Ciprofloxacin Prolonged‐Release Tablets Do Not Affect Warfarin Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the pharmacokinetics of warfarin and ciprofloxacin PR (a prolonged-release formulation of ciprofloxacin) were altered after coadministration. Eighteen healthy male volunteers were given a single oral 7.5-mg dose of warfarin, a single oral 500-mg dose of ciprofloxacin PR, or both drugs administered together in a randomized, open-label, 3-way crossover study. Ciprofloxacin concentrations, warfarin (R)- and (S)-enantiomer concentrations, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time were measured over 120 hours following study drug administration. There were no significant differences in pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters among treatments. A slightly greater value of half-life for (R)-warfarin was observed when coadministered with ciprofloxacin PR compared with warfarin administered alone (52.6 vs 50.1 hours, P = .029). This difference is not considered clinically relevant, because the values remain similar. These results show that warfarin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are not altered with concomitant administration of ciprofloxacin PR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".