Jump to content

Talk:Linezolid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.0.205.237 (talk) at 16:34, 27 September 2014 (→‎hypoglycemia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleLinezolid is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 14, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 19, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 21, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconPharmacology FA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

It is not the only antibiotic that inhibits protein synthesis but it is the most efficient one. There are certain strains that cannot be inhibited by any other antibiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.218.193 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Are you sure that this is the only antibiotic that works by inhibiting protein synthesis? Macrolides, aminoglycosides, chloramphenicol, and tetracycline are all protein synthesis inhibitors, not just linezolid.

Streptogramins too, but these generally inhibit protein elongation, not initiation, I think

The scientific meaning of antibiotic is that it is a natural product produced by some fungi (living system). This may be then completely synthesized as the case with chloramphenicol. Actually I didn't find any literature that discussed linezolid natural production; so I prefere to categorize it as an antibacterial rather than antibiotic as in case of quinolones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.34.125.138 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cost

I really think the cost of this medication is worthy of a mention. I just checked with my insurance it costs $1,209.07 for 20 600mg pills. That is over $40/pill--K8TEK 13:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Cost Yes, The cost is prohibitive. My insurance covered my prescription but 28 tablets was at $2000.00.re;cost


Cost is especially prohibitive if you are uninsured. Having to pay for a 30 day supply of Zyvox out of pocket cost me over $1500. --MathewBrooks 17:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I live in Australia and am on long term treatment wity Zyvox. I am a public patient and and pay absolutely nothing. There is much to be said about our just health care system. Adrian58.161.106.31 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Do you have a reference for Canadian pharmacy costs? It's still under patent in Canada, and public formularies (such as ODB) still pay $75 for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.57.97 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

extent and mechanism of resistance

Could anyone start a section on the extent and mechanism of resistance ? Rod57 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit of information. Needs to be expanded to include worldwide data, mention of outbreaks and increasing endemic resistance in hospitals/ICUs etc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Linezolid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comments to follow soon jimfbleak (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • images all OK, query "click to enlarge" on two images, since thumbed anyway
  • references first quick scan of refs - seem reliable and consistently and correctly formatted. It would be good practice to write the journal names in full (required if you go to FAC).
  • several thousands of dollars suggest several thousand US dollars (unless you mean Canadian)
  • some padding however for instance and similar sprinkled throughout
    • That's a terrible habit of mine. Please feel free to remove any you find unnecessary—I'll have a go at it myself.
  • MIC90 - would it be better to spell out this - a casual reader has no chance of knowing the abbreviation?
  • There is no mention of use or approval outside the UK and N America. Whilst I wouldn't want this to become a list, and I appreciate the difficulty of working with non-English sources, it looks a bit Anglo-centric. Not a deal breaker, but anything else would help to round it out - is it widely used in the EU or Japan for example?

You obviously know what you are doing, I'll give you a while to respond before a final read and formal assessment jimfbleak (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please feel free to list anything else you think could or should be improved. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I wish they were all this easy! jimfbleak (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't think it would be this easy either :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does the paragraph starting with "In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion and entered a corporate integrity agreement to settle charges that it had misbranded and illegally promoted four drugs, and caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs. . ." have to do with linezolid? NOTHING. It's editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oirudleahcim (talk • contribs) 02:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. sales in 2008

Nearly 250 million dollars in retail sales. Should work into the article somehow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S. pneumoniae

Staphylococcus pneumoniae is a classification mistake.streptococcos pneumoniae or diplococcus pneumoniae is the correct classification <e-mail redacted for privacy reasons> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.126.1 (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thank you so much for catching this. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

It's been over a year since promotion, so I'm planning to do a broad update of the article using WP:MEDRS published since then. Not likely to change much, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hypoglycemia

For possible use in article: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/8/e93.full

Abstract Hypoglycemia was not previously known to be a linezolid-associated adverse reaction. A case report describing symptomatic hypoglycemia in a linezolid recipient prompted a review of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System, which demonstrated a relationship between linezolid and hypoglycemia. A warning with this information was added to the linezolid package insert.

50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linezolid&oldid=627295901"