Talk:Clindamycin

message: ..what is a penal cap? —This unsigned comment was added by Seyon (talk • contribs) .
:...good question. Ask this guy, he put it there. —Keenan Pepper 03:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: "However, Clindamycin is rarely effective alone when treating acne. Studies have shown it to be most effective when used in conjunction with benzoyl peroxide."
Is there a source for this statement? I ask because it runs contrary to what I have heard elsewhere. Not that this makes it false obviously, but it seems there should at least be a footnote or something, or remove the statement if nobody knows where its from. 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since reworded, with appropriate citations. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acne

message: I'll do a review for GA in the next few days. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: First quick read through:
#I tweaked a couple of places and added a missing ")"
#:Thanks; I don't really get the point of this parenthesis, though? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Jimfbleak (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nom

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: </div>
I've made a few minor tweaks, can't see anything else, so PASS Jimfbleak (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination

message: How is this different from other antibiotics?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.75.110 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this different from other antibiotics? 

message: 'Antirobe' is a common veterinary clindamycin brand name, and since its what many people will search for, should be included somewhere. I just don't know where.
Tabby (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand names 

message: Article says "Clostridium difficile, which is inherently resistant to clindamycin ..." but it's not clear why it is inherently resistant. Rod57 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Clostridium difficile, inherently resistant to clindamycin 

message: Clindamycin (among other antibiotics) is being used off-label (most often in IV form) to treat scleroderma, with frequent good anecdotal reports, even though there is at least one controlled study that claims to prove the treatment to be ineffective.
There is some evidence to suggest that any positive effect that may be occurring is due to immune-modifying properties of the antibiotics or their metabolites, not actual antibiotic activity.drh (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scleroderma 

message: I added a section to this page regarding the "D-Test" which checks certain Gram-positive bacteria for inducible resistance to clindamycin and other macrolides. 
This test is far more cost-efficient than genotyping and is commonly used in clinical practice. Ænea (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  D-Test and its implications when choosing antibiotic therapy. 

message: Clindamycin is not routinely used to treat ear infections, so I'm moving this to the "also used" part of the lead paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.57.178 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indications plus. 

message: The article presently contains slightly contradictory statements.  (Perhaps, this reflects some slight contradictions in the present understanding of the effects of clindamycin, though.)  On the one hand, it is only declared to work against bacteria (which are prokaryotes).  There is even an explanation of why: The substance is said to bind to the procaryote 50S ribosome complex.  On the other hand, it is said to have some effects against the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum, which belongs to the eukaryote phylum Apicomplexa, especially if combined with other drugs for malaria.  There is a similar (sourced) statement in Toxoplasmosis#Treatment, of its effects against Toxoplasma gondii, another Apicomplexa species.
Now, either clindamycin has some direct effects against some eukaryotes, or it does not.  If the former is known to hold, then this would be nice to add this knowledge to the article.  (As a speculation: Since the prokaryote 50S complex is said to correspond to the eukaryote 60S one, could possibly clindamycin interact also with the latter, to some extent? Could this be related to some of its side effects, too?)  If the latter is known, then the effects of the substance in treating Plasmodium (or Toxiplasma) infections should be indirect; and again this would form a nice addition to the article.  If the issue is unresolved, then information about this should be added somewhere.
In any case, we should not continue to give the readers the impression that the plasmodia are some sort of bacteria, which the article now does.  JoergenB (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects on some eucaryotic parasites 

message: This statement, which appears in a couple of places, is simply not true.  It may well be inexpensive outside the USA, however, the retail cost within the USA is very high.  30 pills (a 10-day supply) recently cost almost $90.00 USD.  That is expensive, especially when compared to the price of the exact same medicine sold elsewhere around the world.
I am proposing that the phrase "it is not expensive" be modified to something like, "it is generally inexpensive outside of the United States".  A fair statement considering the cost per pill is approximately 100 times more expensive inside the US, compared to other countries.  Stating that it's 'not expensive' is false in the USA, and easily proven.  98.194.39.86 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Relatively it is not very expensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Expensive?