Skip to main content
PMC home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1991 Feb;35(2):345–350. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.2.345

Differing activities of quinolones against ciprofloxacin-susceptible and ciprofloxacin-resistant, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

P A Maple 1, J M Hamilton-Miller 1, W Brumfitt 1
PMCID: PMC245003  PMID: 1827242

Abstract

The in vitro activities of nine quinolones (seven fluoroquinolones, nalidixic acid, and acrosoxacin) against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were compared with those of the glycopeptides teicoplanin and vancomycin. MICs against 160 strains of ciprofloxacin-susceptible (MIC, less than 2.0 micrograms/ml) MRSA and 40 strains of ciprofloxacin-resistant (MIC, greater than or equal to 2.0 micrograms/ml) MRSA were determined. The following MICs for 50% of the strains tested (in micrograms per milliliter) were obtained for ciprofloxacin-susceptible and -resistant strains, respectively: tosufloxacin, 0.06 and 2.0; ofloxacin, 0.25 and 16; ciprofloxacin, 0.5 and 16; pefloxacin, 0.5 and 32; acrosoxacin, 1.0 and greater than 256; enoxacin, 1.0 and 64; fleroxacin, 1.0 and 32; norfloxacin, 2.0 and 64; nalidixic acid, 64 and 512; teicoplanin, 1.0 and 1.0; vancomycin, 2.0 and 2.0. In mutation rate studies using a range of antibiotic concentrations to reflect those achievable in vivo, resistant mutants grew only on plates containing nalidixic acid (rate of mutation to resistance, 10(-7) to 10(-8) and on plates containing low concentrations of ciprofloxacin, enoxacin, and norfloxacin (rate of mutation to resistance, 10(-8) to 10(-9). In time-kill studies, 99.9% killing was found within 8 h for all of the quinolones tested (norfloxacin and nalidixic acid were not tested). Teicoplanin and vancomycin were less rapidly bactericidal. For the clinical isolates of ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA, different levels and patterns of quinolone resistance were found. Generally, cross-resistance among the fluoroquinolones was complete; however, incomplete cross-resistance did occur with the nonfluorinated quinolone acrosoxacin.

Full text

PDF
345

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Auckenthaler R., Michéa-Hamzehpour M., Pechère J. C. In-vitro activity of newer quinolones against aerobic bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1986 Apr;17 (Suppl B):29–39. doi: 10.1093/jac/17.suppl_b.29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry A. L., Jones R. N. In-vitro activities of temafloxacin, tosufloxacin (A-61827) and five other fluoroquinolone agents. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989 Apr;23(4):527–535. doi: 10.1093/jac/23.4.527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Calain P., Waldvogel F. Clinical efficacy of teicoplanin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1990 Feb;9(2):127–129. doi: 10.1007/BF01963637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chu D. T., Fernandes P. B. Structure-activity relationships of the fluoroquinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Feb;33(2):131–135. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.2.131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cullmann W., Stieglitz M., Baars B., Opferkuch W. Comparative evaluation of recently developed quinolone compounds--with a note on the frequency of resistant mutants. Chemotherapy. 1985;31(1):19–28. doi: 10.1159/000238309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dworkin R. J., Lee B. L., Sande M. A., Chambers H. F. Treatment of right-sided Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users with ciprofloxacin and rifampicin. Lancet. 1989 Nov 4;2(8671):1071–1073. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)91083-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Felmingham D., O'Hare M. D., Robbins M. J., Wall R. A., Williams A. H., Cremer A. W., Ridgway G. L., Grüneberg R. N. Comparative in vitro studies with 4-quinolone antimicrobials. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1985;11(5):317–329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Foster J. K., Lentino J. R., Strodtman R., DiVincenzo C. Comparison of in vitro activity of quinolone antibiotics and vancomycin against gentamicin- and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by time-kill kinetic studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Dec;30(6):823–827. doi: 10.1128/aac.30.6.823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hackbarth C. J., Chambers H. F. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci: detection methods and treatment of infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Jul;33(7):995–999. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.7.995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hackbarth C. J., Chambers H. F. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci: genetics and mechanisms of resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Jul;33(7):991–994. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.7.991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hooper D. C., Wolfson J. S. The fluoroquinolones: pharmacology, clinical uses, and toxicities in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Nov;28(5):716–721. doi: 10.1128/aac.28.5.716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jepsen O. B. The demise of the 'old' methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Hosp Infect. 1986 Mar;7 (Suppl A):13–17. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(86)90003-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kayser F. H., Novak J. In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin against gram-positive bacteria. An overview. Am J Med. 1987 Apr 27;82(4A):33–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kojima T., Inoue M., Mitsuhashi S. In vitro activity of AT-4140 against quinolone- and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Jun;34(6):1123–1127. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.6.1123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Limb D. I., Dabbs D. J., Spencer R. C. In-vitro selection of bacteria resistant to the 4-quinolone agents. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987 Jan;19(1):65–71. doi: 10.1093/jac/19.1.65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Maple P. A., Hamilton-Miller J. M., Brumfitt W. Comparative in-vitro activity of vancomycin, teicoplanin, ramoplanin (formerly A16686), paldimycin, DuP 721 and DuP 105 against methicillin and gentamicin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989 Apr;23(4):517–525. doi: 10.1093/jac/23.4.517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Maple P. A., Hamilton-Miller J. M., Brumfitt W. World-wide antibiotic resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet. 1989 Mar 11;1(8637):537–540. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)90076-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Maple P., Hamilton-Miller J., Brumfitt W. Ciprofloxacin resistance in methicillin- and gentamicin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989 Jul;8(7):622–624. doi: 10.1007/BF01968141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Neu H. C., Labthavikul P. In vitro activity of teichomycin compared with those of other antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Sep;24(3):425–428. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.3.425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Pohlod D. J., Saravolatz L. D., Somerville M. M. In-vitro susceptibility of staphylococci to fleroxacin in comparison with six other quinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988 Oct;22 (Suppl 500):35–41. doi: 10.1093/jac/22.supplement_d.35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ronald A. R., Turck M., Petersdorf R. G. A critical evaluation of nalidixic acid in urinary-tract infections. N Engl J Med. 1966 Nov 17;275(20):1081–1089. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196611172752001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Schaefler S. Methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus resistant to quinolones. J Clin Microbiol. 1989 Feb;27(2):335–336. doi: 10.1128/jcm.27.2.335-336.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Shalit I., Berger S. A., Gorea A., Frimerman H. Widespread quinolone resistance among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in a general hospital. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Apr;33(4):593–594. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.4.593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Smith S. M. In vitro comparison of A-56619, A-56620, amifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, enoxacin, norfloxacin, and ofloxacin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Feb;29(2):325–326. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.2.325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Thompson R. L., Cabezudo I., Wenzel R. P. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Intern Med. 1982 Sep;97(3):309–317. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-97-3-309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Townsend D. E., Ashdown N., Bolton S., Bradley J., Duckworth G., Moorhouse E. C., Grubb W. B. The international spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Hosp Infect. 1987 Jan;9(1):60–71. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(87)90097-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ubukata K., Itoh-Yamashita N., Konno M. Cloning and expression of the norA gene for fluoroquinolone resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Sep;33(9):1535–1539. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.9.1535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Watanakunakorn C. In-vitro selection of resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990 Jan;25(1):69–72. doi: 10.1093/jac/25.1.69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Williams A. H., Grüneberg R. N. Teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1984 Nov;14(5):441–445. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Wolfson J. S., Hooper D. C. Fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agents. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1989 Oct;2(4):378–424. doi: 10.1128/cmr.2.4.378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. van Caekenberghe D. L., Pattyn S. R. Reversed incomplete cross-resistance among the older and newer quinolone antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987 Mar;19(3):404–404. doi: 10.1093/jac/19.3.404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES