American journal of ophthalmology · 2003
Gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin: an in vitro susceptibility comparison to levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin using bacterial keratitis isolates.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kowalski Regis P, Dhaliwal Deepinder K, Karenchak Lisa M, Romanowski Eric G, Mah Francis S, Ritterband David C, Gordon Y Jerold
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We compared the in vitro susceptibility patterns and the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of gatifloxacin (GAT) and moxifloxacin (MOX) (fourth-generation fluoroquinolones) to ciprofloxacin (CIP) and ofloxacin (OFX) (second-generation fluoroquinolones) and levofloxacin (LEV; third-generation fluoroquinolone) using bacterial keratitis isolates. The goal was to determine whether the fourth-generation fluoroquinolones offer any advantages over the second- and third-generation fluoroquinolones.
DESIGN: Experimental laboratory investigation. In contrast to an epidemiologic prevalence study, this study was designed to compare the relative susceptibility of each bacterial group to different fluoroquinolones by deliberate selection of representative isolates that were both susceptible and resistant to second-generation fluoroquinolones.
METHODS: In retrospect, the MICs of 177 bacterial keratitis isolates were determined to CIP, OFX, LEV, GAT, and MOX using E tests. A relative susceptibility analysis was performed for each bacterial group that included separate bacterial groups that were resistant to second-generation fluoroquinolones. The NCCLS susceptibility patterns and the MICs were compared statistically. Comparing MICs, the antibiotic with the lower MICs has greater antibacterial activity.
RESULTS: For most keratitis isolates, there were no susceptibility differences among the five fluoroquinolones. The fourth-generation fluoroquinolones did, however, demonstrate increased susceptibility for Staphylococcus aureus isolates that were resistant to CIP, LEV and OFX. In general, CIP demonstrated the lowest MICs for gram-negative bacteria. The MICs for fourth-generation fluoroquinolones were statistically lower than the second-generation fluoroquinolones for all gram-positive bacteria tested. Comparing the two fourth-generation fluoroquinolones, MOX demonstrated lower MICs for most gram-positive bacteria, whereas GAT demonstrated lower MICs for most gram-negative bacteria.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on in vitro testing, the fourth-generation fluoroquinolones may offer some advantages over those currently available for the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Clinical studies will be required to confirm these results.
DESIGN: Experimental laboratory investigation. In contrast to an epidemiologic prevalence study, this study was designed to compare the relative susceptibility of each bacterial group to different fluoroquinolones by deliberate selection of representative isolates that were both susceptible and resistant to second-generation fluoroquinolones.
METHODS: In retrospect, the MICs of 177 bacterial keratitis isolates were determined to CIP, OFX, LEV, GAT, and MOX using E tests. A relative susceptibility analysis was performed for each bacterial group that included separate bacterial groups that were resistant to second-generation fluoroquinolones. The NCCLS susceptibility patterns and the MICs were compared statistically. Comparing MICs, the antibiotic with the lower MICs has greater antibacterial activity.
RESULTS: For most keratitis isolates, there were no susceptibility differences among the five fluoroquinolones. The fourth-generation fluoroquinolones did, however, demonstrate increased susceptibility for Staphylococcus aureus isolates that were resistant to CIP, LEV and OFX. In general, CIP demonstrated the lowest MICs for gram-negative bacteria. The MICs for fourth-generation fluoroquinolones were statistically lower than the second-generation fluoroquinolones for all gram-positive bacteria tested. Comparing the two fourth-generation fluoroquinolones, MOX demonstrated lower MICs for most gram-positive bacteria, whereas GAT demonstrated lower MICs for most gram-negative bacteria.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on in vitro testing, the fourth-generation fluoroquinolones may offer some advantages over those currently available for the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Clinical studies will be required to confirm these results.