Moxifloxacin—Warfarin Interaction: A Series of Five Case Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report 5 cases of a moxifloxacin-warfarin drug interaction, all resulting in elevated international normalized ratios (INRs) and clinically significant hemorrhage in one case. CASE SUMMARIES: Between January 2002 and January 2004, 4 men and 1 woman (age range 63-92 y) were retrospectively identified as having significantly elevated INR results shortly after being prescribed moxifloxacin with concomitant warfarin therapy. DISCUSSION: This is the second series of case reports describing an interaction between warfarin and moxifloxacin. The current moxifloxacin product monograph indicates this drug has no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of R- or S-warfarin or the prothrombin time (INR). A moxifloxacin-warfarin interaction probably led to prolonged hospitalization in 2 cases and significant gastrointestinal hemorrhage in one case. In 3 of the 5 cases, a moxifloxacin-warfarin interaction was assessed as probable, and in the remaining 2 cases, a moxifloxacin-warfarin interaction was assessed as possible by use of the Naranjo probability scale. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals should consider moxifloxacin for the potential to interact with warfarin. Routine, frequent INR monitoring for patients previously stabilized on warfarin during initiation and discontinuation of moxifloxacin may help detect this potential interaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".