ライフサイエンスコーパス: moxifloxacin

1 ll had a basophil activation test (BAT) with moxifloxacin.

2 es in the cleaved DNA as the fluoroquinolone moxifloxacin.

3 No adverse events were due to IC moxifloxacin.

4 ular death when prescribing azithromycin and moxifloxacin.

5 rapamil reduced tolerance to bedaquiline and moxifloxacin.

6 tered, and was most commonly associated with moxifloxacin.

7 corneal infections were treated with topical moxifloxacin.

8 ositive bacterial corneal ulcer and received moxifloxacin.

9 amikacin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, and moxifloxacin.

10 C(max) of clarithromycin, azithromycin, and moxifloxacin.

11 or amikacin, 18% for rifampicin, and 11% for moxifloxacin.

12 olates, of which 10 (1.8%) were resistant to moxifloxacin.

13 ed retinal toxicity at this concentration of moxifloxacin.

14 or in rabbits at 150 microg/mL intravitreal moxifloxacin.

15 , but augmented the bactericidal activity of moxifloxacin.

16 in-65 DNA vaccine to augment the activity of moxifloxacin.

17 more active than rifampin (p < 0.01) but not moxifloxacin.

18 66 for linezolid and 3.80 +/- 1.34 hours for moxifloxacin.

19 ferent levels of resistance to ofloxacin and moxifloxacin.

20 received intravenous or oral levofloxacin or moxifloxacin.

21 mycin was noninferior to intravenous-to-oral moxifloxacin.

22 s of private patients who did not receive IC moxifloxacin.

23 815) to 0.02% (64/314 638) (P < 0.001), with moxifloxacin.

24 receiving moxifloxacin 1.25% (1.2 +/- 0.4), moxifloxacin 0.125% (1.1 +/- 1.1), and placebo (1.0 +/-

25 test reduction seen in patients treated with moxifloxacin 0.4% (1.5 +/- 0.6 mm; P = 0.023 compared to

26 sulfate) and group B was given monotherapy (moxifloxacin 0.5%).

27 biotics (azithromycin 1%, gatifloxacin 0.3%, moxifloxacin 0.5%, ofloxacin 0.3%) and used only their a

28 2 mug/ml), levofloxacin (0.12 to 1 mug/ml), moxifloxacin (0.06 to 0.5 mug/ml), ofloxacin (0.25 to 2

29 03%), moxifloxacin hydrochloride (0.5%), and moxifloxacin (0.5%) + BAK (0.001% and 0.003%) with hydro

30 to placebo), followed by patients receiving moxifloxacin 1.25% (1.2 +/- 0.4), moxifloxacin 0.125% (1

31 ildren 7-15 years of age routinely receiving moxifloxacin 10 mg/kg daily as part of multidrug treatme

32 Children 7-15 years of age receiving moxifloxacin 10 mg/kg/day as part of MDR tuberculosis tr

33 rated sequences to receive either 8 weeks of moxifloxacin, 100 mg pretomanid (formerly known as PA-82

34 379 (58%) were valid to assess efficacy (183 moxifloxacin, 196 comparator).

35 tol, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 400 mg moxifloxacin, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ

36 PA-824), and pyrazinamide (MPa100Z regimen); moxifloxacin, 200 mg pretomanid, and pyrazinamide (MPa20

37 y the gram-positive cocci, were resistant to moxifloxacin; 27% of the gram-positive aerobes but only

38 diagnosed were randomized to receive 400 mg moxifloxacin, 300 mg isonaizid, or 600 mg rifampin daily

39 ntravenous meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) and moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours) or meropenem alone.

40 mg on days 2-5, placebo on days 6-7) or oral moxifloxacin (400 mg on days 1-7).

41 Patients received either moxifloxacin (400 mg once daily) monotherapy or oral cip

42 CHE II score) and randomized to either IV/PO moxifloxacin (400 mg q24 hours) or comparator (IV pipera

43 randomized in a factorial design to receive moxifloxacin (400 mg) versus ethambutol given 5 d/wk ver

44 in aqueous media (LODs: 13.0 +/- 1.4 muM for moxifloxacin, 43.6 +/- 10.7 muM for meropenem, and 7.1 +

45 profloxacin, 51.0%; gatifloxacin, 51.0%; and moxifloxacin, 47.0%.

46 e for hospital-acquired cIAI was higher with moxifloxacin (82%, 22 of 27) versus comparator (55%, 17

47 for quinolones (ofloxacin, levofloxacin, or moxifloxacin), 99.2% for amikacin, 99.2% for capreomycin

48 The substitution of moxifloxacin, a new 8-methoxyfluoroquinolone, for isonia

49 leads to a reduction in bacterial killing by moxifloxacin, a substrate of the NorB efflux pump.

50 faropenem TMIC > 60%, as well as higher-dose moxifloxacin, achieved slopes equivalent to those of the

51 iazid in the control regimen was replaced by moxifloxacin administered daily for 2 months followed by

52 Repeated use of topical moxifloxacin after IVT injection significantly increases

53 8-Methyl-moxifloxacin was more potent than moxifloxacin against WT M. tuberculosis gyrase and displ

54 ure occurred in 12% of patients who received moxifloxacin; all had pretreatment fluoroquinolone mutat

55 Compared with topical moxifloxacin alone, adjunctive treatment with topical co

56 Herein, we describe the applications of moxifloxacin, an FDA-approved antibiotic, as a cell-labe

57 In comparison, moxifloxacin, an IKr blocker with no effects on phosphoi

58 f hyperglycemia per 1000 persons was 6.9 for moxifloxacin and 1.6 for macrolides.

59 2 months followed by one weekly dose of both moxifloxacin and 1200 mg of rifapentine for 4 months.

60 trast, the risk of hypoglycemia was 10.0 for moxifloxacin and 3.7 for macrolides.

61 Overall, 302 815 eyes did not receive IC moxifloxacin and 314 638 eyes did, and there was a signi

62 administered daily for 2 months followed by moxifloxacin and 900 mg of rifapentine administered twic

63 Resistance to moxifloxacin and ceftazidime in cultured isolates at bas

64 highest rate (RR=7.38; 95% CI, 2.30-23.70); moxifloxacin and ciprofloxacin were also associated with

65 ose the least risk for uveitis compared with moxifloxacin and ciprofloxacin.

66 about the basophil activation properties of moxifloxacin and constitute a reliable diagnostic aid.

67 ared results of sputum culture conversion by moxifloxacin and control regimens and identified factors

68 on was resolved with long-term therapy using moxifloxacin and doxycycline.

69 The recently released fluoroquinolones moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin are reviewed in terms of t

70 Moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin have improved potency and

71 Moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin offer improved spectrum of

72 Resistance to moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin when tested at 2 mug/mL wa

73 The use of fluoroquinolone-containing (moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin) regimens have failed to s

74 The fourth-generation fluoroquinolones, moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin, were introduced in 2003 p

75 u88Lys) resulted in high-level resistance to moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin.

76 observed in 80% of the patients administered moxifloxacin and in 82% of the patients administered com

77 performed experiments in which we varied the moxifloxacin and linezolid doses in the triple regimen.

78 tify optimal dose schedules and exposures of moxifloxacin and linezolid in combination.

79 The structurally related fluoroquinolones moxifloxacin and lomefloxacin have no effect on the topo

80 Fifteen patients with an IDHR to moxifloxacin and nine moxifloxacin challenged controls w

81 ceptibilities of M. tuberculosis isolates to moxifloxacin and ofloxacin were determined by the agar p

82 Moxifloxacin and other fluoroquinolones are important th

83 Etest was used to determine the MIC of moxifloxacin and other fluoroquinolones.

84 activity reported elsewhere in BALB/c mice, moxifloxacin and pyrazinamide (MZ) combination was not b

85 tributed to a 4-fold increase in the MICs of moxifloxacin and sparfloxacin for Staphylococcus aureus

86 nd ciprofloxacin, meropenem and teicoplanin, moxifloxacin and teicoplanin, and ciprofloxacin and teic

87 ed trial in which patients were treated with moxifloxacin and were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 adjunc

88 ont-line fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin and moxifloxacin), and in many cases at record-high concentr

89 r azithromycin, 3.30 (95% CI, 2.07-5.25) for moxifloxacin, and 1.41 (95% CI, .91-2.18) for levofloxac

90 n) and in urine (LODs: 36.6 +/- 11.0 muM for moxifloxacin, and 114.8 +/- 3.1 muM for piperacillin) po

91 54 (37%) to ciprofloxacin, 16 of 47 (34%) to moxifloxacin, and 3 of 13 (23%) to gatifloxacin.

92 treatment regimens including rifapentine and moxifloxacin, and assessed the potential of the Mycobact

93 by ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, lomefloxacin, moxifloxacin, and baicalin.

94 The regimen and doses of linezolid, moxifloxacin, and faropenem identified are proposed to b

95 nts to identify the oral doses of linezolid, moxifloxacin, and faropenem that would achieve optimal t

96 lf of the 8479 eyes that had PCR received IC moxifloxacin, and half did not.

97 ar death, the adjusted ORs for azithromycin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin were 2.62 (95% CI, 1.69-4

98 rtapenem followed by combination rifampicin, moxifloxacin, and metronidazole for 6 months is effectiv

99 se results suggest that the use of rifampin, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide may substantially shorten

100 s, treatment with a combination of rifampin, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide was able to shorten the t

101 treated for at least 4 months with rifampin, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide, mice treated with rifamp

102 For mice treated with rifampin, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide, similar efficacy was not

103 ide, and cetrimide and also to sparfloxacin, moxifloxacin, and tetracycline, a resistance phenotype o

104 ents, including bacterial resistance against moxifloxacin, and the investigational gels was found.

105 Cases failing azithromycin were treated with moxifloxacin, and those failing moxifloxacin were treate

106 omycin) to little or no effect (haloperidol, moxifloxacin, and verapamil).

107 er, these findings suggest that rifapentine, moxifloxacin, and, perhaps, therapeutic DNA vaccination

108 picin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and moxifloxacin; and 123 to the control arm).

109 lability of IC cefuroxime in many countries, moxifloxacin appears to be an effective option for surge

110 -spectrum agents such as the fluoroquinolone moxifloxacin are proceeding, on the basis of efficacy in

111 or rifampicin, clarithromycin, amikacin, and moxifloxacin are seldom met.

112 the 35 mg/kg rifampicin arm and none in the moxifloxacin arm.

113 doses and dose schedules of a linezolid and moxifloxacin backbone regimen that could be highly effic

114 ulture-positive ulcers receiving 48 hours of moxifloxacin before randomization.

115 Total antibiotic use and the use of moxifloxacin, carbapenems, antipseudomonal penicillins,

116 re lamotrigine, azithromycin, carbamazepine, moxifloxacin, cephalexin, diclofenac, and nitrofurantoin

117 nt new users of levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin, cephalosporins, and macrolides orally were

118 tients with an IDHR to moxifloxacin and nine moxifloxacin challenged controls were selected.

119 ls (CIs) of levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and moxifloxacin compared with macrolides were 1.75 (1.12-2.

120 epsis, treatment with combined meropenem and moxifloxacin compared with meropenem alone did not resul

121 inear trend for PD reduction with increasing moxifloxacin concentrations was found.

122 a was also observed among patients receiving moxifloxacin concomitantly with insulin (AOR, 2.28; 95%

123 te drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHR) to moxifloxacin constitute a pathomechanistic conundrum and

124 se 3 trial to test the noninferiority of two moxifloxacin-containing regimens as compared with a cont

125 y-phase and preclinical studies suggest that moxifloxacin-containing regimens could allow for effecti

126 The two moxifloxacin-containing regimens produced a more rapid i

127 ize disseminated tuberculosis, linezolid and moxifloxacin could be combined to form a regimen for thi

128 r study in humans, intravitreal injection of moxifloxacin could be considered as an alternative to cu

129 ations compared with adults receiving 400 mg moxifloxacin daily.

130 Moxifloxacin demonstrated no significant independent inh

131 luoroquinolones, current first-time users of moxifloxacin demonstrated the highest risk for uveitis (

132 interactions, we determined that an 8-methyl-moxifloxacin derivative induces high levels of stable cl

133 her activity against the mutant enzymes than moxifloxacin did against WT gyrase.

134 Higher moxifloxacin dosages may be required in children.

135 To optimize moxifloxacin dose and dose regimen, pharmacodynamic anti

136 The moxifloxacin dose of 25 mg/kg/day achieved a CFR > 90% i

137 UC) of 40-60 microg x h/mL following an oral moxifloxacin dose of 400 mg has been reported in adults.

138 A moxifloxacin dose of 800 mg/day is likely to achieve exc

139 For patients taking moxifloxacin doses of 400, 600, or 800 mg/day, the calcu

140 ollowing second-line regimen: daily (5 d/wk) moxifloxacin, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide, supplemented

141 amikacin, kanamycin, capreomycin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, ethionamide, para-aminosalicylic acid, cyc

142 amikacin, kanamycin, capreomycin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, ethionamide, para-aminosalicylic acid, lin

143 Moxifloxacin exerts excellent antibacterial activity aga

144 The linezolid and moxifloxacin exposure targets were AUC0-24/MIC ratios of

145 Patients taking moxifloxacin faced a significantly higher risk of hypogl

146 Moxifloxacin failure occurred in 12% of patients who rec

147 e have developed an oral faropenem-linezolid-moxifloxacin (FLAME) regimen that is free of first-line

148 tible to the quinolone group of antibiotics (moxifloxacin followed by ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin).

149 he second group, we replaced ethambutol with moxifloxacin for 17 weeks, followed by 9 weeks of placeb

150 the third group, we replaced isoniazid with moxifloxacin for 17 weeks, followed by 9 weeks of placeb

151 men in which isoniazid was replaced by daily moxifloxacin for 2 months followed by one weekly dose of

152 either intravenous-to-oral solithromycin or moxifloxacin for 7 once-daily doses.

153 ith minimum inhibitory concentration against moxifloxacin for all isolates.

154 or infection, all patients were treated with moxifloxacin for at least 48 hours.

155 ase regimen can be increased by substituting moxifloxacin for isoniazid and by increasing the dose of

156 Substitution of moxifloxacin for isoniazid on day 3 did not increase the

157 To confirm that this substitution of moxifloxacin for isoniazid permits a shorter duration of

158 ty of solithromycin, a novel macrolide, with moxifloxacin for treatment of CABP.

159 Oral solithromycin was non-inferior to oral moxifloxacin for treatment of patients with CABP, showin

160 The ratio of the moxifloxacin-free (non-protein-bound) area under the con

161 single subgingival administration of a 0.4% moxifloxacin gel as an adjunct to SRP may result in addi

162 ival application of a 0.125%, 0.4%, or 1.25% moxifloxacin gel or placebo gel immediately after full-m

163 In addition, the investigated moxifloxacin gels seem to be safe.

164 in mean SOFA score between the meropenem and moxifloxacin group (8.3 points; 95% CI, 7.8-8.8 points)

165 cin group versus 338 (77.9%) patients in the moxifloxacin group (difference 0.29, 95% CI -5.5 to 6.1)

166 e conversion was analyzed in 780 (616 in the moxifloxacin group and 164 in the control group) of 801

167 Ninety-five percent of 590 patients in the moxifloxacin group and 81% of 151 patients in the contro

168 group and 54 (13%) of 154 such events in the moxifloxacin group were deemed to be related to study dr

169 lithromycin group vs 28 [6%] patients in the moxifloxacin group), nausea (15 [4%] vs 17 [4%] patients

170 s of charity patients who did not receive IC moxifloxacin, group 2 consisted of 38 160 eyes of charit

171 Because all patients in the moxifloxacin groups received 2 months of daily RHZEM, th

172 Moxifloxacin has bright intrinsic multiphoton fluorescen

173 The new 8-methoxyfluoroquinolone moxifloxacin has potent activity against both actively m

174 Patients receiving moxifloxacin, however, more often had negative cultures

175 We have discovered a tobramycin-moxifloxacin hybrid core structure which enhances outer

176 5 hours to BAK (0.001%, 0.002%, and 0.003%), moxifloxacin hydrochloride (0.5%), and moxifloxacin (0.5

177 sensitive simple electrochemical sensor for Moxifloxacin Hydrochloride (MOXI) detection has been suc

178 The study group received topical moxifloxacin hydrochloride for 3 days after each monthly

179 of adding topical corticosteroids to topical moxifloxacin hydrochloride in bacterial keratitis.

180 rst to explore the relationship between oral moxifloxacin hydrochloride use and uveitis.

181 presentation, all patients were treated with moxifloxacin hydrochloride, 0.5%.

182 inferiority (10% margin) of solithromycin to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response (

183 Solithromycin was non-inferior to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response:

184 pharmacokinetic and long-term safety data of moxifloxacin in children with tuberculosis are lacking.

185 here were no adverse events attributed to IC moxifloxacin in group 2.

186 breakpoint needed to suppress resistance to moxifloxacin in M. tuberculosis.

187 e reported regarding the use of levofloxacin/moxifloxacin in the first-line treatment; this could be

188 ine, terfenadine, erlotinib, olanzapine, and moxifloxacin) in multiple tissues after oral and intrave

189 o significant difference between control and moxifloxacin-injected eyes at any dose in either the mou

190 Moxifloxacin is a quinolone antimicrobial that has poten

191 These results indicate that moxifloxacin is a safe intravitreal antibiotic in mouse

192 This study provides further evidence that moxifloxacin is an effective IC prophylactic antibiotic

193 Moxifloxacin is currently recommended at a dose of 7.5-1

194 Monotherapy with once daily oral moxifloxacin is efficacious and safe in low-risk febrile

195 lication is promising since imaging based on moxifloxacin labeling could be 10 times faster than imag

196 Hypoxic necrotizing lesions rendered moxifloxacin less active.

197 indamycin, and intermediate to high MICs for moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, and gentamicin were also obs

198 rescribed oral azithromycin, clarithromycin, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, or amoxicilli

199 For identified uveitis cases, current use of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, or ciprofloxacin hydrochlori

200 onstant was 0.060 +/- 0.012 per day with the moxifloxacin-linezolid regimen in the additivity zone vs

201 nimum inhibitory concentration (TMIC) on the moxifloxacin-linezolid regimen.

202 levofloxacin (L) (1,000 mg) was as active as moxifloxacin (M) (400 mg) in an early bactericidal activ

203 eceive a 3- or 4-month moxifloxacin regimen (moxifloxacin [M], isoniazid [H], rifampicin [R], pyrazin

204 armacokinetic data suggest that intravitreal moxifloxacin may have a role in the treatment of bacteri

205 eports have suggested that the recent use of moxifloxacin may lead to uveitis.

206 Moxifloxacin mediates the relationship between causative

207 9.5%) isolates resistant to gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin, members of the C-8-methoxyfluoroquinolones

208 ients with sepsis and septic shock, that is, moxifloxacin, meropenem, and piperacillin in aqueous sol

209 s strains and quantified their ofloxacin and moxifloxacin MIC by testing growth at six concentrations

210 In conclusion, immediate hypersensitivity to moxifloxacin might involve mechanisms difficult to captu

211 Corneal healing using 0.5% moxifloxacin monotherapy is equivalent to that of combin

212 Once daily IV/PO moxifloxacin monotherapy was as least as effective as st

213 g isoniazid, gatifloxicin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin monotherapy.

214 Patients treated with moxifloxacin more often reported nausea (22 vs. 9%, p =

215 ng (DST) to isoniazid (INH), rifampin (RIF), moxifloxacin (MOX), ofloxacin (OFX), amikacin (AMK), kan

216 is (Mtb) by the combination of linezolid and moxifloxacin multiple exposures in a 7-by-7 mathematical

217 Mefloquine (MFQ), moxifloxacin (MXF), and ethambutol (EMB), in combination

218 as part of multi-drug resistant TB therapy: moxifloxacin (MXF), levofloxacin (LVX) or gatifloxacin (

219 patients to receive solithromycin (n=426) or moxifloxacin (n=434).

220 tance to isoniazid, rifampin, ofloxacin, and moxifloxacin occur the most frequently.

221 me as well as the relative effect of BAK and moxifloxacin on acanthamoebal survival were analyzed.

222 Current use of moxifloxacin or ciprofloxacin appears to increase the ri

223 s that the new generation of PPIs and use of moxifloxacin or levofloxacin within triple therapy as se

224 on between later-generation fluoroquinolone (moxifloxacin or levofloxacin) use and patient mortality,

225 ce of antibiotics within the triple therapy; moxifloxacin or levofloxacin-based triple therapy were b

226 ry concentration (MIC) for the hybrid, while moxifloxacin or tobramycin resulted in a 16- and 512-fol

227 ylaxis, compared with 0.01% (11/89 358) with moxifloxacin (P < 0.001).

228 laxis, compared with 0.02% (52/222 508) with moxifloxacin (P < 0.001).

229 iazid was more active than both rifampin and moxifloxacin (p = 0.03).

230 isolates were resistant to gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin (P<0.001).

231 berculosis drugs, including the newer agents moxifloxacin, PA-824, linezolid, and bedaquiline.

232 84.6% of solithromycin patients and 88.6% of moxifloxacin patients achieved clinical success at SFU b

233 79.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.7% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference

234 80.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.1% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference

235 Without IC moxifloxacin, PCR increased the endophthalmitis rate nea

236 Regimens of standard linezolid and moxifloxacin plus faropenem TMIC > 60%, as well as highe

237 ase, the sterilizing activity of once-weekly moxifloxacin plus rifapentine (15 mg/kg) was significant

238 The combination of moxifloxacin, pretomanid, and pyrazinamide, was safe, we

239 Moxifloxacin produced an increased hazard for uveitis at

240 reatment (groups 1 and 2) and the cost of IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis (group 2) were calculated.

241 Routine IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis achieved a highly significant,

242 total combined cost in group 2 of routine IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis and treatment of the 6 endophth

243 re and after initiation of intracameral (IC) moxifloxacin prophylaxis for both phacoemulsification an

244 Routine IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis reduced the overall endophthalm

245 160 eyes of charity patients who received IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis, and group 3 consisted of 40 77

246 mitis rate was 0.07% (75/104 894) without IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis, compared with 0.01% (11/89 358

247 itis rate was 0.07% (135/192 149) without IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis, compared with 0.02% (52/222 50

248 itis rates before and after initiation of IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis.

249 Unlike moxifloxacin, QPT-1 and etoposide interact with conserve

250 is rate nearly 7-fold to 0.48% (20/4186); IC moxifloxacin reduced the endophthalmitis rate with PCR t

251 s were randomized to receive a 3- or 4-month moxifloxacin regimen (moxifloxacin [M], isoniazid [H], r

252 Moxifloxacin remains the most effective therapy, but tre

253 to quinolones is common among patients with moxifloxacin resistance and warrants more careful evalua

254 gatifloxacin-resistant isolates and 22 of 23 moxifloxacin-resistant isolates, and did not falsely cla

255 We conclude that the incidence of moxifloxacin-resistant TB is low in Harris County and is

256 A 5-drug daily regimen with moxifloxacin results in significantly higher sputum cult

257 uberculosis, we show that the combination of moxifloxacin, rifampin, and pyrazinamide reduced the tim

258 The concentration of intravitreal moxifloxacin showed an exponential decay with a half-lif

259 ortened APD equally during acute and chronic moxifloxacin superfusion.

260 e was 100% concordance between ofloxacin and moxifloxacin susceptibilities.

261 In this report, we analyze the role of moxifloxacin susceptibility in the relationship between

262 ation analysis is used to assess the role of moxifloxacin susceptibility in the relationship between

263 The addition of moxifloxacin to isoniazid, rifampin, and pyrazinamide di

264 available, nonpreserved, topical ophthalmic moxifloxacin to the saline in the device reservoir becam

265 Six of 7 patients failing moxifloxacin treatment received pristinamycin, and all w

266 Intravitreal moxifloxacin, up to 100 microg/mL in mice or 150 microg/

267 in 71% of patients (99 of 139) treated with moxifloxacin versus 71% (98 of 138) treated with ethambu

268 eradication rates were 78% (117 of 150) with moxifloxacin versus 77% (126 of 163) in the comparator g

269 es at test-of-cure were 80% (146 of 183) for moxifloxacin versus 78% (153 of 196) for comparator (95%

270 The mean vt50 of moxifloxacin was 0.88 days (95% confidence interval [CI]

271 n combined with meropenem, ciprofloxacin, or moxifloxacin was also predominantly additive or synergis

272 administration of high-dose rifapentine and moxifloxacin was as effective as the control regimen.

273 ival antibiotics (0.331), whereas the use of moxifloxacin was associated with a lower rate of endopht

274 anate treatment, the use of azithromycin and moxifloxacin was associated with significant increases i

275 MPM with moxifloxacin was demonstrated in various cell lines, and

276 stance (MIC, >32 mug/ml) to gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin was documented for 46.7% of the MSSE isolat

277 Moxifloxacin was effective in 53(88% [95% CI, 78%-94%])

278 The regimen of linezolid and moxifloxacin was found to be efficacious in the hollow f

279 Moxifloxacin was injected into mouse eyes at intravitrea

280 The MIC to moxifloxacin was measured by E test.

281 Resistance to gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin was more common in current BI/NAP1 isolates

282 8-Methyl-moxifloxacin was more potent than moxifloxacin against W

283 philic upregulation of CD203c in response to moxifloxacin was observed in seven of 15 patients.

284 Moxifloxacin was well tolerated in children treated for

285 ating overnight wear, with adjunctive use of moxifloxacin, was employed in 20 eyes of 19 patients for

286 ), time until Cmax (Tmax), and half-life for moxifloxacin were 3.08 (IQR, 2.85-3.82) microg/mL, 17.24

287 ravitreal injections of 200 microg/0.1 mL of moxifloxacin were administered to rabbits.

288 ifapentine combined with either isoniazid or moxifloxacin were as active as daily isoniazid for 6-9 m

289 d resistance of subgingival bacteria against moxifloxacin were assessed.

290 plasma genitalium samples from cases failing moxifloxacin were sequenced for fluoroquinolone resistan

291 treated with moxifloxacin, and those failing moxifloxacin were treated with pristinamycin.

292 the same class, including clarithromycin and moxifloxacin, were unknown.

293 .5-12.4% for levofloxacin, and 0.9-14.6% for moxifloxacin when tested at 0.5 mug/mL.

294 In contrast, moxifloxacin, which is active in vitro against a subpopu

295 losis in which we exposed M. tuberculosis to moxifloxacin with a pharmacokinetic half-life of decline

296 cy and safety of a single daily oral dose of moxifloxacin with oral combination therapy in low-risk f

297 Six-month daily combinations of moxifloxacin with pyrazinamide, ethionamide, or ethambut

298 The combination of moxifloxacin with the experimental nitroimidazopyran PA-

299 clinical patients taking different doses of moxifloxacin would achieve or exceed the drug-exposure b

300 posure-response surface identified linezolid-moxifloxacin zones of synergy, antagonism, and additivit