Talk:Cefalexin

older entries

What does this drug do??? What is it used for??? Anyone know what it does???

Cefalexin is an antibiotic prescibed to patients for treating a variety of infections icluding chest(respitratory tract),urinary tract, skin ands soft tissues, ear, and other infections due to sensitive organisms.

A patient who was allergic to penicillin had symptoms that included a bad cough and regularly coughing up sputum, a general feeling of weakness. His sputum was sent for anlaysis and the diagnosis was that he streptococcus pneumomniae. A course of Cefalexin 21 x 500 mg capsules to be taken three times a day was prescribed. Results of the treatment will be posted.12:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sexdrive?

Will Cephalexin affect my sex drive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.49.221 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

@previous comment. I've been on a course of cephalexin for the last 4 days, 500mg 3XD and wondered the very same thing. It appears to be affecting my libido as well. Quite possibly this is related to the nausea and physical discomfort often experienced as a side effect to this drug. 2602:306:BDD4:1CF0:B92B:DD30:C08C:7BEE (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Jack

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. —Tamfang (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ERROR !!!

This article lists "Oxy Contin" as another trade name for this antibiotic.

Oxycontin is a powerful analgesic... An NOT an antibiotic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.61.89 (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cephalexin or Cefalexin

There seems to be some dispute suggesting that, for this drug alone, the normal convention for US spelling vs international spelling is actually in reverse. I dispute this, as there are several references that prove fairly conclusively that Cephalexin is indeed the international English spelling. I personally work in the medical field outside of US and I can say with absolute certainty that Cefalexin with an f is never, ever used. MIMS, the primary textbook here, lists Cephalexin. MIMS USA, on the other hand, lists it as Cefalexin. US spelling for all things, which includes medical words, simplifies words, removing things like "ph" to be replaced with "f". I think it is foolish to suggest that for this drug and this drug alone the US convention is reversed. Cephalexin is very definitely spelled with a "ph" in countries outside the US. 203.45.11.48 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the international convention for drug names is indeed to use "f" instead of "ph"; the U.S. convention for United States Adopted Names still uses "ph" for several drugs. This may seem counterintuitive, but it is so.

"Cefalexin" is the International Nonproprietary Name and "cephalexin" is the United States Adopted Name and former British Approved Name. If you're outside the US and use "cephalexin", then you're probably in a country where Commonwealth English is spoken. Some places, such as Australia and Hong Kong, may still use "cephalexin" as a remnant of the British Approved Name, which is no longer spelled with a "ph" but with an "f". In Australia, for instance, the Therapeutic Goods Administration still recommends "cephalexin", as the TGA approved names list was last updated before the British name change came into effect, in 2001 or 1999 if I'm not mistaken. If you need more reputable sources, here you go—straight from the United States Pharmacopeia, which uses cefalexin as the example for USAN entries:

Cephalexin [1967] (sef a lex' in). USP. C16H17N3O4S.H2O. 365.41. [Cefalexin is INN, BAN and JAN.]

(http://www.usp.org/pdf/EN/products/usp_product_usan_content_illustration.pdf)

Also, from the British National Formulary:

European Law requires use of the Recommended International Non-proprietary Name (rINN) for medicinal substances. In most cases the British Approved Name (BAN) and rINN were identical. Where the two differed, the BAN was modified to accord with the rINN. The following list shows those substances for which the former BAN has been modified to accord with the rINN. Former BANs have been retained as synonyms in the BNF.

...

Former BAN: cephalexin

New BAN: cefalexin

(BNF 57, page xiii).

Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case in one situation, it certainly isn't universally. MIMS, the internationally recognised guide for drug names, uses Cefalexin in USA and Cephalexin outside. I put the link in, and am confused why you felt the need to delete it. MIMS is the number 1 authority on such things, and MIMS disagrees with you. 203.45.11.48 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The inline URL you have in the intro paragraph (http://www.mims.com/Page.aspx?menuid=mng&name=cefalexin) doesn't work. Maybe it only works for a logged in mims subscriber? If so you should fix the URL to a publicly accessible and citable source. If you can't find an alternative, I'll come back and clean it up or remove it in the next day or two. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 06:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a CAPTCHA on it. I've verified it and yes, the reference shows the drug to be officially named cefalexin in the US - Alison ^❤ 06:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@203.: MIMS doesn't disagree with me, it disagrees with Martindale, the British National Formulary, the World Health Organisation and the FDA :)

I have no idea why MIMS uses this spelling—it's usually a reliable source. Cefalexin with an "f" is not the official US spelling, as a quick search of Drugs@FDA (official U.S. gov't source) or the Merck Manual will show. I've asked for some further input at WT:MED. I won't revert again, but have notified the user and slapped {{disputed}} on the article Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

MIMS really seems to disagree with everyone else. The German Arzneistoff-Profile ("Drug Profiles") lists "cefalexin (INN German, English; BAN), cefalexinum (INN Latin)" (among other INN language versions, all spelled with f) and "cephalexin" as an additional synonym, but not as an INN. Cefalexin monohydrate is spelled with f in the European and British Pharmacopoeae and with ph in the USP, according to Arzneistoff-Profile. The spelling with ph is also listed as USAN for cefalexin monohydrate (!). The original entry in the WHO list of proposed INNs is here (page 6). Hope that helps. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is reasonable to list both spellings in the lead (the order doesn't matter much), and make sure there is a redirect from the alternate spelling (as there is). (Strangely enough, I live in the US, take this drug sometimes, and the label on my bottle spells it with a "ph". But that's anecdotal.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's totally OR, but a friend of mine was just prescribed this medicine in the US and it is listed with a "ph" on the pharmacy label on the vial. Obviously not dispositive, but let's not go to the "f" without further confirmation. -- But|seriously|folks  18:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, seriously, what more confirmation do we need until we are sure that the INN is spelled with "f"? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

None? :) Seriously, if it hadn't been for the MIMS issue, this would have been much more straightforward. We now have:

• A reference from Martindale clearing up the INN/BAN/USAN issue
• A reference from the British National Formulary clearing up the INN/BAN issue
• A reference from the United States Pharmacopeia showing the "cephalexin" entry and noting that "cefalexin" is the INN
• A reference noting that the European Pharmacopoeia and the BP adopt "cefalexin"
• The original WHO document enacting "cefalexin" as the INN
• Two anecdotal reports of the drug being prescribed, packaged and sold as "cephalexin" in the United States.

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the US, I've seen a lot of cephalexin in my day, and it has always been spelled "cephalexin", both on scripts and on pharmacy labels. That's anecdotal, of course, but what the heck. I personally think we should just include both spellings in the lead, label one as the INN, and dodge the controversy by not labeling an "official" US/British spelling. MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think from what I have researched, it is called Cephalexin virtually everywhere. Here are the results of the Google test:

• [1] - Cefalexin worldwide (774,000 hits)
• [2] - Cephalexin worldwide (24,100,000 hits)
• [3] - Cephalexin Australia (368,000 hits)
• [4] - Cefalexin Australia (4,100 hits)

I know that Google tests aren't everything but seriously there is copious evidence that Cefalexin is not the accepted spelling.

One post, from the usually reliable http://www.mtstars.com/ (whose point is to have medical words spelled correctly), a USA-based website, states that Cefalexin is the correct spelling in the US and no medical typist corrected them.

I think, on the basis of this, we have evidence to rename the article to Cephalexin and to put Cefalexin as a rarely used alternative spelling. 203.45.11.48 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On Mondofacto: Cephalexin & Cefalexin (that is a British [5] medical dictionary).

If INN, used by Britain and Britain alone, uses Cefalexin, why do their medical dictionaries list it as Cephalexin? At a bare minimum, we have to accept that the use of Cefalexin is not being adopted really anywhere. The name of this article should change and just list Cefalexin as an alternative, rarely used, spelling.

Also I note that INN varies country to country, even though Wikipedia's page on it doesn't mention this. 203.45.11.48 (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is still used in Australia because the Therapeutic Goods Administration has not harmonized its drug names with INNs. Hence, the use of "lignocaine", "amoxycillin", and "frusemide" for years after the UK had switched to "lidocaine", "amoxicillin", and "furosemide".

INN varies by language, not by country. There are Latin, English, French, and Spanish INNs for all drugs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to bother continuing with this conversation, which seems more like talking to a brick wall than anything else. The solution is clear. I will leave it to others to make the decision. 203.45.11.48 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While it may seem otherwise, I do understand your point, and it is a good argument. Fortunately or unfortunately, though (I happen to believe the former), we do not use the Google test for naming medical articles. We use ICD-10 for diseases and the INN for drugs, even when they are not the most widely used names, because they constitute "a neutral and common convention specific to [the] subject domain", as per policy.

From our manual of style on medicine-related articles:

"The article title is subject to the same sourcing standards as the article content. Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research. Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought." For drugs, that international standard is the INN.

I apologize if I appear intransigent—that was not my intention at all—and I especially apologize if your first (?) exposure to the inner workings of Wikipedia has been unpleasant. I will also leave it to others to decide the best course of action and implement it. My only interest is to see this article present the two spellings accurately; that's all. It may not seem like much, but this precedent (our naming convention)—and any change made to it—affects thousands of other pages. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have WP:MEDMOS and (in general) go with the INN, and not waste time arguing over such matters. Given UK General Practictice computer systems have to have INN compliant drug formularies, the only thing I ever prescribe is Cefalexin. However hospital microbiology systems may report bacterial sensitivies to cephalexin - but that just shows either never updated to change in British BAN, or using a foreign system that is equally non compliant. David Ruben ^Talk 04:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies from my side, too. I wasn't aware of how important this matter was to you, 203.45.11.48. The whole reason why we have a Manual of Style is to avoid such problems (just as it avoids discussions like "16 September 2010" vs "September 16th, 2010", and many more such things). As mentioned above, this means that using the INN for title is an absolute must unless we start a discussion about changing the Manual, which would probably mean renaming thousands of pages. The downside of this rule, from an US point of view, is of course that the page titles often differ from the spellings you are used to. I assure you that "Cephalexin" looks just as strange to me as a European as "Cefalexin" probably looks to you; and while most of Europe isn't English-language territory, I assure you that we are part of "virtually everywhere" just as much as the US and Australia ;-) Best regards, --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As a physician licensed in the United States, the "parent" article, and the politics involved within the confines of this talk page have the potential to confuse someone seeking information on the medication which is not included within the counseling monograph(s) provided by the pharmacy. While I am suspicious of much information provided on the internet, Wikipedia has been a lone oasis of trust, in my opinion. All politics aside, the objective of providing information with clarity should be foremost. I see no harm in listing both U.K. and U.S. naming convention variants with a disclaimer. Wikipedia should modify the "Manual of Style" policy in consideration of safety, for this, and the other topic: medication(s)articles. There is a similar situation within the "Pethidine" (Meperidine, USP) article and talk pages. This, and other "sword fights" are unnecessary. PA MD0351XXE (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your praise ("Wikipedia has been a lone oasis of trust"). Much appreciated. I agree that both names should be mentioned at the start of the article, and they are, which is in harmony with the Manual of Style. The dispute here was mainly about which of the two names should be used a the title of the article, as this can only be one or the other. If you type the other name (cephalexin) into the search box, you are automatically redirected to this page. The same is true for the article about pethidine/meperidine, which also mentions both names right at the start. Hope that explains. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Side Effects?

I have taken this medication twice now for various respiratory problems, and each time it has generated a foul taste in the back of my throat. I've attempted to do some basic web research to see if this is a common side effect, but most Google searches result in advertisements and distributors. Does anyone know if this is a documented side effect? If so, should it be added to the list of side effects here? FrankCarroll (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a documented side effect; at least, I can't find it in the documentation. What was the taste like? I suspect that cefalexin has a bitter taste, and unless you were taking a coated tablet, it might have been just the taste. Some antibiotics (like clarithromycin) can result in a metallic taste, but I've never heard that of cefalexin. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It was more like rotten eggs. I guess if its just the taste of the medication then there's not much to be done. FrankCarroll (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The only information about taste/smell I found is "characteristic smell", whatever that means. The taste of bad eggs is quite common for sulfur-containing organic compounds. Anyway, a bad taste is nothing dangerous. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently taking this drug and I can confirm this. The sulfur in this compound (and many antibiotics I've noticed, i.e. amoxicillin) is very apparent. If I belch a few minutes after taking cefalexin, a smell resembling rotten eggs indeed comes up from my esophagus. Just open the bottle and smell, it smells like a big fart. lol --184.43.9.243 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The user known as "Anypodetos" removed what I had added about the side effect of appetite suppressant. I have been on Keflex for over a week, and it has totally eliminated my hunger drive. I have to force myself to eat, and at times I have had to skip a dosage because my stomach is not up to pills. Stopde (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Stopde, I would imagine that your comments about your appetite were removed because this antibiotic is not an appetite suppressant in the same way as some stimulants may be. If cephalexin has decreased your appetite it is because of the stomach discomfort, nausea, or general malaise which are reported as common side effects from this and other antibiotics. It's not so much that this medicine suppresses the appetite as it just makes some people not feel like eating. Sounds like semantics, but it really is a difference. 2602:306:BDD4:1CF0:B92B:DD30:C08C:7BEE (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Jack

Hello!

Hello Everyone!

My colleagues, User:J. A. Leavitt and User:Carly-pharm, and I are pharmacy students at the University of Waterloo completing independent research projects on editing Wikipedia. Our goal is to improve the readability of antibiotic articles that are backed by reputable sources. We want to contribute to making Wikipedia accessible, understandable, and accurate for all Wikipedia readers to promote antimicrobial stewardship. We are working alongside pharmacy professor (Pharm D), a pharmacy school librarian (PHD candidate) and User:Doc James.

As a team, we would like to revise the Cefalexin page so that it can be used as a standard for updating other Wikipedia pages. We welcome any feedback regarding our edits.

On February 2nd 2015, I attempted to make three editorials on the ‘Adverse Effects’ section of the page under the username MaeCar16 (I recently changed my name to User:C.G.Pharmacy). User:Iztwoz reversed my edits where I had replaced some words and removal in an attempt to sound more laymen. I was impressed by how attentive Wikipedia users are towards ensuring the most accurate knowledge is portrayed. I would greatly welcome any feedback on my edits.

Thank you,

--C.G.Pharmacy (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all welcome. The edit you refer to is this one I image [6]

My grammar is not good but typically one uses "are" rather than "is" when more than one item is involved. Agree that some in the list are symptoms and some are signs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Doc James. Should I edit the sentence to say "Signs and Symptoms" instead?

--C.G.Pharmacy (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh excellent! I see your edit. --C.G.Pharmacy (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you write [[User:Doc James]] it will than notify me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.G.Pharmacy (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Standard Lead - 4th Paragraph

Would it be beneficial for the average reader to have information on how to take the medication (duration, missed dose, storage, disposal) such as that on drugs.com in the 4th paragraph instead of the history, society, culture? This would allow us to emphasize the importance of taking for the duration prescribed - no longer, no shorter. We could then move the history, society and culture further down. pharmerJAL (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we put greater emphasis on history society and culture. We can add the other details you mention to the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks User:Doc James pharmerJAL (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)