Talk:Clindamycin

Clindamycin has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 15, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Medicine: Translation Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Clindamycin.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Briannaflo0520.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): N1234c.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

..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)[reply]

Acne

"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)

Since reworded, with appropriate citations. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom

I'll do a review for GA in the next few days. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Main first-thoughts issue: "Mechanism of action" and "Interactions" are very short sections which largely repeat each other: compare in a similar way to erythromycin, azithromycin and chloramphenicol, by binding to the 50S subunit of the bacterial ribosome. This causes antagonism if administered simultaneously with those drugs, and possible cross-resistance. with Its similarity to the mechanism of action of macrolides and chloramphenicol means they should not be given simultaneously, as this causes antagonism and possible cross-resistance. The duplication needs to go, but that would make one of the sections too short - can they be rolled up or reorganised?
Yes, I noticed that (the duplication). I'll reword the "Interactions" section; it will get shorter, but there really aren't that many clinically relevant interactions of clindamycin to begin with AFAIK. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone the other way round (more logical): kept that info in the "Interactions" section and removed it from "Mechanism of action". I've also added a note on study of the complex between clindamycin and the ribosome, and the fact that a crystal structure of the complex has been published. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a photo of the product available? (not essential)
I don't think so. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acanya

The incorrect spelling of the product "Arcanya" was corrected to the correct spelling, "Acanya". 29 May 2009

Good Article nomination

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:

I've made a few minor tweaks, can't see anything else, so PASS Jimfbleak (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can u drink on this medical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.87.102 (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from other antibiotics?

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

Brand names

'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)[reply]

Why is Clostridium difficile, inherently resistant to clindamycin

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)[reply]

An ENT doctor told me this, and I came here to read more about it. I'd also like to know why/how, etc...Tym Whittier (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scleroderma

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)[reply]

D-Test and its implications when choosing antibiotic therapy.

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)[reply]

Indications plus.

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)[reply]

Klimicin (clyndamicin) is also indicated, according to its in-box leaflet, versus bacteriological ginecology infections, which field of application is currently not mentioned in this article. In this relation, the leaflet also mentions that clyndamicin treatment nullifies the efficiency of orally taken contraceptives. 87.97.99.181 (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effects on some eucaryotic parasites

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)[reply]

Not Expensive?

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)[reply]

Relatively it is not very expensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find here or in the German Wikipedia article anything about this drug's development. With clinched teeth, I persisted and found a link at the end to "Drugs developed by Pfizer." I didn't look, for the title satisfied my curiosity. The article needs that and the date and whether Pfizer was extending its catalog with this variation of the older drug or had rights to do so from an original developer. 217.252.138.207 (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]