Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Drago, L.
Right arrow Articles by Gismondo, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Drago, L.
Right arrow Articles by Gismondo, M. R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2001) 48, 37-45
© 2001 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Activity of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin against urinary pathogens

L. Drago,*, E. De Vecchi, B. Mombelli, L. Nicola, M. Valli and M. R. Gismondo

Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Preclinical Science, LITA Vialba, University of Milan, Via G. B. Grassi 74, 20157 Milano, Italy

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 ß-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.

* Corresponding author. Tel: +39-02-38210203; Fax: +39-02-38210204; E-mail: microbio{at}mailserver.unimi.it


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 Med MicrobiolHome page
A. P. Fonseca, C. Extremina, A. F. Fonseca, and J. C. Sousa
Effect of subinhibitory concentration of piperacillin/tazobactam on Pseudomonas aeruginosa
J. Med. Microbiol., September 1, 2004; 53(9): 903 - 910.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
G. P. Gesu, F. Marchetti, L. Piccoli, and A. Cavallero
Levofloxacin and Ciprofloxacin In Vitro Activities against 4,003 Clinical Bacterial Isolates Collected in 24 Italian Laboratories
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., February 1, 2003; 47(2): 816 - 819.
[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.