Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1998 May;42(5):1253–1255. doi: 10.1128/aac.42.5.1253

Postantibiotic Effect and Postantibiotic Sub-MIC Effect of Levofloxacin Compared to Those of Ofloxacin, Ciprofloxacin, Erythromycin, Azithromycin, and Clarithromycin against 20 Pneumococci

Sheila K Spangler 1, Gengrong Lin 1, Michael R Jacobs 2, Peter C Appelbaum 1,*
PMCID: PMC105793  PMID: 9593160

Abstract

The postantibiotic effect (PAE) (10 times the MIC of quinolones, 5 times the MIC of macrolides) and postantibiotic sub-MIC effect (PAE-SME) at 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 times the MIC were determined for levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, erythromycin, azithromycin, and clarithromycin against 20 pneumococci. Quinolone PAEs ranged between 0.5 and 6.5 h, and macrolide PAEs ranged between 1 and 6 h. Measurable PAE-SMEs (in hours) at the three concentrations were 1 to 5, 1 to 8, and 1 to 8, respectively, for quinolones and 1 to 8, 1 to 8, and 1 to 6, respectively, for macrolides.


The past two decades, and in particular the past 5 years, have witnessed a dramatic increase worldwide in the incidence of pneumococci which are resistant to penicillin G and other antimicrobials (1). In a recent study from the United States, 23.6% of pneumococci showed lowered penicillin susceptibility, with 14.1% intermediately resistant and 9.5% resistant; erythromycin resistance rates of 20 and 49% were found in penicillin intermediately resistant and penicillin-resistant strains, respectively (7). In Europe, erythromycin resistance rates are higher (2).

There is an urgent need for antimicrobials which can be used for oral therapy of respiratory tract infections caused by penicillin- and macrolide-resistant pneumococci (1, 4, 8, 11, 12). Quinolone activity against pneumococci is independent of that of β-lactams and macrolides (7, 20, 21, 23). Levofloxacin, the l-isomer of ofloxacin, has MICs against Streptococcus pneumoniae which are 1 to 2 dilutions lower than those of ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin (3, 9, 16, 20), as well as good kill kinetics (23).

Postantibiotic effect (PAE) is the term used to describe suppression of bacterial growth that persists after brief exposure of organisms to antimicrobials. The PAE may have a clinical impact on antimicrobial dosing regimens. For example, drugs with no PAEs may require more frequent administration than those that demonstrate PAEs (6). However, the PAE alone may not fully explain the effectiveness of intermittent dosing, since the sum of the time concentrations of most antimicrobials are above the MIC and the time period of the PAE does not cover the entire dosing interval. Odenholt-Tornqvist et al. (1719) have reported a long period of growth inhibition when some bacteria in the postantibiotic phase were exposed to 0.3 times the MIC of antibiotic and proposed the postantibiotic sub-MIC (PAE-SME) phenomenon in order to at least partially explain the latter discrepancy. Other explanations may be concentration-dependent killing, as seen with fluoroquinolones, and the postantibiotic leukocyte effect.

Fuursted et al. (10) tested the PAEs of macrolides against 10 pneumococcal strains and Licata et al. (13) tested the PAEs and PAE-SMEs of ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin against 2 pneumococcal strains. To simultaneously test both drug classes against a larger number of strains, we examined the PAEs and PAE-SMEs of levofloxacin, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, azithromycin, and clarithromycin against 20 pneumococci.

Twenty strains of pneumococci, for which the levofloxacin MICs were 0.5 to 2.0 μg/ml and the penicillin and macrolide MICs varied, were selected (see Table 1). A standard broth microdilution methodology, using Mueller-Hinton broth (Difco) with added lysed horse blood, was employed (15). The PAE was determined by the viable plate count method as described previously (22). For quinolones, antibiotic exposure for 1 h was at 10 times the MIC; for macrolides, for reasons of solubilization, 5 times the MIC was used. Cultures were diluted 1:1,000 to remove antibiotic. The PAE was defined (6) by the equation PAE = TC, where T is the time required for viability counts of an antibiotic-exposed culture to increase by 1 log10 above the counts observed immediately after dilution and C is the corresponding time for the growth control.

TABLE 1.

MICs of individual strains

Strain no. MIC (μg/ml)
Penicillin Levofloxacin Ofloxacin Ciprofloxacin Erythromycin Azithromycin Clarithromycin
153 0.06 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.06 0.06 0.03
118 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.03 0.06 0.016
357 0.25 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.03
227 0.125 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.03
158 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.06 0.06 0.03
167 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.03 0.06 0.06
18 0.016 1.0 2.0 1.0 512.0 512.0 512.0
21 0.03 1.0 2.0 4.0 512.0 512.0 512.0
114 0.03 1.0 2.0 2.0 512.0 512.0 512.0
681 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 512.0 512.0 512.0
149 0.06 2.0 4.0 4.0 0.016 0.016 0.016
135 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.06 0.125 0.03
683 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 0.125 0.25 0.125
525 2.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.016 0.03 0.016
24 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 512.0 512.0 512.0
471 0.125 2.0 4.0 4.0 1,024.0 1,024.0 1,024.0
455 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5
184 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 512.0 512.0 512.0
425 0.125 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,024.0 1,024.0 >1,024.0
433 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 >1,024.0 >1,024.0 >1,024.0

The PAE-SME (1719) was measured at 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 times the MIC as described previously (22) and defined according to Odenhalt-Tornqvist and coworkers (1719) by the equation PAE-SME = TpaC, where Tpa is the time for cultures previously exposed to antibiotic and then reexposed to different sub-MICs to increase by 1 log10 above the counts immediately after dilution and C is the corresponding time for the unexposed control.

Viability counts for PAE and PAE-SME tests were determined before exposure and immediately after dilution (0 h) and then every 2 h until the turbidity of the tube reached a no. 1 McFarland standard, for a total of 8 h. Recovery plates were incubated for up to 48 h. Colony counts were done only for plates with 100 to 300 CFU/ml. All results were the means of two separate assays.

Microbroth MICs for the 20 strains tested are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, levofloxacin MICs ranged between 0.5 and 2 μg/ml. Ten strains were macrolide susceptible (MIC, 0.016 to 0.25 μg/ml) and nine were highly macrolide resistant (MIC, ≥512 μg/ml); the macrolide MIC for one strain was 0.5 μg/ml. Five strains were penicillin susceptible, six were penicillin intermediately resistant, and nine were penicillin resistant. Ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin MICs ranged between 0.5 and 4 μg/ml.

In all cases, exposure to antibiotics at 0.01 times the MIC did not yield bacteriostatic activity. Growth controls did not autolyse through 8 h. PAE and PAE-SME results are presented in Table 2. Macrolide PAEs and PAE-SMEs could not be determined for highly macrolide-resistant strains. In many cases, PAE-SMEs could not be quantitated, since drugs sometimes produced complete killing, especially at higher sub-MICs. No relationship between quinolone PAE or PAE-SME and penicillin susceptibility was ascertained.

TABLE 2.

PAEs and PAE-SMEs of compoundsa

Drug PAE (h)
PAE-SMEb (h)
Range Mean Range Mean
Levofloxacin 0.5–4.5 2.5 1–5/1–6/2–8c 2.8/3.5/5.4
Ofloxacin 1–4.5 2.4 1–5/1–5/2–8d 2.6/3.3/5.0
Ciprofloxacin 0.5–6.5 2.3 1–4.5/1–8/1–7e 2.7/3.6/3.9
Erythromycin 1–5 2.5 1–8/1–8/1–6f 3.0/3.5/3.3
Azithromycin 1–4 1.9 1–4/1–5/1–5g 2.2/2.3/2.2
Clarithromycin 1–6 2.3 1–7/1–8/1–5h 3.5/4.0/3.3
a

Range of values (arithmetic mean of two assays for each strain) and arithmetic mean of values for all strains tested are given. PAEs and PAE-SMEs were not determined for nine strains for which the macrolide MICs were ≥512.0 μg/ml. 

b

PAE-SME values at sub-MICs of 0.125/0.25/0.5 times the MIC. 

c

One, 2, and 12 strains had rapid bactericidal activity at 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 times the MIC, respectively. 

d

One, 2, and 12 strains had rapid bactericidal activity at 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 times the MIC, respectively. 

e

Two, 3, and 11 strains had rapid bactericidal activity at 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 times the MIC, respectively. 

f

Two strains had rapid bactericidal activity at 0.5 times the MIC. 

g

One, one, and two strains had rapid bactericidal activity at 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 times the MIC, respectively. 

h

Two strains had rapid bactericidal activity at 0.5 times the MIC. 

Levofloxacin MICs relative to those of ciprofloxacin were similar to those reported previously (3, 9, 20, 23). Levofloxacin breakpoints of ≤2 μg/ml (susceptible), 4 μg/ml (intermediately resistant), and ≥8 μg/ml (resistant) have been approved by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (15). Relative activity of macrolides against erythromycin-susceptible strains and cross-resistance of all three compounds against strains with erythromycin MICs of ≥512 μg/ml have been reported previously (7, 11, 14, 2123).

Results of the present study show a significant PAE for all quinolones and macrolides tested. Fuursted and coworkers (10), using pneumococci with different macrolide and penicillin susceptibilities and exposure to antibiotics at 10 times the MIC, obtained macrolide PAEs similar to those reported in the present study, and Licata et al. (13) obtained similar results for ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin with one penicillin-susceptible and one penicillin-resistant pneumococcus.

PAE-SMEs were usually longer than PAEs. Complete killing of organisms in PAE-SME experiments, especially at higher subinhibitory concentrations, could have been due to drug-induced lysis; alternately, PAE-SMEs could have been longer than the 8-h period tested. In every case, drug-free controls yielded growth, and the results of separate duplicate testing were identical. More studies are required to elucidate this finding (22).

Peak concentrations of levofloxacin in serum from human volunteers have been reported as 6.55 ± 1.84 μg/ml with an oral dose of 500 mg every 24 h (5). Single oral doses of levofloxacin of 50 to 1,000 mg produce a mean maximum concentration of drug in serum and area under the concentration-time curve ranging from 0.6 to 9.4 μg/ml and 4.7 to 108 mg · h/liter, respectively, but increasing linearly in a dose-proportionate fashion (5).

Results of the present study, together with the above breakpoint and pharmacokinetic analyses, point to clinical use of levofloxacin for pneumococcal infections, irrespective of the penicillin or macrolide susceptibility status of the strains.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the R. W. Johnson Research Institute, Raritan, N.J.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Appelbaum P C. Antimicrobial resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae—an overview. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15:77–83. doi: 10.1093/clinids/15.1.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Baquero, F., J. Martínez-Beltrán, and E. Loza. 1991. A review of antibiotic resistance patterns of Streptococcus pneumoniae in Europe. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 30(Suppl. A):9–14. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 3.Barry A L, Fuchs P C, Allen S D, Brown S D, Jorgensen J H, Tenover F C. In-vitro susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae to the d- and l-isomers of ofloxacin: interpretive criteria and quality control limits. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37:365–369. doi: 10.1093/jac/37.2.365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Block S, Harrison C J, Hedrick J A, Tyler R A, Smith E, Keegan E, Chartrand S A. Penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in acute otitis media: risk factors, susceptibility patterns and antimicrobial management. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1995;14:751–759. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199509000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Child J, Mortiboy D, Andrews J M, Chow A T, Wise R. Open-label crossover study to determine pharmacokinetics and penetration of two dose regimens of levofloxacin into inflammatory fluid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:2749–2751. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.12.2749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Craig W A, Gudmundsson S. Postantibiotic effect. In: Lorian V, editor. Antibiotics in laboratory medicine. Baltimore, Md: The Williams & Wilkins Co.; 1996. pp. 296–329. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Doern G V, Brueggeman A, Holley H P, Jr, Rauch A M. Antimicrobial resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae recovered from outpatients in the United States during the winter months of 1994 to 1995: results of a 30-center national surveillance study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;40:1208–1213. doi: 10.1128/aac.40.5.1208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Friedland I R, McCracken G H., Jr Management of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:377–382. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199408113310607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fu K P, Lafredo S C, Foleno B, Isaacson D M, Barrett J F, Tobia A J, Rosenthale M E. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of levofloxacin (l-ofloxacin), an optically active ofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:860–866. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.4.860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fuursted K, Knudsen J D, Petersen M B, Poulsen R K, Rehm D. Comparative study of bactericidal activities, postantibiotic effects, and effects on bacterial virulence of penicillin G and six macrolides against Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:781–784. doi: 10.1128/aac.41.4.781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jacobs M R. Treatment and diagnosis of infections caused by drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15:119–127. doi: 10.1093/clinids/15.1.119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jacobs M R, Appelbaum P C. Antibiotic-resistant pneumococci. Rev Med Microbiol. 1995;6:77–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Licata L, Smith C E, Goldschmidt R M, Barrett J F, Frosco M. Comparison of the postantibiotic and postantibiotic sub-MIC effects of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin on Staphylocccus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:950–955. doi: 10.1128/aac.41.5.950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mason E O, Jr, Kaplan S L, Lamberth L B, Tillman J. Increased rate of isolation of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in a children’s hospital and in vitro susceptibilities to antibiotics of potential therapeutic use. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:1703–1707. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.8.1703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, 4th ed. Approved standard M7-A4. Villanova, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Neu H C, Chin N-X. In vitro activity of S-ofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:1105–1107. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.7.1105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Odenholt-Tornqvist I. Studies on the postantibiotic effect and the postantibiotic sub-MIC effect of meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;31:881–892. doi: 10.1093/jac/31.6.881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Odenholt-Tornqvist I, Löwdin E, Cars O. Pharmacodynamic effects of subinhibitory concentrations of β-lactam antibiotics in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35:1834–1839. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.9.1834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Odenholt-Tornqvist I, Löwdin E, Cars O. Postantibiotic sub-MIC effects of vancomycin, roxithromycin, sparfloxacin, and amikacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:1852–1858. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.9.1852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pankuch G A, Jacobs M R, Appelbaum P C. Activity of CP 99,219 compared to DU-6859a, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, levofloxacin, lomefloxacin, tosufloxacin, sparfloxacin and grepafloxacin against penicillin-susceptible and -resistant pneumococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995;35:230–232. doi: 10.1093/jac/35.1.230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Spangler S K, Jacobs M R, Appelbaum P C. Susceptibilities of penicillin-susceptible and -resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae to RP 59500, vancomycin, erythromcyin, PD 131628, sparfloxacin, temafloxacin, Win 57273, ofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:856–859. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.4.856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Spangler S K, Lin G, Jacobs M R, Appelbaum P C. Postantibiotic effect of sanfetrinem compared with those of six other agents against 12 penicillin-susceptible and -resistant pneumococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:2173–2176. doi: 10.1128/aac.41.10.2173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Visalli M A, Jacobs M R, Appelbaum P C. MIC and time-kill study of activities of DU-6859a, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, sparfloxacin, cefotaxime, imipenem, and vancomycin against nine penicillin-susceptible and -resistant pneumococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;40:362–366. doi: 10.1128/aac.40.2.362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES