This study compares the antibacterial activities of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin against recently isolated urinary tract pathogens, by evaluating their MICs and MBCs in accordance with NCCLS susceptibility tests, time-kill curves and interference with bacterial adhesion to uroepithelial cells. A total of 200 clinical isolates was tested, including the species Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, Providencia rettgeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. All E. coli isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin and only one was resistant to ciprofloxacin, and there were no differences between beta-lactamase-positive and -negative strains. K. pneumoniae strains resistant to ciprofloxacin were also resistant to levofloxacin. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus seemed to be less susceptible than methicillin-susceptible strains to these quinolones. S. epidermidis strains were susceptible to levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin, with the exception of two isolates. Incubation of S. aureus and E. coli with subinhibitory antimicrobial concentrations reduced their capacity to adhere to uroepithelial cells; this was statistically significant at 0.25 x MIC with respect to controls (P < 0.05). Inhibition of adhesion ranged from 36 to 43% when bacteria were incubated in the presence of 0.25 x MIC of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin, and from 10 to 27% at 0.125 x MIC. These findings suggest that levofloxacin is an effective alternative to ciprofloxacin in the treatment of urinary tract infections and that sub-inhibitory concentrations may contribute to efficacy.

Activity of levoflaxin and ciprofloxacin against urinary pathogens / L. Drago, E. De Vecchi, B. Mombelli, L. Nicola, M. Valli, M.R. Gismondo. - In: JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY. - ISSN 0305-7453. - 48:1(2001), pp. 37-45.

Activity of levoflaxin and ciprofloxacin against urinary pathogens

L. Drago
Primo
;
E. De Vecchi
Secondo
;
M. Valli
Penultimo
;
M.R. Gismondo
Ultimo
2001

Abstract

This study compares the antibacterial activities of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin against recently isolated urinary tract pathogens, by evaluating their MICs and MBCs in accordance with NCCLS susceptibility tests, time-kill curves and interference with bacterial adhesion to uroepithelial cells. A total of 200 clinical isolates was tested, including the species Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, Providencia rettgeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. All E. coli isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin and only one was resistant to ciprofloxacin, and there were no differences between beta-lactamase-positive and -negative strains. K. pneumoniae strains resistant to ciprofloxacin were also resistant to levofloxacin. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus seemed to be less susceptible than methicillin-susceptible strains to these quinolones. S. epidermidis strains were susceptible to levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin, with the exception of two isolates. Incubation of S. aureus and E. coli with subinhibitory antimicrobial concentrations reduced their capacity to adhere to uroepithelial cells; this was statistically significant at 0.25 x MIC with respect to controls (P < 0.05). Inhibition of adhesion ranged from 36 to 43% when bacteria were incubated in the presence of 0.25 x MIC of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin, and from 10 to 27% at 0.125 x MIC. These findings suggest that levofloxacin is an effective alternative to ciprofloxacin in the treatment of urinary tract infections and that sub-inhibitory concentrations may contribute to efficacy.
Levoflaxin ; Ciprofloxacin ; urinary pathogens
Settore MED/07 - Microbiologia e Microbiologia Clinica
2001
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/22386
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 19
  • Scopus 78
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 68
social impact