1998ChemotherapyRequires access

In vitro Activity of Enoxacin versus Ciprofloxacin, Fleroxacin, Lomefloxacin, Ofloxacin, Pefloxacin, and Rufloxacin against Uropathogens

Kurt G. Naber, Michaela Well, Karin Hollauer, Daniela Kirchbauer, Wolfgang Witte

Open publisher page 14 citations

Abstract

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of enoxacin, ciprofloxacin, fleroxacin, lomefloxacin, ofloxacin, pefloxacin and rufloxacin were determined against 400 uropathogens cultured from the urine of patients with complicated and/or hospital-acquired urinary tract infections (UTI) using an agar dilution method. The bacterial spectrum consisted of Entero-bacteriaceae (34.5%), enterococci (31.5%), staphylococci (21.2%) and non-fermenting bacteria (12.8%). Enoxacin inhibited all but one strain (Enterobacter cloacae) of Enterobacteriaceae up to an MIC of 1 mg/l (MIC90 0.25 mg/l). Regarding the total bacterial spectrum, enoxacin inhibited 54.5, 59.5, 76.0 and 83.8% up to an MIC of 1, 2, 4 and 8 mg/l, respectively. If the same breakpoint of resistance for ofloxacin according to DIN 58,940 (NCCLS), i.e. MIC > or = 4 mg/l (> or = 8 mg/l), is also taken for the other fluoroquinolones, and the 126 strains of enterococci are excluded, for which alternative agents, e.g. aminopenicillins, should be considered instead, the following resistance rates were found: ciprofloxacin and enoxacin 15.3% (15.0%), ofloxacin 17.2% (15.3%), pefloxacin 18.2% (15.3%), fleroxacin 19.3% (15.3%), lomefloxacin 19.7% (17.9%) and rufloxacin 31.8% (27.4%). According to their in vitro activity, all fluoroquinolones tested besides rufloxacin show similar rates of resistance against uropathogens and can therefore be considered good alternative agents for the treatment of complicated UTI.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of enoxacin, ciprofloxacin, fleroxacin, lomefloxacin, ofloxacin, pefloxacin and rufloxacin were determined against 400 uropathogens cultured from the urine of patients with complicated and/or hospital-acquired urinary tract infections (UTI) using an agar dilution method. The bacterial spectrum consisted of Entero-bacteriaceae (34.5%), enterococci (31.5%), staphylococci (21.2%) and non-fermenting bacteria (12.8%). Enoxacin inhibited all but one strain (Enterobacter cloacae) of Enterobacteriaceae up to an MIC of 1 mg/l (MIC90 0.25 mg/l). Regarding the total bacterial spectrum, enoxacin inhibited 54.5, 59.5, 76.0 and 83.8% up to an MIC of 1, 2, 4 and 8 mg/l, respectively. If the same breakpoint of resistance for ofloxacin according to DIN 58,940 (NCCLS), i.e. MIC > or = 4 mg/l (> or = 8 mg/l), is also taken for the other fluoroquinolones, and the 126 strains of enterococci are excluded, for which alternative agents, e.g. aminopenicillins, should be considered instead, the following resistance rates were found: ciprofloxacin and enoxacin 15.3% (15.0%), ofloxacin 17.2% (15.3%), pefloxacin 18.2% (15.3%), fleroxacin 19.3% (15.3%), lomefloxacin 19.7% (17.9%) and rufloxacin 31.8% (27.4%). According to their in vitro activity, all fluoroquinolones tested besides rufloxacin show similar rates of resistance against uropathogens and can therefore be considered good alternative agents for the treatment of complicated UTI.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 14 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of enoxacin, ciprofloxacin, fleroxacin, lomefloxacin, ofloxacin, pefloxacin and rufloxacin were determined against 400 uropathogens cultured from the urine of patients with complicated and/or hospital-acquired urinary tract infections (UTI) using an agar dilution method. The bacterial spectrum consisted of Entero-bacteriaceae (34.5%), enterococci (31.5%), staphylococci (21.2%) and non-fermenting bacteria (12.8%). Enoxacin inhibited all but one strain (Enterobacter cloacae) of Enterobacteriaceae up to an MIC of 1 mg/l (MIC90 0.25 mg/l). Regarding the total bacterial spectrum, enoxacin inhibited 54.5, 59.5, 76.0 and 83.8% up to an MIC of 1, 2, 4 and 8 mg/l, respectively. If the same breakpoint of resistance for ofloxacin according to DIN 58,940 (NCCLS), i.e. MIC > or = 4 mg/l (> or = 8 mg/l), is also taken for the other fluoroquinolones, and the 126 strains of enterococci are excluded, for which alternative agents, e.g. aminopenicillins, should be considered instead, the following resistance rates were found: ciprofloxacin and enoxacin 15.3% (15.0%), ofloxacin 17.2% (15.3%), pefloxacin 18.2% (15.3%), fleroxacin 19.3% (15.3%), lomefloxacin 19.7% (17.9%) and rufloxacin 31.8% (27.4%). According to their in vitro activity, all fluoroquinolones tested besides rufloxacin show similar rates of resistance against uropathogens and can therefore be considered good alternative agents for the treatment of complicated UTI.

Key concepts: Fleroxacin, Enoxacin, Pefloxacin, Lomefloxacin, Ofloxacin, Ciprofloxacin, Microbiology, Minimum inhibitory concentration

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
In vitro Activity of Enoxacin versus Ciprofloxacin, Fleroxacin, Lomefloxacin, Ofloxacin, Pefloxacin, and Rufloxacin against Uropathogens — Research Paper | ScholarLens