The predominance of quinolone resistance among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates in the nosocomial environment led to the in vitro comparison of trovafloxacin (CP-99,219) and DU-6859a (which are novel fluoroquinolone compounds) with levofloxacin (the L-geometric isomer of ofloxacin) and Sparfloxacin against 152 S. aureus isolates, 104 of which were MRSA. At 2 mg/L trovafloxacin and DU-6859a inhibited 92.3 and 77.9% of MRSA isolates, respectively, possessing lower minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values than levofloxacin and Sparfloxacin, which inhibited 38.5 and 36.5% of isolates, respectively. In contrast, in the methicillin-susceptible population all tested fluoroquinolones had an equal intrinsic activity. Trovafloxacin possessed a superior killing effect compared with DU-6859a and Sparfloxacin, whereas levofloxacin was the least bactericidal quinolone. Indeed, the effect of trovafloxacin was mainly expressed at a quinolone concentration of 2 × MIC and after 24 hours of growth. However, in levofloxacin- and sparfloxacin-resistant MRSA isolates, DU-6859a had a superior killing effect compared with trovafloxacin. Trovafloxacin had a killing effect in only 20% of DU-6859a-, levofloxacin- and sparfloxacin-resistant isolates. Our findings support trovafloxacin and DU-6859a as highly active in vitro antistaphylococcal agents, especially in MRSA, which merit further clinical investigation.
Minimum Inhibitory Concentra Adis International Limited Levofloxacin Antimicrob Agent Drug Invest
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Goldstein FW, Acar JF. Epidemiology of quinolone resistance: Europe and North and South America. Drugs 1995; 49 Suppl. 2: 36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giamarellou H. Activity of quinolones against Gram-positive cocci: clinical features. Drugs 1995; 49 Suppl. 2: 58–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliopoulos GM. In vitro activity of fluoroquinolones against Gram-positive bacteria. Drugs 1995; 49 Suppl. 2: 48–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coque TM, Singh KY, Murray BE. Comparative in vitro activity of the new fluoroquinolone trovafloxacin (CP-99,219) against Gram-positive cocci. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37(5): 1011–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korten V, Tomayako JF, Murray BE. Comparative in vitro activity of DU-6859a, a new fluoroquinolone agent, against Gram-positive cocci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38(3): 611–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakane T, Iyobe S, Sato K, et al. In vitro antibacterial activity of DU-6859a, a new fluoroquinolone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39(12): 2822–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel JA, Pachucki CT, Lentino JR. Synergy of levofloxacin (L-ofloxacin) and oxacillin against quinolone-resistant Staphylococcus aureus measured by the time-kill method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37(2): 339–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baquero F, Canton R. In vitro activity of Sparfloxacin in comparison with currently available antimicrobials against respiratory tract pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37 Suppl. A: 1–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindier J. Tests to detect oxacillin (methicillin)-resistant staphylococci with an oxacillin screen plate. In: Isenberg HD, editor. Clinical microbiology procedures handbook. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology 1992; 5.5. 1–7Google Scholar
Archer GL, Pennell E. Detection of methicillin resistance in staphylococci by using a DNA probe. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34(9): 1720–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods GL, Washington JA. Antibacterial susceptibility tests: dilution and disk diffusion methods. In: Murray PR, Baron EJ, Pfaller MA, et al, editors. Manual of clinical microbiology. 6th ed. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1995; 1327–41Google Scholar
Teng R, Harris SC, Nix DE, et al. Pharmacokinetics and safety of trovafloxacin (CP-99,219), a new quinolone antibiotic, following administration of single oral doses to healthy male volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 36(2): 385–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakashima M, Vematsu J, Kosuge K, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of DU-6859a, a new fluoroquinolone, after single and multiple oral doses in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39(1): 170–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child J, Mortiboy D, Andrews JM, et al. Open-label crossover study to determine pharmacokinetics and penetration of two dose regimens of levofloxacin into inflammatory fluid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39(12): 2749–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montay G. Pharmacokinetics of Sparfloxacin in healthy volunteers: a review. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37 Suppl. A: 27–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindier J. Tests to assess bactericidal activity. In: Isenberg HD, editor. Clinical microbiology procedures handbook. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1992: 5.16.14–21Google Scholar
Gooding BB, Jones RN. In vitro antimicrobial activity of CP-99,219, a novel azabicyclo-naphthyridone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37(2): 349–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child J, Andrews J, Boswell F, et al. The in vitro activity of CP 99,219, a new naphthyridone antimicrobial agent: a comparison with fluoroquinolone agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35(6): 869–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang YY, Wang F, Zhang J, et al. In vitro antibacterial activity of levofloxacin. Drugs 1995; 49 Suppl. 2: 274–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradelis AG, Delidou K, Grigoriadou A, et al. The antimicrobial activity of Sparfloxacin, a new quinolone. Drugs 1995; 49 Suppl. 2: 238–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar