Skip Navigation


JAC Advance Access originally published online on February 24, 2005
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2005 55(4):523-527; doi:10.1093/jac/dki039
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
55/4/523    most recent
dki039v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Steward, J.
Right arrow Articles by Brooks, T. J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Steward, J.
Right arrow Articles by Brooks, T. J. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© British Crown Copyright 2005, Dstl-published with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Comparison of gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin and ciprofloxacin for treatment of experimental Burkholderia pseudomallei infection

J. Steward1,*, T. Piercy1, M. S. Lever1, M. Nelson1, A. J. H. Simpson1,2 and T. J. G. Brooks1,3

1 Biomedical Sciences, Dstl Porton Down, Salisbury SP4 OJQ; 3 HPA Porton Down, Salisbury SP4 OJG; 2 Department of Medical Microbiology, Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College London, London, UK

* Corresponding author. Tel: +44-1980-613169; Fax: +44-1980-613284; Email: jasteward{at}dstl.gov.uk

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin and ciprofloxacin for the post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of experimental Burkholderia pseudomallei infection. The presence of persistent infection in treated animals and the rate of relapse following dexamethasone treatment were also investigated.

Methods: BALB/c mice were inoculated subcutaneously with 1.75 x 106 cfu of B. pseudomallei strain 576. Gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin and ciprofloxacin (100 mg/kg) were given orally at 12 hourly intervals for 14 days starting at 6 h, 7 days or 12 days post-challenge. Control mice did not receive antibiotic therapy.

Results: No regimen gave 100% protection. Prophylaxis was most effective when started 6 h post-challenge, with survival rates at 42 days for ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin being 58%, 75% and 75%, respectively. For treatment started at day 7 post-challenge, survival rates were 17%, 11% and 44%, respectively. When antibiotic treatment was delayed until day 12 post-challenge, survival rates fell to 21%, 17% and 28%, respectively. Following dexamethasone treatment of survivors at 42 days post-challenge, relapses occurred in all treatment groups.

Conclusions: Fluoroquinolones do not provide good post-exposure protection against infection with B. pseudomallei. The newer agents moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin are not significantly better than ciprofloxacin for this purpose.

Keywords: melioidosis , murine , chemotherapy , fluoroquinolones


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
S. P. Sivalingam, S. H. Sim, L. C. W. Jasper, D. Wang, Y. Liu, and E. E. Ooi
Pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis of experimental Burkholderia pseudomallei infection with doxycycline, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and co-trimoxazole
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., March 1, 2008; 61(3): 674 - 678.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.