Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, November 2001, p. 3220-3222, Vol. 45, No. 11
Department of Microbiology, Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company, Wallingford, Connecticut 06492
Received 12 March 2001/Returned for modification 9 June
2001/Accepted 3 August 2001
Drug combinations have been used to treat serious infections caused
by Pseudomonas, Burkholderia, Stenotrophomonas, and
Acinetobacter. In this study, the combined drug effects of
gatifloxacin (GAT) and nonquinolones were determined by time-kill
analysis at clinically achievable drug concentrations. Synergy ( Combination therapy is used with the
aim of expanding the antimicrobial spectrum, minimizing toxicity,
preventing the emergence of resistant mutants during therapy, and
obtaining synergistic antimicrobial activity (4).
Gatifloxacin (GAT) is a broad-spectrum 8-methoxy fluoroquinolone
(5). Quinolones, including GAT, are less active against
pseudomonads and other nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria than
against members of the family Enterobacteriaceae. While
quinolones may be used singly to treat pseudomonal infections, their
use with either an aminoglycoside or aztreonam to treat serious
Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections is recommended
(9). In this study, we examined the killing rate of GAT
alone and in combination with other antimicrobial agents against
P. aeruginosa and related species.
Thirty clinical strains representing P. aeruginosa, Pseudomonas
stutzeri, Burkholderia cepacia, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and
Acinetobacter spp. were studied. The strains were selected for their different susceptibilities to GAT and included strains at the
GAT breakpoints (i.e., MICs of 2 to 8 µg/ml). The nonquinolones, selected for combination studies with GAT, were chosen based on susceptibility testing and treatment recommendations from the NCCLS
(12), The Medical Letter (10), and
Sanford's Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy (15).
GAT was obtained from Kyorin Pharmacutical Co. Ltd, Tochigi, Japan.
Cefepime (FEP), aztreonam (ATM), amikacin (AMK), and imipenem (IPM)
were prepared at Bristol-Myers Squibb squibb Co., New Brunswick, N.J.,
or Candiac, Canada. Ceftazidime (CAZ) was from Glaxo Pharmaceuticals,
Research Triangle Park, N.C.; trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT) was
from Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Nutley, N.J.; ticarcillin-clavulanate
(TIM) was from Eli Lilly & Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; piperacillin (PIP),
cefoperazone (CFP), chloramphenicol (CHL), and minocycline (MIN) were
from Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.
MICs were determined by a broth microdilution method outlined by the
NCCLS (12). Time-kill kinetics were performed in
Mueller-Hinton broth. All studies involving SXT included 0.2 U of
thymidine phosphorylase/ml in the test medium. The 20-ml cultures,
grown in 50-ml glass flasks, were incubated at 35°C with shaking.
Cells were grown to logarithmic phase with 1 h of preincubation in
fresh broth prior to the addition of drugs. In each case, a growth
control (i.e., no drug addition) was included. The starting bacterial
density was approximately 5 × 105 to 1 × 106 CFU/ml. The viable counts at 0 and 24 h of incubation
for each antibiotic tested singly or in combination were determined.
Bacterial counts were determined by plating 50-µl samples (directly
or 10-fold serial dilutions of the culture sample in saline) onto
Mueller-Hinton agar using a spiral plater system (Spiral Biotech,
Bethesda, Md.). Results from prior studies indicated that any drug
carryover, using the spiral plating system, did not affect the
bacterial cell count (6). GAT concentrations tested were
at two times the MIC of the strain, not to exceed its NCCLS-approved
MIC susceptible breakpoint of 2 µg/ml. Nonquinolones were tested at
concentrations equal to their MICs against the test strain, not to
exceed their respective NCCLS-approved MIC susceptible breakpoints. The
combination included GAT (at two times the GAT MIC) and a nonquinolone
(at the nonquinolone MIC); however, in no case did the drug
concentration tested exceed the NCCLS-approved susceptible breakpoint
of the test drug (12). Synergy was defined as a
2-log10 or more decrease in viable count with the drug
combination versus with the more active of the pair at 24 h of
drug exposure (8). Conversely, antagonism was defined as a
2-log10 or more increase in viable count with the drug
combination compared to the less active of the pair at 24 h of drug
exposure (4).
Eight P. aeruginosa strains were evaluated, including two
that were intermediately susceptible to GAT (i.e., MIC, 4 µg/ml). Synergistic killing was observed most often (
0066-4804/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AAC.45.11.3220-3222.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Synergistic Activities of Gatifloxacin in
Combination with Other Antimicrobial Agents against Pseudomonas
aeruginosa and Related Species
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
2
log10-enhanced killing at 24 h) was observed with GAT
plus amikacin or a
-lactam against 50 to 75% of strains, including
strains nonsusceptible to one or both drugs.
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
75%) with GAT in combination with IPM, ATM, or PIP (Tables
1 and
2). In addition, ~40 to 60% of
the P. aeruginosa strains were synergistically
killed with GAT plus CFP or CAZ. In a few
cases, synergism occurred with GAT-nonquinolone combinations even
though the strain was nonsusceptible to one of the two agents.
TABLE 1.
Antimicrobial profile of Pseudomonas strains
studied, including those killed synergistically with
GAT-nonquinolone combinations
TABLE 2.
Number of strains exhibiting synergistic killing with GAT
in combination with a nonquinolone agent
While P. stutzeri strains are more susceptible to GAT, synergism was observed in three of the four strains exposed to GAT plus ATM, PIP, or AMK and in two of the four strains treated with GAT plus FEP, CAZ, or CFP (Tables 1 and 2).
Synergistic killing occurred against >80% of the B. cepacia strains with the GAT-CAZ combination and 67% with GAT-ATM
(Tables 2 and 3). Many of the B. cepacia strains synergistically killed with these two drug
combinations were nonsusceptible to GAT and/or the
-lactam.
|
Similarly, enhanced killing occurred in two-thirds of the S. maltophilia strains when GAT was mixed with CAZ, TIM, or ATM (Tables 2 and 4). This synergy was
observed even though most S. maltophilia strains are CAZ and
ATM resistant. Synergism was also observed against two of the four
Acinetobacter strains with GAT combined with CAZ, ATM, or
TIM (Tables 2 and 4).
|
Antagonism occurred with only one strain. The antagonism observed with P. aeruginosa A22678 exposed to GAT-IPM is likely the result of the development of resistance to IPM. When P. aeruginosa A22678 was exposed to IPM alone or in combination with GAT, the IPM MIC increased from 2 to 8 to 16 µg/ml.
These results show that GAT in combination with a
-lactam was often
synergistic against nonfermentative bacteria. While IPM was synergistic
with GAT against P. aeruginosa, ATM and CAZ were also
synergistic with GAT against other nonfermentative bacilli. CAZ was the
only extended-spectrum cephalosporin evaluated against all of the
strains in this study. However, when the three extended-spectrum cephalosporins were tested against the pseudomonads, CFP, FEP, and CAZ
behaved similarly (Tables 1 and 2). PIP and TIM also yielded synergy
with GAT against the nonfermentative bacilli. Though the AMK-GAT
combination was synergistic against pseudomonads, the combination was
less frequently synergistic than a GAT-
-lactam combination against
P. aeruginosa.
The synergism observed with GAT has been reported with other quinolones. Ciprofloxacin was synergistic with IPM or CAZ against ~40% of P. aeruginosa strains (3, 7), against 33% with ATM (11), and against 15% with AMK (7). As summarized in the review papers by Neu (13, 14), fluoroquinolone-aminoglycoside combinations were primarily indifferent compared to a ciprofloxacin-antipseudomonal penicillin or -imipenem combination, which resulted in synergy against 20 to 50% of P. aeruginosa strains. The in vitro synergy of ciprofloxacin plus azlocillin corresponded to the enhanced efficacy of this combination in animal model infections (2, 11). In time-kill studies involving 20 nonfermenters, synergism was noticed when trovafloxacin was combined with CAZ, AMK, or IMP (17). Combinations of levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin with CAZ or CFP were often synergistic against S. maltophilia (16). Though synergism was exhibited against only one of the four Acinetobacter strains in the present study when it was exposed to the GAT-AMK pair, synergism with AMK was observed with levofloxacin, ofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin against all quinolone-susceptible Acinetobacter strains in the Bajaksouzian et. al. study (1). This difference in synergism rates might be due to the differences in the drug concentrations used in the time-kill studies. Bajaksouzian et al. tested AMK at concentrations equal to one-half to one-fourth of the MIC, whereas the present study tested AMK at the MIC.
In summary, GAT is like other quinolones in being synergistic with AMK
and
-lactams in killing nonfermenters. This synergism was observed
against some strains that were nonsusceptible to GAT and/or the nonquinolone.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Microbiology-104, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, 5 Research Pkwy., Wallingford, CT 06492. Phone: (203) 677-6370. Fax: (203) 677-6771. E-mail: fungtomj{at}bms.com.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Bajaksouzian, S., M. A. Visalli, M. R. Jacobs, and P. C. Appelbaum. 1997. Activities of levofloxacin, ofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin, alone and in combination with amikacin, against acinetobacters as determined by checkerboard and time-kill studies. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:1073-1076[Abstract]. |
| 2. | Chin, N. X., K. Jules, and H. C. Neu. 1986. Synergy of ciprofloxacin and azlocillin in vitro and in a neuropenic mouse model of infection. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 5:23-28[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 3. | Díez Enciso, M. 1991. In vitro activity of aztreonam, cefotaxime, ceftazidime and imipenem combined with ciprofloxacin against Gram-negative bacilli and compared with amikacin combinations against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 10:90-92[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 4. |
Eliopoulos, G. M., and C. T. Eliopoulos.
1988.
Antibiotic combinations: should they be tested?.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
1:139-156 |
| 5. |
Fung-Tomc, J.,
B. Minassian,
B. Kolek,
T. Washo,
E. Huczko, and D. Bonner.
2000.
In vitro antibacterial spectrum of a new broad-spectrum 8-methoxy fluoroquinolone, gatifloxacin.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
45:437-446 |
| 6. |
Fung-Tomc, J. C.,
E. Gradelski,
L. Valera,
B. Kolek, and D. P. Bonner.
2000.
Comparative killing rates of fluoroquinolones and cell-wall active agents.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
44:1377-1380 |
| 7. |
Giamarellou, H., and G. Petrikkos.
1987.
Ciprofloxacin interactions with imipenem and amikacin against multiresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
31:959-961 |
| 8. |
Hallander, H. O.,
K. Dornbusch,
L. Gezelius,
K. Jacobson, and I. Karlsson.
1982.
Synergism between aminoglycosides and cephalosporins with antipseudomonal activity: interaction index and killing curve method.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
22:743-752 |
| 9. | Medical Economics Co., Inc. 2000. Physicians' desk reference, 54th ed. Medical Economics Co., Inc., Montdale, N.J. |
| 10. | The Medical Letter, Inc. 1999. The choice of antibacterial drugs. The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics. 41:98-104. |
| 11. | Moody, J. A., D. N. Gerding, and L. R. Peterson. 1987. Evaluation of ciprofloxacin's synergism with other agents by multiple in vitro methods. Am. J. Med. 82(Suppl. 4A):44-54[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 12. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2000. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Document M7-A5. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 13. | Neu, H. C. 1989. Synergy of fluorquinolones with other antimicrobial agents. Rev. Infect. Dis. 11(Suppl. 5):S1025-S1035. |
| 14. | Neu, H. C. 1991. Synergy and antagonism of combinations with quinolones. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 10:255-261[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 15. | Sanford, J. P., D. N. Gilbert, R. C. Moellering, Jr., and M. A. Sande. 1997. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy, 27th ed. Antimicrobial Therapy, Inc., Dallas, Tex. |
| 16. |
Visalli, M. A.,
M. R. Jacobs, and P. C. Appelbaum.
1998.
Activities of three quinolones, alone and in combination with extended-spectrum cephalosporins or gentamicin, against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
42:2002-2005 |
| 17. | Visalli, M. A., S. Bajaksouzian, M. R. Jacobs, and P. C. Appelbaum. 1997. Comparative activity of trovafloxacin, alone and in combination with other agents, against gram-negative nonfermentative rods. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:1475-1481[Abstract]. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»