Comparison of azithromycin and moxifloxacin against bacterial isolates causing conjunctivitis

被引:21
作者
Ohnsman, Christina
Ritterband, David
O'Brien, Terrence
Girgis, Dalia
Kabat, Al
机构
[1] Wills Eye Inst, Philadelphia, PA USA
[2] New York Eye & Ear Infirm, New York, NY USA
[3] Bascom Palmer Eye Inst, Miami, FL USA
[4] Nova SE Univ, Ft Lauderdale, FL USA
关键词
azithromycin; conjunctivitis; fluoroquinolone; macrolide; moxifloxacin; resistance;
D O I
10.1185/030079907X226276
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To examine in vitro resistance to azithromycin and moxifloxacin in bacterial conjunctivitis isolates. Methods: MIC(90)s (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration) and resistance rates to azithromycin and moxifloxacin were determined based upon microtiter broth dilution and/or antimicrobial gradient test strips in a multicenter phase III study and confirmed externally. Results: The most common isolates collected from bacterial conjunctivitis patients in the phase III study were Haemophilus influenzae (40.6%), followed by Staphylococcus epidermidis (19.3 %), Propionibacterium acnes (17.3%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (16.8%), and Staphylococcus aureus (0.06%). MIC90 for all of these organisms were well below established resistance breakpoints for moxifloxacin, indicating no bacterial resistance. On the other hand, the MIC90 for H. influenzae was 3-fold higher than the resistance breakpoint for azithromycin, >= 128-fold higher for S. epidermidis, 16-fold higher for S. pneumoniae and >= 128-fold higher for S. aureus, indicating moderate to very high bacterial resistance to azithromycin. Conclusions: Resistance to azithromycin is more common than resistance to moxifloxacin in clinical isolates causing bacterial conjunctivitis.
引用
收藏
页码:2241 / 2249
页数:9
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]   Biotypes and serotypes of Haemophilus influenzae ocular isolates [J].
Alrawi, AM ;
Chern, KC ;
Cevallos, V ;
Lietman, T ;
Whitcher, JP ;
Margolis, TP ;
Cunningham, ET .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2002, 86 (03) :276-277
[2]   The fluoroquinolone antibacterials: past, present and future perspectives [J].
Appelbaum, PC ;
Hunter, PA .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, 2000, 16 (01) :5-15
[3]  
BEIDENBACH DJ, 2003, DIAGN MICROBIOL INFE, V46, P55
[4]   Increasing bacterial resistance in pediatric acute conjunctivitis (1997-1998) [J].
Block, SL ;
Hedrick, J ;
Tyler, R ;
Smith, A ;
Findlay, R ;
Keegan, E ;
Stroman, DW .
ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 2000, 44 (06) :1650-1654
[5]   The macrolides [J].
Blondeau, JM ;
DeCarolis, E ;
Metzler, KL ;
Hansen, GT .
EXPERT OPINION ON INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS, 2002, 11 (02) :189-215
[6]   Fluoroquinolones: Mechanism of action, classification, and development of resistance [J].
Blondeau, JM .
SURVEY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2004, 49 :S73-S78
[7]   Prevalence and molecular analysis of macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance among isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae collected during the 2000-2001 PROTEKT US study [J].
Brown, SD ;
Farrell, DJ ;
Morrissey, I .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2004, 42 (11) :4980-4987
[8]   Antibacterial susceptibility among Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated from paediatric and adult patients as part of the PROTEKT US study in 2001-2002 [J].
Brown, SD ;
Farrell, DJ .
JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2004, 54 :I23-I29
[9]   Antimicrobial susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus pyogenes and Haemophilus influenzae collected from patients across the USA, in 2001-2002, as part of the PROTEKT US study [J].
Brown, SD ;
Rybak, MJ .
JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2004, 54 :I7-I15
[10]  
Burton M J, 2002, Expert Opin Pharmacother, V3, P113, DOI 10.1517/14656566.3.2.113