Advertisement

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 229–244 | Cite as

Future directions in antimicrobial chemotherapy

  • R. Janknegt
Drugs in the Pipeline
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

New developments in the treatment of bacterial infections are discussed. The most important developments include oral broad-spectrum cephalosporin derivatives and extended-spectrum injectable cephalosporins with improved activity against Gram-positive bacteria. Meropenem is a new carbapenem agent with markedly improved activity against Gram-negative bacteria. Many fluoroquinolones are in various phases of development. The most interesting new compound is sparfloxacin. Azithromycin is a new macrolide which, because of its very long half-life, attains very high levels in most tissues. Potential uses of the newer agents are discussed.

Keywords

Azithromycin Cefepime Cefodizime Cefpirome Daptomycin Meropenem Sparfloxacin Temafloxacin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauernfeind A. Comparative antimicrobial spectrum and activity of ceftibuten against clinical isolates from West-Germany. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991;14:63–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Verbist L, Jacobs J, Hens K. Comparative antimicrobial activity of ceftibuten against multiple-resistant micro-organisms from Belgium. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991;14:55–61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wise R, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, Thornber D. Ceftibuten. A new orally absorbed cephalosporin. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991;14:45–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cullmann W, Dick W, Stieglitz M, Opferkuch W. Comparable evaluation of orally active beta-lactam compounds in ampicillin-resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative rods. Chemotherapy 1988;34:202–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janknegt R. Cefixim. Therapeutische mogelijkheden van het eerste orale derde generatie cefalosporine [Therapeutic possibilities of the first oral thirdgeneration cephalosporine]. TGO 1991;16:85–90.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wise R. The pharmacokinetics of the oral cephalosporins — a review. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:13–20.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tremblay D, Dupront A, Ho C, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefpodoxime in young and elderly volunteers after single doses. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:21–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Backhouse C, Wade A, Williamson P, et al. Multiple dose pharmacokinetics of cefpodoxime in young adult and elderly patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:29–34.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lepage MC, Trottier S, Bergeron MG. Pharmacokinetics and blister fluid penetration of loracarbef after single and multiple doses. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1167.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lode H, Roller S, Stelzer I, et al. Loracarbef pharmacokinetics and interaction with acetylcysteine. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1168.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blouin RA, Kneer J, Stoeckel K. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous cefetamet and oral cefetamet pivoxil in young and elderly subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33:291–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tam YK, Kneer J, Dubach UC, Stoeckel K. Pharmacokinetics of cefetamet pivoxil with ascending oral doses in normal healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33:957–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koup JR, Dubach UC, Brandt R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefetamet and cefetamet pivoxil after intravenous and oral doses in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32:573–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barr WH, Lin CC, Radwanski E, et al. The pharmacokinetics of ceftibuten in humans. Diagn Microbial Infect Dis 1991;14:93–100.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kneer J, Tam YK, Blouin RA, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous cefetamet and oral cefetamet pivoxil in patients with renal insufficiency. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;333:1952–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barré J. Caractéristiques pharmacocinétiques du céfixime. Press Med 1989;11:1578–82.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hughes GS, Heald DL, Barker KB, et al. The effects of gastric pH and food on the pharmacokinetics of a new oral cephalosporin: cefpodoxime proxetil. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989;46:674–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Couraud L, Andrews JM, Lecoeur H, et al. Concentrations of cefpodoxime in plasma and lung tissue after a single oral dose of cefpodoxime proxetil. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:35–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gehanno P, Andrews JM, Ichou F, et al. Concentrations of cefpodoxim in plasma and tonsillar tissue after a single oral dose of cefpodoxime proxetil. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:47–51.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Periti P, Novelli A, Schildwachter G, et al. Efficacy and tolerance of cefpodoxime proxetil compared with coamoxiclav in the treatment of exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:63–9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Portier H, Chavanet P, Gouyon JB, Guetat F. Five day treatment of pharyngotonsillitis with cefpodoxime proxetil. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:79–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gehanno P, Depondt J, Barry B, et al. Comparison of cefpodoxime proxetil with cefaclor in the treatment of sinusitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:87–91.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Safran C. Cefpodoxime proxetil: dosage, efficacy and tolerance in adults suffering from respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:93–101.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zuck P, Rio Y, Johon F. Efficacy and tolerance of cefpodoxime proxetil compared with ceftriaxone in vulnerable patients with bronchopneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl E:71–7.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sawae Y, Shimono N, Fujii T. Pharmacokinetic interaction of cefpodoxime proxetil with ranitidine. Abstracts of the 17th international Conference on Chemotherapy. 1991; Berlin, Germany. Berlin: 1991: abstract 942.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lode H, Saathoff N, Neider K, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefpodoxime in two oral dosages and interactions with antacid and H2-receptor antagonist. In: Abstracts of the 17th International Conference on Chemotherapy. 1991; Berlin, Germany. 1991:abstract 943.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wise R, Andrews JM, Piddock LJV. In-vitro activity of Ro 15-8074 and Ro 19-5247, two orally administered cephalosporin metabolites. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986;29:1667–72.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Angehirn P, Hohl P, Then RL.In-vitro antibacterial properties of cefetamet andin-vivo activity of its orally absorbable ester derivative, cefetamet pivoxil. Eur Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1989;8:536–43.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stoeckel K, Tam YK, Kneer J. Pharmacokinetics of oral cefetamet pivoxil and intravenous cefetamet in humans: a review. Curr Med Res Opin 1989;11:432–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hanton WL, Kneer J, Blouin RA, Stoeckel K. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous cefetamet and oral cefetamet pivoxil in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:1318–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arango L, Hill J, Keller C, et al. Phase 2 and 3 studies comparing ceftibuten and cefaclor in the treatment of acute respiratory infections. In: Abstracts of the 17th International Conference on Chemotherapy. 1991; Berlin, Germany. 1991:abstract 1851.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kammer RB, Ress R. Randomized comparative study of ceftibuten versus cefaclor in the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991;14:101–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chin NX, Gu JW, Fang W, Neu HC.In-vitro activity and betalactamase stability of GR 69153, a new longacting cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:259–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Erwin ME, Jones RN, Barrett MS, et al.In vitro evaluation of GR 69153, a novel catechol substituted cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:927–37.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Edwards JR, Turner PJ, Wannop C, et al.In vitro antibacterial activity of SM 7338, a carbapenem antibiotic with stability to dehydropeptidase I. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33:215–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neu HC, Novelli A, Chin NX.In vitro activity and betalactamase stability of a new carbapenem, SM 7338. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33:1009–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Neu HC, Chin NX, Novelli A.In vitro activity of E 1040, a novel cephalosporin with potent activity againstPs. aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32:1666–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Scully BE, Jules K, Neu HC.In vitro activity and betalactamase stability of cefodizime, an aminothiazolyl iminomethoxy cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983;23:907–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ahonkhai VI, Cherubin CE, Shulman MA.In vitro activity of cefodizime. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982;22:715–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    King A, Boothman C, Phillips I. Comparativein vitro activity of cefpirome and cefepime, two new cephalosporins. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990;9: 677–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jones RN, Barry AL, Thornsberry C.In vitro studies of meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A:9–29.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    King A, Boothman C, Phillips I. Comparativein-vitro activity of meropenem on clinical isolates from the United Kingdom. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A:31–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Clarke AM, Zemcov SJ.In-vitro activity of meropenem against clinical isolates obtained in Canada. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A:47–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Janknegt R. Antimicrobial Agents. Disease and Pharmacokinetics. Leiderdorp: Reed Health Care, 1991.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bryskier A, Procyk T, Tremblay D, et al. The pharmacokinetics of cefodizime following iv and im administration of a single dose of 1 g. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:59–63.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bryskier A, Procyk T, Tremblay D, et al., Pharmacokinetics of cefodizime administered intravenously as a single dose (1 and 2 g) to healthy adult volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:65–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Barré J. Pharmacokinetics of cefodizime: a review of the data on file. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:95–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bax RP, Bastain W, Featherstone A, et al. The pharmacokinetics of meropenem in volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A:311–20.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nye KJ, Shi YG, Andrews JM, Wise R. Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of cefepime. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24:23–8.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kavi J, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, Hillman G, Wise R. Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of cefpirome, a new cephalosporin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;22:911–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barbhaiya RH, Forgue ST, Gleason CR, et al. Safety, tolerance and pharmacokinetic evaluation of cefepime 240 after administration of single intravenous doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:1118–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wise R, Logan M, Cooper M, et al. Meropenem pharmacokinetics and penetration into an inflammatory exudate. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:1515–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Barbhaiya RH, Knupp CA, Tenney J, et al. Safety, tolerance and pharmacokinetics of cefepime administered intramuscularly to healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol 1990;30:900–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Soussy CJ, Chanal M, Kitzis MD. Thein-vitro activity of cefodizime: a review. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:13–21.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mendes P, Lameire N, Rosenkranz B, Malerczyk V, Damm D. Pharmacokinetics of cefodizime during CAPD. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:89–93.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Veyssier P, Devillers A, Domart Y et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefodizime in elderly patients with moderate or severe renal impairment. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:77–81.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bryskier A, Procyk T, Labro MT. Cefodizime, a new 2-amino-thiazolyl cephalosporin: physicochemical properties, toxicology and SAR. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:1–8.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Labro MT. Cefodizime as a biological response modifier: a review of itsin-vivo, ex-vivo andin-vitro immunomodulatory properties. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:37–47.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Grassi CG. Cefodizime in clinical use: a review of the clinical trial reports. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl C:117–25.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Piddock LS, Traynor EA, Wise R.In vitro activity of cefpirome for MRSA and PBP affinity. In: Abstract of the 16th International Conference on Chemotherapy. 1989; Jerusalem, Israel. 1989:abstract 75.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wolff M, Chavanet P, Pechinot A, et al. Diffusion of cefepime in the CSF of patients with purulent meningitis. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 86.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Norrby SR. Cefpirome vs ceftazidime in upper and complicated lower urinary tract infections. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 629.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Foley C, Schleupner CJ. Double-blinded comparison of cefpirome to ceftazidime for treating pneumonias. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1351.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shah PM. Cefpirome vs ceftazidime in patients with severe lower respiratory tract infections. In: Abstracts of the 17th International Conference on Chemotherapy. 1991; Berlin, Germany. 1991:abstract 114.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lebel M, Bisson C, Massoomi F. Positive interference with serum creatinine determination by cefpirome, but no effect with cefepime and 4 oral cephalosporins. In: Abstracts of the 17th International Conference on Chemotherapy. 1991; Berlin Germany. 1991:abstract 1983.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Norrby SR, Dotevall L, Eriksson M, et al. Efficacy and safety of cefpirome. J Antimicrobial Chemother 1988;22:541–7.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fung J, Huczko E, Pearce M, Kessler RE. Frequency ofin vitro resistance ofPs. aeruginosa to cefepime, ceftazidime and cefotaxime. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32:1443–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Knapp C, Washington JA. Activity of cefepime, ceftazidime and ceftizoxime against mutants of Enterobacteriaceae andPs. aeruginosa, derepressed for class 1 betalactamase. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24:1011–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bosso JA, Saxon BA, Matsen JM.In vitro synergy with cefepime and ciprofloxacin, aztreonam or tobramycin againstPs. aeruginosa orPs. cepacia. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990: abstract 889.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Barbhaiya RH, Knupp CA, Forgue ST, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefepime in subjects with renal insufficiency. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990;48:268–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Saavedra S, Zapata M, Torres A, et al. Cefepime vs ceftazidime, a comparative study in the treatment of severe soft tissue infections. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1359.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Barckow D, Schwigen D. Efficacy of cefepime vs cefotaxime in intensive care patients with RTL 17th ICC 1991, Berlin Germany, abstract 1852.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gubbelmans HL, Materman ES, Maesen FP. Cefepime vs ceftriaxone: a tolerance study by intramuscular injection. TGO/JDR 1990;15:124–6.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Saito A, Hara K. Clinical evaluation of a new parenteral cephem, cefepime, on RTI in Japan. 17th ICC 1991, Berlin Germany, abstract 1828.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Livermore DM, Yang Y. Comparative activity of meropenem againstPs. aeruginosa strains with wellcharacterized resistance mechanisms. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A: 149–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kitzis MD, Acar JF, Gutmann L. Antibacterial activity of meropenem against Gram-negative bacteria with a permeability defect and against staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A:125–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Chanal C, Sirot D, Chanal M, et al. Comparativeinvitro activity of meropenem against clinical isolates including Enterobacteriaceae with expanded spectrum betalactamases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A:133–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Yang Y, Livermore DM. Interactions of meropenem with class I chromosomal betalactamases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A:207–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nadler HL, Pitkin DH, Sheikh W. The postantibiotic effect of meropenem and imipenem on selected bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24 Suppl A:225–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Burman LA, Nilsson-Ehle I, Hutchison M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of meropenem and its metabolite ICI 213689 in healthy subjects with known renal metabolism of imipenem. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991;27:219–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mehtar S, Draba YJ, Blakemore PH. Thein-vitro activity of piperacillin/tazobactam, ciprofloxacin, ceftazidime and imipenem against multiple resistant Gramnegative bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25:915–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Corkill JE, Hart CA. Poor induction of betalactamases by tazobactam. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26:477–9.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Cullmann W, Stieglitz M. Antibacterial activity of piperacillin and tazobactam against betalactamase producing clinical isolates. Chemotherapy 1990;36:356–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wu WH, Greene DS, Kuye O. Pharmacokinetic observations with piperacillin/tazobactam and their relevance to dosage regimens. 16th ICC 1989, Jerusalem, Israel, extended abstract.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Barry AL, Fuchs PC.In vitro activities of sparfloxacin, tosufloxacin, ciprofloxacin and fleroxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:955–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Simor AE, Fuller SA, Low DE. Comparativein vitro activities of sparfloxacin and other antimicrobial agents against staphylococci, enterococci and respiratory tract pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:2283–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gu JW, Neu HC.In vitro activity of Ro 23-9424, a dual action cephalosporin, compared with activities of other antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:189–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Tanaka M, Otsuki M, Une T, Nishino T.In-vitro andinvivo activity of DR 3355, an optically active isomer of ofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26:659–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Nakanishi N, Inoue M, Inoue K, et al.In vitro activity of temafloxacin HCl, a new fluorinated quinolone. Chemotherapy 1990;36:345–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Fujimoto T, Mitsuhashi S.In vitro antibacterial activity of DR 3355, theS-(−)- isomer of ofloxacin. Chemotherapy 1990;36:268–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Jones RN.In vitro activity of Ro 24-6392, a novol ester linked co-drug combining ciprofloxacin and desacetylcefotaxime. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990;9:435–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Paganoni R, Herzog Ch, Braunsteiner A, Hohl P. Fleroxacin:in-vitro activity worldwide against 20807 clinical isolates and comparison to ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;22 Suppl D:3–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Barry AL, Jones RN.In-vitro activities of temafloxacin, tosufloxacin and five other fluoroquinolone agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;23:527–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Fernandes FB, Chu DT, Swanson RN, et al. A.61827, a new fluoronaphtyridine with activity against both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32:27–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Bryan JP, Waters C, Sheffield J, et al.In vitro activities of tosufloxacin, temafloxacin and A 56620 against pathogens of diarrhea. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:368–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kinzig M, Mohr G, Seelmann R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of temafloxacin in young and middle aged subjects. Third International Symposium on New Quinolones. 1990; Vancouver, Canada. 1990:abstract 127.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Montay G, Bruno R, Thebault JJ, et al. Dosedependent pharmacokinetic study of sparfloxacin in healthy young volunteers. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1248.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Thebault JJ, Montay G, Ebmeier M, et al. Effect of food on the bioavailability of the new quinolone RP 64206. In: tracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1249.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Gros I, Carbon C. Pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin in healthy volunteers: comparison of 400 mg once daily and 200 mg twice daily given orally for 5 days. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:150–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Morrison PJ, Mant TG, Norman GT, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of lomefloxacin after sequentially increasing oral doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32:1503–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Nye K, Shi YG, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, Wise R. Thein-vitro activity pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of temafloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 24:415–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Yasuda T, Watanabe Y, Hayashi T, Kitayama R. Serum protein binding of T3262. Chemotherapy 1988;36 Suppl 9:143–8.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Yamasaku F, Suzuki Y, Uno K. A comparative study on the pharmacokinetics of ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, NY 198 and T3262 in the same volunteers. Chemotherapy 1988;36 Suppl G:195–200.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Janknegt R, Hekster YA. Developments in quinolones. Bacteriology, pharmacokinetics and initial clinical experience of several investigational quinolone derivatives. Pharm Weekbl [Sci] 1989;11:33–43.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Janknegt R. Fluoroquinolones. Adverse reactions during clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance. Pharm Weekbl [Sci] 1989;11:124–7.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Janknegt R. Drug interactions with quinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26 Suppl D:7–29.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Hooper WP, Dickinson RG, Eadie MI. The influence of food on the absorption of lomefloxacin. In: Abstracts of the 29th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1989; Atlanta, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1989:abstract 1274.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Loos U, Sörgel F, Muth P, et al. Pulmonary disposition of lomefloxacin. In: Abstracts of the 29th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1989; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1989:abstract 1272.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Kovarik JM, DeHond H, Rozenberg-Arska M, et al. Penetration of lomefloxacin into human prostatic tissue. In: Abstracts of the 29th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1989; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1989:abstract 1273.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Blum RA, Schultz RW, Schentag JJ. The kinetics of lomefloxacin in renally compromised patients. In: Abstracts of the 29th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1989; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1989:abstract 1270.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Metz R, Höffler D, Waetcke K, et al. Altered pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin in patients with impaired renal function. In: Abstracts of the 29th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1989; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1989:abstract 1271.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Hardy DJ, Hanson CW, Bayer J, et al.In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin and temafloxacin against MRSA and MSSA. Third International Symposium on New Quinolones. 1990; Vancouver, Canada. 1990:abstract 54.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Morrison P, Mont T, Granneman G, et al. Pharmacokinetics of multiple oral doses of temafloxacin. Third International Symposium on New Quinolones. 1990; Vancouver, Canada. 1990:abstract 117.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Mohr G, Fuhr C, Muth P, et al. Effect of cimetidine on the metabolism of temafloxacin. Third International Symposium on New Quinolones. 1990; Vancouver, Canada. 1990:abstract 426.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Craft J, Hurley M, Hau P, Pernet A. Efficacy and safety on 3 day temafloxacin therapy vs 7 day ciprofloxacin therapy in the treatment of uncomplicated UTI. Third International Symposium on New Quinolones. 1990; Vancouver, Canada. 1990:abstract 236.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Childs S, Cox C, Sylvester S, Craft J. Safety and efficacy of oral temafloxacin compared to oral norfloxacin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 989.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Childs S. Safety and efficacy of oral temafloxacin compared to norfloxacin for the treatment of complicated UTI. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 992.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Hock EM, Rodriguez M, Mogargob W, Craft JC. Temafloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated gonococcal urethritis/cervicitis. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 101.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Stein CE, Craft JC. Temafloxacin in the treatment of nongonococcal urethritis/cervicitis. In: tracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1283.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Carbon C, Leophonte P. A multicenter, double-blind randomized comparative study of the efficacy and safety of temafloxacin and amoxicillin in the treatment of CAP. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 982.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Chodosh S, Tuck J, Pizzuto D, et al. Temafloxacin vs ciprofloxacin in acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1282.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Dart R. Temafloxacin 600 mg b.i.d vs cefadroxil 500 mg b.i.d for the treatment of skin or skin structure infections. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1286.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Clearver L. Temafloxacin 600 mg b.i.d vs ciprofloxacin 750 mg b.i.d for the treatment of skin or skin structure infections. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1285.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Grimes P. Safety and efficacy of temafloxacin 600 mg b.i.d vs cefadroxil 500 mg b.i.d for skin or skin structure infections. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1292.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Pernet A, Rau P, Craft J. Temafloxacin-analysis of adverse events. Third International Symposium on New Quinolones. 1990; Vancouver, Canada. 1990: abstract 456.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Espinoza AM, Chin NA, Novelli A, Neu HC. Comparativein vitro activity of a new fluorinated 4-242 quinolone, T3262 (A60969). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32:663–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Fujimori I, Saito A, Nakayama I, et al. A comparative study of T3262 and ofloxacin in respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy 1989;37:1086–118.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Kawada Y, Kymamoto Y, Tsuchida S, et al. Comparative study of T3262 and norfloxacin in complicated urinary tract infections. Chemotherapy 1989;37: 646–69.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Takahashi H, Goh K, Okuda M, et al. Double-blind clinical study of tosufloxacin tosulate in comparison to ofloxacin in superficial suppurative infections. Chemotherapy 1989;37:796–837.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Poulin S, Kundsin RB.Ureaplasma urealyticum andM. hominis susceptibilitis against sparfloxacin. Third International Symposium on New Quinolones. 1990; Vancouver, Canada. 1990:abstract 81.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Edelstem PH, Edelstein MA, WeidenfeldJ. In vitro activity of sparfloxacin for clinical isolates of legionella. Third International Symposium on New Quinolones. 1990; Vancouver, Canada. 1990:abstract 74.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Montay G, Bruno R, Thebault JJ, et al. Dosedependent pharmacokinetic study of sparfloxacin in healthy young volunteers. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1248.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Mignot A, Douin MJ, Milleroux L, et al. Effect of aluminium hydroxide antacid on the pharmacokinetics of the new quinolone RP 64206. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1250.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Honeybourne D, Baldwin DR, Wise R, Andrews JM. Distribution of sparfloxacin in the bronchopulmonary sites of infection. 17th ICC, Berlin, Germany 1991, abstract 1924.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Kumamoto Y, Hirose T, Hayashi K, Shibuya A. Dose finding study of sparfloxacin in single dose therapy for female patients with acute uncomplicated cystitis. 17th ICC, Berlin, Germany, 1991, abstract 1221.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Ban Y, Kawada Y, Aso Y, et al. Comparative study of sparfloxacin and enoxacin in complicated urinary tract infections. 17th ICC, Berlin Germany, 1991, abstract 1222.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Kamidono S, Gotoh A, Kuwayama M, et al. Sparfloxacin in male sexual transmitted urethritis. 17th ICC, Berlin, Germany, 1991, abstract 1312.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Mahr G, Seelmann R, Gottschalk B, et al. No effect of sparfloxacin on the metabolism of theophylline in man. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 1259.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Une T, Fujimoto T, Sato K, Osada Y.In vitro activity of DR 3355, an optically active ofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32:1336–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Inagaki Y, Horiuchi S, Une T, Nakaya R.In vitro activity of DR 3355, an optically active isomer of ofloxacin against bacterial pathogens associated with travellers' diarrhea. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24:547–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Hardy DJ, Hensey DM, Beyer JM, et al. Comparativein vitro activities of new 14-, 15- and 16-membered macrolides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32: 1710–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Retsema J, Girard A, Schelkly W, et al. Spectrum and mode of action of azithromycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987;31:1939–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Kitzis MD, Goldstein FW, Miegi M, Acar JF.In vitro activity of azithromycin against various Gramnegative bacilli and anaerobic bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25 Suppl A:15–8.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Johnson RC, Kodner C, Russell M, Girard D.In vitro vivo susceptibility ofB. burgdorferi to azithromycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25 Suppl A:33–8.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Girard AE, Girard D, Retsema JA. Correlation of the extravasculair pharmacokinetics of azithromycin withinvivo efficacy in models of localized infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25 Suppl A:61–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Fitzgeorge RB, Featherstone AS, Baskerville A. Efficacy of azithromycin in the treatment of guinea pigs infected withL. pneumophila by aerosol. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25Suppl A:101–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Foulds G, Shephard RM, Johnson RB. The pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in human serum and tissues. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25 Suppl A:73–82.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Gladue RP, Snider ME. Intracellular accumulation of azithromycin by cultured human fibroblasts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:1056–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Periti P, Mazzei T, Mini E, Novelli A. Clinical pharmacokinetic properties of the macrolide antibiotics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1989;16:261–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Anacher DE, Schomaker SJ, Retsema JA. Effect of azithromycin and erythromycin on hepatic cytochrome P450 and associated enzymes in the rat. International Congress on Infectious Diseases. 1990; Montreal, Canada. 1990:abstract 154.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Foulds G, Hilligoss DM, Chin EB, Gerber N. Effects of an antacid or cimetidine on the serum concentration of azithromycin in humans. International Congress Infectious Diseases. 1990; Montreal, Canada. 1990:abstract 159.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Lassus A. Comparative studies of azithromycin in skin and soft-tissue infections and sexually transmitted infection byNeisseria andChlamydia spp. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25 Suppl A:115–21.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Strle F, Stanek G, Ruzic E, et al. Erythema migrans: comparison of treatment with azithromycin, doxycycline and phenoxymethylpenicillin. International Congress on Infectious Diseases. 1990; Montreal, Canada. 1990:abstract 176.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Schönwald S, Skalke D. Azithromycin vs ciprofloxacin in the treatment of chlamydial urethritis or cervicitis. International Congress on Infectious Diseases. 1990; Montreal, Canada. 1990:abstract 169.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Van den Bosch C. Multicenter comparison of single dose azithromycin vs doxycycline in sexually transmitted chlamydial infection. International Congress on Infectious Diseases. 1990; Montreal, Canada. 1990:abstract 163.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Daniel RR. Efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of pharyngitis and otitis media in children. International Congress on Infectious Diseases. 1990; Montreal, Canada. 1990:abstract 187.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Ehlert F, Neu HC.In vitro activity of daptomycin; a new peptolide. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1987;6:84–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Machka K, Bravery I. Comparativein vitro activity of LY 146032 against Gram-positive cocci. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1987;6:96–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Canepari P, Boaretti M, DelMarUéo M, Satta G. Lipoteichoic acid as a new target for activity of antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:1220–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Haworth CS, Sobieski MW, Scheld WM, Park TS.Staph. aureus ventriculitis treated with single dose intraventriculair vancomycin or daptomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:245–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Fontana R, Grossato A, Ligozzi M, Tonin EA.In vitro response to bactericidal activity of cellwall active antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34: 1518–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Beauchamp D, Pellerin M, Courde P, et al. Effects of daptomycin and vancomycin on tobramycin nephrotoxicity in rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:139–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Pryka RD, Novak RM, Wagner DK, Rodveld KA. Clinical pharmacokinetics of daptomycin. DICP Ann Pharmacother 1990;24:255–6.Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Garrison MW, Vance-Bryan K, Larson T, et al. Protein binding effects on daptomycin and vancomycin killing ofStaph. aureus. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 150.Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Barriere JC, Bouanchard DH, Harris NV, et al. The design, synthesis and properties of RP 59500 and related semisynthetic streptogram in antibiotics. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 768.Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Bouonchaud DH. Synergistic activity and FIC index of components of RP 59500. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 769.Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Aumercier M, Bouhallab S, Capnau ML, et al. Mechanism of action of RP 59500: a model which explains its synergistic activity. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 785.Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Verbist L, Verhaegen J. Comparativein vitro activity of RP 59500. In: Abstracts of the 30th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990; Houston, USA. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 776.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Janknegt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacy and ToxicologyMaasland HospitalMB Sittardthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations