This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Noel, A. R. Articles by MacGowan, A. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Noel, A. R. Articles by MacGowan, A. P.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, October 2005, p. 4234-4239, Vol. 49, No. 10
0066-4804/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.49.10.4234-4239.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Pharmacodynamics of Moxifloxacin against Anaerobes Studied in an In Vitro Pharmacokinetic Model

Bristol Centre for Antimicrobial Research & Evaluation, University of Bristol and North Bristol, NHS Trust Department of Medical Microbiology, Southmead Hospital, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, United Kingdom

Received 31 December 2004/ Returned for modification 27 March 2005/ Accepted 18 July 2005

The antibacterial effects of moxifloxacin against Bacteroides fragilis, Clostridium perfringens, and gram-positive anaerobic cocci (GPAC) were studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model. Initially, a dose-ranging study with area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)/MIC ratios of 6.7 to 890 was used to investigate the effect of anaerobic conditions on the AUC/MIC antibacterial effect (ABE) relationship with Escherichia coli. The AUC/MIC ratios for 50% and 90% effects, using a log CFU drop at 24 h as the antibacterial effect measure, were 34 and 59, respectively, aerobic and 54 and 96, respectively, anaerobic. These values are not significantly different. Dose ranging at AUC/MIC ratios of 9 to 216 against the anaerobes indicated a differing AUC/MIC ABE pattern, and the AUC/MICs for 50% and 90% effects were lower: for B. fragilis, they were 10.5 and 25.7, respectively; for C. perfringens, they were 8.6 and 16.2; and for GPAC, they were 7.3 and 17.4. The maximum-effect log drops were as follows: for B. fragilis, –3.2 ± 0.2 logs; for C. perfringens, –3.7 ± 0.1 logs; and for GPAC, –2.5 ± 0.1 logs. Although the anaerobes were not eradicated, there was no emergence of resistance. Comparison of the ABE of moxifloxacin to that of ertapenem against B. fragilis indicated that moxifloxacin was superior at 24 h and 48 h. In contrast, ertapenem was superior to moxifloxacin against GPAC at 24 h and 48 h and against C. perfringens at 48 h. Both drugs performed equivalently against C. perfringens at 24 h. Monte Carlo simulations using human serum AUC data and an AUC/MIC anaerobe target of 7.5 suggests a >90% target achievement at MICs of <2 mg/liter. This divides the B. fragilis wild-type MIC distribution. The pharmacodynamic properties of moxifloxacin against anaerobes are different than those against aerobic species. The clinical implications of these differences need further exploration.