Regis P Kowalski1,2, Eric G Romanowski3,4, Francis S Mah3,4, Hiroshi Sasaki5, Masamichi Fukuda5, Y J Gordon3,4. 1. The Charles T. Campbell Ophthalmic Microbiology Laboratory, The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. kowalskirp@upmc.edu. 2. UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. kowalskirp@upmc.edu. 3. The Charles T. Campbell Ophthalmic Microbiology Laboratory, The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Department of Ophthalmology Division of Sensory Organ Medicine, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Kanazawa, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Moxifloxacin, a fourth-generation fluoroquinolone (FQ), was compared to levofloxacin, a third-generation FQ, for preventing FQ-resistant, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (FQrMRSA) endophthalmitis in a rabbit model. METHODS: Three regimens of topical treatments (moxifloxacin 0.5%, levofloxacin 0.5%, and saline) were tested to prevent endophthalmitis. For each regimen, drops were instilled every 15 min for 1 h into the left eyes of 15 rabbits. After anesthesia, 2 x 10(4) cfu of FQrMRSA was injected into the aqueous. One drop of treatment was given immediately, and another four drops were applied over 24 h. At 24 h, the eyes were clinically graded for endophthalmitis. After the rabbits were sacrificed, the aqueous and vitreous were tapped for bacterial colony counts. RESULTS: Topical moxifloxacin (12/15, 80%) significantly (P=0.0001) prevented clinical endophthalmitis in more rabbits than levofloxacin (2/15, 13%) or saline (2/15, 13%). The total median clinical score for moxifloxacin treatment (1.0) was significantly (P=0.0004) lower than that for levofloxacin (20.0) or saline (23.0). Culture-negative eyes were less frequent for levofloxacin (8/15, 53%) and saline (1/15, 7%) treatments than for moxifloxacin treatment (12/15, 80%). CONCLUSION: This in vivo study indicates that moxifloxacin, a fourth-generation FQ, may be more effective than levofloxacin, a third-generation FQ, in preventing experimental FQrMRSA. endophthalmitis.
PURPOSE:Moxifloxacin, a fourth-generation fluoroquinolone (FQ), was compared to levofloxacin, a third-generation FQ, for preventing FQ-resistant, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (FQrMRSA) endophthalmitis in a rabbit model. METHODS: Three regimens of topical treatments (moxifloxacin 0.5%, levofloxacin 0.5%, and saline) were tested to prevent endophthalmitis. For each regimen, drops were instilled every 15 min for 1 h into the left eyes of 15 rabbits. After anesthesia, 2 x 10(4) cfu of FQrMRSA was injected into the aqueous. One drop of treatment was given immediately, and another four drops were applied over 24 h. At 24 h, the eyes were clinically graded for endophthalmitis. After the rabbits were sacrificed, the aqueous and vitreous were tapped for bacterial colony counts. RESULTS: Topical moxifloxacin (12/15, 80%) significantly (P=0.0001) prevented clinical endophthalmitis in more rabbits than levofloxacin (2/15, 13%) or saline (2/15, 13%). The total median clinical score for moxifloxacin treatment (1.0) was significantly (P=0.0004) lower than that for levofloxacin (20.0) or saline (23.0). Culture-negative eyes were less frequent for levofloxacin (8/15, 53%) and saline (1/15, 7%) treatments than for moxifloxacin treatment (12/15, 80%). CONCLUSION: This in vivo study indicates that moxifloxacin, a fourth-generation FQ, may be more effective than levofloxacin, a third-generation FQ, in preventing experimental FQrMRSA. endophthalmitis.
Authors: Luis E Fernández de Castro; Helga P Sandoval; Luanna R Bartholomew; David T Vroman; Kerry D Solomon Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.671
Authors: Regis P Kowalski; Kathleen A Yates; Eric G Romanowski; Lisa M Karenchak; Francis S Mah; Y Jerold Gordon Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Eric G Romanowski; Francis S Mah; Kathleen A Yates; Regis P Kowalski; Y Jerold Gordon Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Renée Solomon; Eric D Donnenfeld; Henry D Perry; Robert W Snyder; Chad Nedrud; Jonathan Stein; Adam Bloom Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Regis P Kowalski; Deepinder K Dhaliwal; Lisa M Karenchak; Eric G Romanowski; Francis S Mah; David C Ritterband; Y Jerold Gordon Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Regis P Kowalski; Eric G Romanowski; Francis S Mah; Kathleen A Yates; Y Jerold Gordon Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Regis P Kowalski; Eric G Romanowski; Francis S Mah; Robert M Q Shanks; Y J Gordon Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Kristin A Rarey; Robert M Q Shanks; Eric G Romanowski; Francis S Mah; Regis P Kowalski Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 2.671
Authors: Roger A Astley; Phillip S Coburn; Salai Madhumathi Parkunan; Michelle C Callegan Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Randall Olson; Eric Donnenfeld; Frank A Bucci; Francis W Price; Michael Raizman; Kerry Solomon; Uday Devgan; William Trattler; Steven Dell; R Bruce Wallace; Michelle Callegan; Heather Brown; Peter J McDonnell; Taryn Conway; Rhett M Schiffman; David A Hollander Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2010-12-10