the high number of abortions found within the quinolone group, rather that the facts supported by his study.   The study fails to reveal the reasons for the elective abortions and he admits later in the study that they may very well have been for other reasons.  Hence the statement that had been added to this article regarding this should be removed.  
Similarly, he stated that there were no differences in pregnancy outcome with respect to the rates of spontaneous abortions.  Yet there were 18 spontaneous abortions found within the quinolone group as compared to 10 in the control group.  This is almost DOUBLE.  Hence the quinolone-induced spontaneous abortions had a far greater impact on live births that the elective abortions had, yet his focus was upon the elective abortions instead.  Which would reveal the bias mentioned earlier in regards to his opinions regarding the cause of the elective abortions.
The facts presented within Loebstein are as follows:
1. There was a higher rate of therapeutic abortions among the quinolone-exposed women.
2. Gestational age at delivery was significantly lower among the quinolone-exposed women.  There was a shorter length of gestation observed in the quinolone group
3. Rates of spontaneous abortions were higher in the quinolone group (18 vs. 10)
4. The major malformations noted in the quinolone group were two cases of ventricular septal defect and one case of patent ductus arteriosus.
5. The birth weight was lower in the quinolone group
When we combine the findings of Loebstein with the findings of Schaefer et al (incorporated by reference) you will find that this is NOT a gross distortion of the reference used.  There was a significant higher rate of abortion (both spontaneous and elective due to birth defects) found within the quinolone group within Schaefer et al, as well as a significant higher rate of birth defects.  There was also a higher rate of both spontaneous and elective abortions found within Loebstein as well.  Hence the reference does support the statement that “...and pregnant women are at risk of killing or damaging their unborn child.”  The risk of the fluoroquinolones killing the fetus, whether it be via spontaneous abortion or an elective abortion, which was significantly higher in both studies. 
The gross distortion is to be found within the findings of Loebstien when you review the data and compare it to his statements, for the data does not support his suppositions regarding the reason that elective abortions took place.  He had no medical records/information regarding them upon which to form such an opinion.  The reasons for the elective abortions taking place were never stated.  Where as within Schaefer they were.  The reason being birth defects.
Furthermore Loebstein stated that:
The possible high misperceived risk related to quinolone use during gestation probably stems from several statements found in the literature: the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (1a) states that "ciprofloxacin should not be used in pregnant women unless the likely benefits outweight the possible risk to the fetus." Another recent publication (11) claims that "quinolones should still be regarded as contraindicated during pregnancy," although these data were from an uncontrolled study. It is our experience that such information often leads to excess anxiety and unnecessary therapeutic abortions.
Here he is stating that such information, IN HIS EXPERIENCE, leads to "unnecessary therapeutic abortions".  I find this very difficult to believe when one considers the gross ignorance found within the medical community in regards to the common adverse reactions associated with this class.  Few, if any, treating physicians are even aware of the well known adverse events such as spontaneous tendon ruptures and peripheral nueropathy.  The odds are extremely slim that they would be aware of the risk of these birth defects and suggest an unneccasary abortion.  And as far as the patient goes, even slimmer.  Within this study he is disputing the facts found within Schaefer and other studies, subsituting his own perceptions with no supporting data to back them up.
Davidtfull (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In response to the accusation of misrepresenting a citation

message: What other names is ofloxacin called? is it called oflocine? what other names is it called? Machn (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ofloxacin other names?

message: This phrase at the begining of the second paragraph does not seem to have any sense.
Daiichi seems to be a Japanese word (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai-ichi). Maybe this reflects the fact that this molecule was discovered by Japanese reseachers ? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=12111564)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herix (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Patent Daiichi ??? 

message: This potential side effect is no where mentioned in the article, that I can find.  Why is that?Godofredo29 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis?