Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Alerts
• About ASM
• Contact us
• Tech Support
• Journals.ASM.org

This Article 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hansen, G. T. Articles by Blondeau, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hansen, G. T. Articles by Blondeau, J. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, January 2003, p. 440-441, Vol. 47, No. 1
0066-4804/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.1.440-441.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Mutant Prevention Concentration of Gemifloxacin for Clinical Isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae

Top Letter References

 
Fluoroquinolone resistance is beginning to appear among isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae (4, 7, 8, 10). We have argued that resistance arises as a consequence of dosing that places tissue concentrations between the MIC and the mutant prevention concentration (MPC), a new measure of activity related to the MIC of the least susceptible, single-step mutant (15, 16). If this is true, MPC can be used to identify fluoroquinolones that are least likely to selectively enrich resistant subpopulations. We previously estimated MPC for several fluoroquinolones with about 100 clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae obtained from the Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, Canada (2). We now add gemifloxacin to the list of compounds compared and increase the number of isolates tested to 146 for all of the compounds.

Table 1 lists MICs and MPCs for gemifloxacin, moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and levofloxacin determined as described previously (2) using the same set of isolates for each compound. Fluoroquinolone-resistant isolates were excluded. Gemifloxacin had the lowest modal MPC (0.25 µg/ml), followed by moxifloxacin (0.5 µg/ml), gatifloxacin (1 µg/ml), and levofloxacin (2 µg/ml). The same rank order was observed when MPC was determined for 90% of the isolates. These data are consistent with gemifloxacin having more activity than the other compounds against resistant mutants (9, 14). When the MIC at which 90% of the susceptible isolates are inhibited (MIC₉₀) was determined, gemifloxacin was also more active than moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and levofloxacin in these comparisons by 2, 3, and 4 dilutions, respectively.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 1. Fluoroquinolone activity with clinical isolates of S. pneumoniaea

Since the effectiveness of an antibacterial agent is likely to be a function of both activity (MIC and MPC) and pathogen exposure (5, 11), comparision of compounds requires consideration of drug pharmacokinetics in human tissues. From published values of concentrations in serum, we calculated the time above MPC for each compound when dosed as recommended by the manufacturer. Moxifloxacin is expected to have a concentration in serum above the MPC at which 90% of the isolates tested are prevented (MPC₉₀) for 18 h. For gemifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and levofloxacin, those times are 4, 1 to 2, and 0 h, respectively. This suggests that moxifloxacin may be the most effective at restricting the development of resistance, even though gemifloxacin has the lowest MIC and MPC.

Table 1 also lists values of the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h/MIC and the maximum concentration of drug in serum (C_max)/MIC for recommended doses. For both parameters gemifloxacin exhibits higher values than moxifloxacin. If these two parameters are inversely related to the selection of resistant mutants (1, 6, 13), resistance should develop less often from treatment with gemifloxacin than with moxifloxacin. But time above MPC (Table 1) and low-concentration cycling (12) predict the opposite outcome. A clinical comparison of these two compounds may help distinguish between MPC-based ideas (15) and empirical pharmacodynamics (6, 13) for predicting the development of resistance. Such a comparison is important because neither method can be easily tested: MPC is an in vitro measure that does not take into account compartments in patients where drug concentrations and bacterial growth properties are poorly defined, and pharmacodynamic methods require examining very large numbers of patients to identify the point at which the overall prevalence of resistance does not increase.

 
We thank S. Boros for technical assistance and D. Leciuk for clerical support.

The work was funded in part by unrestricted grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer AG and by National Institutes of Health grant AI 35257.

Top Letter References

 

1
1. Blaser, J., B. Stone, M. Groner, and S. Zinner. 1987. Comparative study with enoxacin and netilmicin in a pharmacodynamic model to determine importance of ratio of antibiotic peak concentration to MIC for bactericidal activity and emergence of resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 31:1054-1060.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2
2. Blondeau, J. M., X. Zhao, G. Hansen, and K. Drlica. 2001. Mutant prevention concentrations of fluoroquinolones for clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:433-438.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3
3. Blondeau, J. M., K. Drlica, G. Hansen, and X. Zhao. 2001. The relationship between the mutant prevention concentration (MPC) of fluoroquinolones (FQ) against Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP) and the 24 hour dose response curves, abstr. P71. In Program Abstr. Seventh International Symposium on New Quinolones, Edinburgh, Scotland.
4
4. Chen, D. K., A. McGeer, J. C. de Azavedo, D. E. Low, et al. 1999. Decreased susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae to fluoroquinolones in Canada. N. Engl. J. Med. 341:233-239.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5
5. Craig, W. 1998. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin. Infect. Dis. 26:1-12.[Medline]
6
6. Drusano, G. L., D. Johnson, M. Rosen, and H. Standiford. 1993. Pharmacodynamics of a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent in a neutropenic rat model of Pseudomonas sepsis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 37:483-490.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7
7. Ho, P., R. Yung, D. Tsang, T. Que, M. Ho, W. Seto, T. Ng, W. Yam, and W. Ng. 2001. Increasing resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to fluoroquinolones: results of a Hong Kong multicentre study in 2000. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 48:659-665.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8
8. Nagai, K., P. C. Appelbaum, T. A. Davies, L. M. Kelly, D. B. Hoellman, A. T. Andrasevic, L. Drukalska, W. Hryniewicz, M. R. Jacobs, J. Kolman, J. Miciuleviciene, M. Pana, L. Setchanova, M. K. Thege, H. Hupkova, J. Trupl, and P. Urbaskova. 2002. Susceptibilities to telithromycin and six other agents and prevalence of macrolide resistance due to L4 ribosomal protein mutation among 992 pneumococci from 10 Central and Eastern European countries. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:371-377.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9
9. Nagai, K., T. Davies, B. Dewasse, M. Jacobs, and P. Appelbaum. 2001. Single- and multi-step resistance selection study of gemifloxacin compared with trovafloxacin, ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin in Streptococcus pneumoniae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 48:365-374.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10
10. Quale, J., D. Landman, J. Ravishankar, C. Flores, and S. Bratu. 2002. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Brooklyn, New York: fluoroquinolone resistance at our doorstep. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 8:594-597.[Medline]
11
11. Schentag, J. J., K. K. Gilliland, and J. A. Paladino. 2001. What have we learned from pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic theories? Clin. Infect. Dis. 32(Suppl. 1):S39-S46.
12
12. Schmitz, F.-J., M. Boos, S. Mayer, D. Hafner, H. Jagusch, J. Verhoef, and A. C. Fluit. 2001. Propensity of fluoroquinolones with different moieties at position 8 to cause resistance development in clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:2666-2667.[Free Full Text]
13
13. Thomas, J., A. Forrest, S. Bhavnani, J. Hyatt, A. Cheng, C. Ballow, and J. Schentag. 1998. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of factors associated with the development of bacterial resistance in acutely ill patients during therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42:521-527.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14
14. Urban, C., N. Rahman, X. Zhao, N. Mariano, S. Segal-Maurer, K. Drlica, and J. Rahal. 2001. Fluoroquinolone-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae associated with levofloxacin therapy. J. Infect. Dis. 184:794-798.[CrossRef][Medline]
15
15. Zhao, X., and K. Drlica. 2001. Restricting the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutants: a general strategy derived from fluoroquinolone studies. Clin. Infect. Dis. 33(Suppl. 3):S147-S156.
16
16. Zhao, X., and K. Drlica. 2002. Restricting the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutants: measurement and potential uses of the mutant selection window. J. Infect. Dis. 185:561-565.[CrossRef][Medline]

						Glen T. Hansen Kelli Metzler Department of Microbiology and Immunology University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Karl Drlica Public Health Research Institute Newark, NJ 07193 Joseph M. Blondeau* Department of Clinical Microbiology Royal University Hospital 103 Hospital Dr. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N OW8
						* Phone (306) 655-6943, Fax: (306) 655-6947, E-mail: blondeauj{at}sdh.sk.ca

---

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, January 2003, p. 440-441, Vol. 47, No. 1
0066-4804/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.1.440-441.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Drlica, K., Zhao, X., Blondeau, J. M., Hesje, C. (2006). Low Correlation between MIC and Mutant Prevention Concentration. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50: 403-404 [Full Text]  
• Marcusson, L. L., Olofsson, S. K., Lindgren, P. K., Cars, O., Hughes, D. (2005). Mutant prevention concentrations of ciprofloxacin for urinary tract infection isolates of Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother 55: 938-943 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Azoulay-Dupuis, E., Bedos, J. P., Mohler, J., Moine, P., Cherbuliez, C., Peytavin, G., Fantin, B., Kohler, T. (2005). Activity of Gemifloxacin against Quinolone-Resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae Strains In Vitro and in a Mouse Pneumonia Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49: 1046-1054 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Epstein, B. J, Gums, J. G, Drlica, K. (2004). The Changing Face of Antibiotic Prescribing: The Mutant Selection Window. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 38: 1675-1682 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rodriguez, J. C., Cebrian, L., Lopez, M., Ruiz, M., Jimenez, I., Royo, G. (2004). Mutant prevention concentration: comparison of fluoroquinolones and linezolid with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Antimicrob Chemother 53: 441-444 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hansen, G. T. Articles by Blondeau, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hansen, G. T. Articles by Blondeau, J. M.