ライフサイエンスコーパス: moxifloxacin

1 ients randomized (n = 276 lefamulin; n = 275 moxifloxacin).

2 (69.2-77.6% for omadacycline; 68.0-79.7% for moxifloxacin).

3 66 for linezolid and 3.80 +/- 1.34 hours for moxifloxacin.

4 ferent levels of resistance to ofloxacin and moxifloxacin.

5 received intravenous or oral levofloxacin or moxifloxacin.

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

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

8 es in the cleaved DNA as the fluoroquinolone moxifloxacin.

9 ular death when prescribing azithromycin and moxifloxacin.

10 rapamil reduced tolerance to bedaquiline and moxifloxacin.

11 tients in group 2, who received intracameral moxifloxacin.

12 tered, and was most commonly associated with moxifloxacin.

13 corneal infections were treated with topical moxifloxacin.

14 ositive bacterial corneal ulcer and received moxifloxacin.

15 amikacin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, and moxifloxacin.

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

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

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

19 r isoniazid, rifampicin and pyrazinamide and moxifloxacin.

20 events were 2.9% for lefamulin and 4.4% for moxifloxacin.

21 MG persisted for another 89-186 days before moxifloxacin.

22 th the bactericidal potency of isoniazid and moxifloxacin.

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

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

25 No adverse events were due to IC moxifloxacin.

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

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

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

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

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

35 dergoing sequential therapy with doxycycline-moxifloxacin (201 patients, including 21 with failure) o

36 ceived 56 days of the B(200)PaZ regimen plus moxifloxacin 400 mg daily (BPaMZ).

37 Men with persistent NGU received moxifloxacin 400 mg for 14 days.

38 00 mg daily for 3 days), and resistant cases moxifloxacin (400 mg daily, 7 days).

39 ily for 3 days) and resistant cases received moxifloxacin (400 mg daily, 7 days).

40 00 mg every 12 hours for 5 days; n = 370) or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours for 7 days; n = 368)

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

42 oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours), respectively, was

43 hen 100 mg intravenously every 24 hours), or moxifloxacin (400 mg intravenously every 24 hours).

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

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

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

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

48 in each treatment group (omadacycline 74.6%, moxifloxacin 77.6%).

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

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

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

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

53 Repeated use of topical moxifloxacin after IVT injection significantly increases

54 oxacin was more efficacious than doxycycline-moxifloxacin against infections carrying the parC mutati

55 8-Methyl-moxifloxacin was more potent than moxifloxacin against WT M. tuberculosis gyrase and displ

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

57 iotic treatment varied, with 20.8% receiving moxifloxacin alone, 20.8% receiving fortified cefazolin

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

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

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

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

62 2 months followed by one weekly dose of both moxifloxacin and 1200 mg of rifapentine for 4 months.

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

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

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

66 Resistance to moxifloxacin and ceftazidime in cultured isolates at bas

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

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

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

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

71 growth of C. burnetii in axenic media, with moxifloxacin and doxycycline being bacteriostatic and ri

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

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

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

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

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

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

80 Moxifloxacin and other fluoroquinolones are important th

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

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

83 roquinolone activity, and prevalence of both moxifloxacin and pyrazinamide resistance.

84 248T/S83I mutations contribute to failure of moxifloxacin and sitafloxacin, and the findings will inf

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

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

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

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

89 54 (37%) to ciprofloxacin, 16 of 47 (34%) to moxifloxacin, and 3 of 13 (23%) to gatifloxacin.

90 after implementation of routine intracameral moxifloxacin, and acute postoperative endophthalmitis ra

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

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

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

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

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

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

97 of combinations of bedaquiline, pretomanid, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide in the first 8 weeks of t

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

99 mikacin, ciprofloxacin, imipenem, linezolid, moxifloxacin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

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

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

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

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

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

105 150 mg intravenously (IV) every 12 hours or moxifloxacin at 400 mg IV every 24 hours.

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

107 Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin, based on a new ECR endpoint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120 en-label, randomized trial to test whether a moxifloxacin-containing treatment regimen was superior t

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

122 ations compared with adults receiving 400 mg moxifloxacin daily.

123 Moxifloxacin demonstrated no significant independent inh

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

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

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

127 The replacement of ethambutol with moxifloxacin did not significantly improve either cultur

128 tes were 90.8% with lefamulin and 90.8% with moxifloxacin (difference, 0.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -4.4%

129 Higher moxifloxacin dosages may be required in children.

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

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

132 At pH of 4.75, 5.25, and 5.75 moxifloxacin, doxycycline, and rifampin are effective at

133 chloramphenicol, delafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, eravacycline, minocycline, omadacycline, p

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

135 ance to pyrazinamide, ethambutol, kanamycin, moxifloxacin, ethionamide, or clofazimine.

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

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

138 luoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) exposure was compared between hospitals wi

139 Patients taking moxifloxacin faced a significantly higher risk of hypogl

140 Moxifloxacin failure occurred in 12% of patients who rec

141 ParC mutations implicated in moxifloxacin failure were present in 15-22% of macrolide

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

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

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

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

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

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

148 ith minimum inhibitory concentration against moxifloxacin for all isolates.

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

150 Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin for early clinical response (81.1% and 82.7

151 Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for ECR (87.3% vs 90.2%, respectively; diff

152 The substitution of moxifloxacin for ethambutol produced promising results f

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

154 Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the primary efficacy endpoints and was

155 Omadacycline was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired bac

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

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

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

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

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

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

162 s reported in 86 participants (87.8%) in the moxifloxacin group and 93 participants (94.9%) in the co

163 tion (M95I or D99N) (P = .07 for doxycycline-moxifloxacin group and P = .009 for doxycycline-sitaflox

164 s, interquartile range [IQR] 4.0-8.3) in the moxifloxacin group than the control group (7.9 weeks, IQ

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

166 hs (8 in the omadacycline group and 4 in the moxifloxacin group) occurred during the trial.

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

168 5.2%] in lefamulin group and 7/368 [1.9%] in moxifloxacin group).

169 % [27/98] vs 12.2% [12/98]; P = .012) in the moxifloxacin group.

170 e omadacycline group and 388 patients in the moxifloxacin group.

171 2.2%] in lefamulin group and 4/368 [1.1%] in moxifloxacin group; nausea: 19/368 [5.2%] in lefamulin g

172 cline group and 48.5% of the patients in the moxifloxacin group; the most frequent events were gastro

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

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

175 Moxifloxacin has bright intrinsic multiphoton fluorescen

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

177 5 hours to BAK (0.001%, 0.002%, and 0.003%), moxifloxacin hydrochloride (0.5%), and moxifloxacin (0.5

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

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

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

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

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

183 The efficacy of doxycycline and moxifloxacin improved at higher pH, whereas rifampin act

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

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

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

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

188 These findings support the inclusion of moxifloxacin in resistance-guided strategies and extend

189 These findings support the inclusion of moxifloxacin in resistance-guided strategies and extend

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

191 ess were 87.5% with lefamulin and 89.1% with moxifloxacin in the modified ITT population (difference,

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

193 Isoniazid- and moxifloxacin-induced mycobacterial death correlated with

194 y postoperative infection after intracameral moxifloxacin introduction was lower for patients undergo

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

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

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

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

199 Hypoxic necrotizing lesions rendered moxifloxacin less active.

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

201 ast one WHO Group A drug and specific use of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, bedaquiline, or linezolid we

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

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

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

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

206 25), isoniazid (<=0.25), ethambutol (<=2.0), moxifloxacin (<=0.5), levofloxacin (<=1.0), amikacin (<=

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

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

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

210 Moxifloxacin mediates the relationship between causative

211 9.5%) isolates resistant to gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin, members of the C-8-methoxyfluoroquinolones

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

213 pin [RIF], isoniazid [INH], linezolid [LZD], moxifloxacin [MFX], clofazimine [CFZ], pyrazinamide [PZA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

222 12.54%, 4.61%, 7.45% and 9.58% for amikacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin and capreomycin, respectively, a

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

224 men (9 to 11 months) that included high-dose moxifloxacin or a long regimen (20 months) that followed

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

226 ed, either linezolid or placebo was added to moxifloxacin or lefamulin, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

234 84.6% of solithromycin patients and 88.6% of moxifloxacin patients achieved clinical success at SFU b

235 79.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.7% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference

236 80.3% of solithromycin patients and 79.1% of moxifloxacin patients achieved ECR (treatment difference

237 ieved in 81.1% and 82.7% of omadacycline and moxifloxacin patients, respectively.

238 Without IC moxifloxacin, PCR increased the endophthalmitis rate nea

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

240 patients with failed sequential doxycycline-moxifloxacin (present in 76.2% of failures vs 7.8% cures

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

242 Moxifloxacin produced an increased hazard for uveitis at

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

244 Routine IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis achieved a highly significant,

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

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

247 Routine IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis reduced the overall endophthalm

248 During 2015, routine intracameral moxifloxacin prophylaxis was added in a step-wise fashio

249 Intracameral moxifloxacin prophylaxis was associated with a nearly 4-

250 used to create group 1 (without intracameral moxifloxacin prophylaxis) and group 2 (with intracameral

251 prophylaxis) and group 2 (with intracameral moxifloxacin prophylaxis).

252 160 eyes of charity patients who received IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis, and group 3 consisted of 40 77

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

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

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

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

257 Moxifloxacin RAVs (gyrA codon 90) were a dilution or two

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

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

260 Moxifloxacin remains the most effective therapy, but tre

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

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

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

264 Patients receiving intracameral moxifloxacin showed approximately 2.5-times lower odds o

265 ortened APD equally during acute and chronic moxifloxacin superfusion.

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

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

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

269 We present data on RGT using doxycycline-moxifloxacin, the regimen recommended in international g

270 ow present the data on RGT using doxycycline-moxifloxacin, the regimen recommended in international g

271 cell wall damage induced by bedaquiline and moxifloxacin through secondary effects downstream from t

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

273 alance in mortality (2%, compared with 1% in moxifloxacin-treated patients) was observed in the phase

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

275 monstrated noninferiority of omadacycline to moxifloxacin using this endpoint.

276 ure conversion at the end of 8 weeks (83.0% [moxifloxacin] vs 78.5% [control]; P = .463); however, th

277 ce interval [CI], 89.7-98.0) and doxycycline-moxifloxacin was 92.0% (95% CI, 88.1-94.6).

278 was 95.4% (95% CI 89.7-98.0) and doxycycline-moxifloxacin was 92.0%(88.1-94.6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

286 The MIC to moxifloxacin was measured by E test.

287 8-Methyl-moxifloxacin was more potent than moxifloxacin against W

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

289 Moxifloxacin was well tolerated in children treated for

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

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

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

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

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

295 .5-12.4% for levofloxacin, and 0.9-14.6% for moxifloxacin when tested at 0.5 mug/mL.

296 eyes (group 1) did not receive intracameral moxifloxacin, whereas 19 086 eyes (group 2) did.

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

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

299 oral lefamulin was noninferior to 7-day oral moxifloxacin with respect to early clinical response at

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