This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hardy, D.
Right arrow Articles by Rotstein, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hardy, D.
Right arrow Articles by Rotstein, C.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, March 2000, p. 802-805, Vol. 44, No. 3
0066-4804/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparative In Vitro Activities of Ciprofloxacin, Gemifloxacin, Grepafloxacin, Moxifloxacin, Ofloxacin, Sparfloxacin, Trovafloxacin, and Other Antimicrobial Agents against Bloodstream Isolates of Gram-Positive Cocci

Dwight Hardy,1 Daniel Amsterdam,2 Lionel A. Mandell,3 and Coleman Rotstein3,*

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Rochester, Rochester,1 and Department of Microbiology, Medicine, and Pathology, School of Medicine, University at Buffalo, and Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo,2 New York, and Division of Infectious Diseases, McMaster University, Henderson Site, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada3

Received 13 July 1999/Returned for modification 17 September 1999/Accepted 9 December 1999


    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References

The in vitro activity of gemifloxacin against 316 bloodstream isolates of staphylococci, pneumococci, and enterococci was compared with the activities of six fluoroquinolones and three other antimicrobial agents. Of the antimicrobial agents tested, gemifloxacin was the most potent against penicillin-intermediate and -resistant pneumococci, methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis isolates, and coagulase-negative staphylococci.


    TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References

Due to the increasing penicillin resistance among community-acquired Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates (3, 5), as well as the increasing resistance of staphylococci and enterococci to both beta lactams (2, 7) and glycopeptides (6, 10), physicians have sought to establish the efficacy of other antimicrobial agents against these problem pathogens. Newly developed fluoroquinolones such as trovafloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gemifloxacin are potential candidates for the treatment of penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae infections (1) and may also have utility in the treatment of certain staphylococcal and enterococcal infections.

Gemifloxacin, (R,S)-7-(3-aminomethyl-4-syn-methoxyimino-1-pyrrolidinyl)-1-cyclopropyl-6-fluoro-1,4-dihydro-4-oxo-1,8- naphthyridine-3-carboxylic acid methanesulfonate, exhibits broad-spectrum antibacterial activity (4). Among the fluoroquinolones, gemifloxacin putatively has enhanced activity against staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci (4). Therefore, we compared the in vitro activity of gemifloxacin against 316 bacteremic isolates of gram-positive cocci with those of ciprofloxacin, grepafloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and trovafloxacin in addition to three other respiratation-directed antimicrobial agents (amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cefuroxime, and azithromycin).

(This work was presented at the 21st International Congress of Chemotherapy, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 4 to 7 July 1999.)

All isolates were obtained from blood cultures of patients at one of three teaching hospitals: Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, N.Y.; the Henderson Site of Hamilton Health Sciences Corp., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; or Strong Memorial Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. The microorganisms were detected by BACTEC instrumentation (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument Systems, Sparks, Md.) at the Henderson and Erie County Medical Center sites and by BacT/Alert (Organon-Teknika, Durham, N.C.) at the Strong Memorial Hospital site. After initial recovery on 5% sheep blood agar, the isolates were preliminarily identified in the participating hospitals' clinical laboratories. Subcultures of the isolates were then transported to the clinical microbiology laboratory of Strong Memorial Hospital for final identification and susceptibility testing. The identity of purported Staphylococcus aureus isolates was confirmed by the tube coagulase test, using rabbit plasma. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were identified to the species level by the use of the Staph-Ident system (Analytab Products, Plainview, N.Y.). S. pneumoniae strains were characterized by bile solubility and optochin susceptibility. Enterococci were identified by the hydrolysis of esculin in the presence of bile and by growth in 6.5% sodium chloride. All enterococcal isolates were identified as Enterococcus faecalis or Enterococcus faecium according to results of biochemical profiles obtained by using the Vitek GPI Identification Card (bioMerieux Vitek Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.) or an API 20 Strep strip (bioMerieux Vitek Inc.).

Antimicrobial agent reference powders used in these studies were as follows: amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Collegeville, Pa.), cefuroxime (Glaxo-Wellcome, Research Triangle, N.C.), azithromycin (Pfizer Inc., Groton, Conn.), ciprofloxacin (Bayer Inc., West Haven, Conn.), ofloxacin (R. W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Raritan, N.J.), grepafloxacin (Glaxo-Wellcome), sparfloxacin (Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Collegeville, Pa.), gemifloxacin (SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Harlow, Essex, United Kingdom), moxifloxacin (Bayer Inc.), and trovafloxacin (Pfizer Inc.).

Broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed in accordance with the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards methodology (8). The reagent powders were dissolved in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, diluted with Mueller-Hinton broth, and distributed to the wells of microdilution trays. Each tray was inoculated with ~5 × 105 CFU per well to yield a final volume of 0.1 ml per well. The trays were incubated at 35°C for 24 h. Susceptibility testing for staphylococcal and enterococcal isolates was performed in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth. Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth with 3 to 5% lysed horse blood was employed for the susceptibility testing of pneumococci. Appropriate quality control strains were included in each run of daily testing. These included S. aureus ATCC 29213, S. pneumoniae ATCC 49619, and E. faecalis ATCC 29212. The recorded MICs of all of the antimicrobial agents were the lowest concentrations that completely inhibited visible growth of the test strain. Antimicrobial agent concentrations that inhibited growth of 50% (MIC50) and 90% (MIC90) of the strains and percentages of organisms susceptible were calculated in accordance with the current National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards interpretive breakpoints for amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cefuroxime, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin (9). For all isolates, we used a susceptibility breakpoint of <= 1 mg/liter for trovafloxacin. For sparfloxacin, a susceptibility breakpoint of <= 0.5 mg/liter was employed, while <= 2 mg/liter was the breakpoint used for ofloxacin. In contrast, for pneumococcal and enterococcal isolates, the breakpoint for grepafloxacin susceptibility was <= 0.5 mg/liter. However, for staphylococcal isolates, the breakpoint for grepafloxacin-susceptible strains was <= 1 mg/liter. Because no approved susceptibility breakpoints are available for gemifloxacin and moxifloxacin, the percentages of organisms susceptible to these two antimicrobial agents were not recorded.

The phenotypic distribution of the bloodstream isolates was as follows: methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, 42; methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), 49; penicillin-susceptible S. pneumoniae (PSSP), 22; penicillin-intermediate S. pneumoniae (PISP), 13; penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae (PRSP), 10; penicillin- and vancomycin-susceptible enterococci (PSVSE), 31 (21 E. faecalis and 10 E. faecium); penicillin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible enterococci (PRVSE), 29 (11 E. faecalis and 18 E. faecium); penicillin- and vancomycin-resistant enterococci 33 (all E. faecium isolates); methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis (MSSE), 22; methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE), 32; Staphylococcus haemolyticus, 10; Staphylococcus hominis, 10; and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species (CNS), 13.

The susceptibility results, expressed as MIC ranges, MIC50s, MIC90s, and percentages susceptible, are presented in Table 1. Of the drugs tested, gemifloxacin was the most active against PISP, PRSP, MSSE, and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species, attaining MIC90s of <= 0.03 mg/liter, while amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was the most potent against PSVSE and PRVSE. Gemifloxacin also proved to be active against MRSE, S. hominis, S. haemolyticus, and PSVSE, with MIC90s of <= 2 mg/liter. Trovafloxacin and moxifloxacin, in that order the next most potent fluoroquinolones, were fourfold less potent against PSSP, PISP, and PRSP than gemifloxacin and two- to fourfold less active against MSSE, MRSE, S. haemolyticus, and S. hominis than gemifloxacin. However, trovafloxacin exhibited the lowest MIC90s for methicillin-susceptible and -resistant S. aureus, <= 0.03 and 2 mg/liter, respectively, in comparison with gemifloxacin (0.03 and 8 mg/liter) and moxifloxacin (0.1 and 4 mg/liter). None of the fluoroquinolones exhibited any activity against PRVSE or penicillin- and vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1.   Comparative in vitro activities of antimicrobial agents

Among the fluoroquinolones tested, gemifloxacin demonstrated the most potent in vitro activity against commonly encountered PSSP, PISP, and PRSP bloodstream isolates. It also had significant activity against MSSE, MRSE, S. haemolyticus, and S. hominis but was not as active as trovafloxacin against S. aureus isolates. None of the fluoroquinolones tested appears to offer any clinically important activity against penicillin-resistant enterococcal strains. An assessment of gemifloxacin's clinical utility for gram-positive coccus infections must await comparative trails in humans.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by a grant from SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals.

We acknowledge the expert technical assistance of Mary Beth Ludlow and the expert secretarial assistance of Lois Deck.


    FOOTNOTES

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: McMaster Medical Unit, Henderson Site, Hamilton Health Sciences Corp., 711 Concession St., Hamilton, Ontario L8V 1C3, Canada. Phone: (905) 574-3301. Fax: (905) 575-7320. E-mail: crotstei{at}fhs.mcmaster.ca.


    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Text
References

1. Bartlett, J. G., R. F. Breiman, L. A. Mandell, and T. M. File, Jr. 1998. Community-acquired pneumonia in adults: guidelines for management. Clin. Infect. Dis. 26:811-838[Medline].
2. Boyce, J. M., S. M. Opal, G. Potter-Bynoe, R. G. LaForge, M. J. Zervos, G. Furtado, G. Victor, and A. A. Medeiros. 1992. Emergence and nosocomial transmission of ampicillin-resistant enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 36:1032-1039[Abstract/Free Full Text].
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1997. Surveillance for penicillin-nonsusceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae---New York City, 1995. Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep. 46:297-299[Medline].
4. Cormican, M. G., and R. N. Jones. 1997. Antimicrobial activity and spectrum of LB20304, a novel fluoronaphthyridone. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:204-211[Abstract].
5. Davidson, R. J., the Canadian Bacterial Surveillance Network, and D. E. Low. 1999. A cross-Canada surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in respiratory tract pathogens. Can. J. Infect. Dis. 10:128-133.
6. Eliopoulos, G. M. 1997. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci: mechanism and clinical relevance. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 11:851-865[CrossRef][Medline].
7. Maranan, M. C., B. Moreira, S. Boyle-Vavra, and R. S. Daum. 1997. Antimicrobial resistance in staphylococci: epidemiology, molecular mechanism, and clinical relevance. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 11:813-849[CrossRef][Medline].
8. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1997. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Approved standard M7-A4. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
9. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1999. Performance standard for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Ninth informational supplement M100-S9. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
10. Smith, T. L., M. L. Pearson, K. R. Wilcox, C. Cruz, M. V. Lancaster, B. Robinson-Dunn, F. C. Tenover, M. J. Zervos, J. D. Band, E. White, and W. R. Jarvis for the Glycopeptide-Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus Working Group.. 1999. Emergence of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. N. Engl. J. Med. 340:493-501[Abstract/Free Full Text].


Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, March 2000, p. 802-805, Vol. 44, No. 3
0066-4804/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Leonard, S. N., Kaatz, G. W., Rucker, L. R., Rybak, M. J. (2008). Synergy between gemifloxacin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole against community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 62: 1305-1310 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Wacke, R., Forster, S., Adam, U., Mundkowski, R. G., Klar, E., Hopt, U. T., Drewelow, B. (2006). Penetration of moxifloxacin into the human pancreas following a single intravenous or oral dose. J Antimicrob Chemother 58: 994-999 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Castillo, M., Martin-Orue, S. M., Roca, M., Manzanilla, E. G., Badiola, I., Perez, J. F., Gasa, J. (2006). The response of gastrointestinal microbiota to avilamycin, butyrate, and plant extracts in early-weaned pigs. J ANIM SCI 84: 2725-2734 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ince, D., Zhang, X., Silver, L. C., Hooper, D. C. (2003). Topoisomerase Targeting with and Resistance to Gemifloxacin in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47: 274-282 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Garcia-Garrote, F., Cercenado, E., Martin-Pedroviejo, J., Cuevas, O., Bouza, E. (2001). Comparative in vitro activity of the new quinolone gemifloxacin (SB-265805) with other fluoroquinolones against respiratory tract pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 47: 681-684 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ramji, J. V., Austin, N. E., Boyle, G. W., Chalker, M. H., Duncan, G., Fairless, A. J., Hollis, F. J., McDonnell, D. F., Musick, T. J., Shardlow, P. C. (2001). The Disposition of Gemifloxacin, a New Fluoroquinolone Antibiotic, in Rats and Dogs. Drug Metab. Dispos. 29: 435-442 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Gee, T., Andrews, J. M., Ashby, J. P., Marshall, G., Wise, R. (2001). Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of gemifloxacin following a single oral dose. J Antimicrob Chemother 47: 431-434 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hardy, D.
Right arrow Articles by Rotstein, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hardy, D.
Right arrow Articles by Rotstein, C.