Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Preclinical Science, LITA Vialba, University of Milan, Via G. B. Grassi 74, 20157 Milano, Italy
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Microbial attachment to the epithelial surface has been implicated in the initial stages of several infections.9,10 Adherence is a pathogenic factor whereby organisms impair the integrity of the mucosal barrier and cause disease. Sublethal concentrations of various antibiotics markedly impair bacterial adhesion to human cells, by affecting the adherence properties of microorganisms.11,12 Intermittent antibiotic doses generally cause oscillations in drug concentrations at an infection site, exceeding MIC values for a limited period only. After this, antibiotic concentrations may fall below the MIC and hence are less likely to eliminate bacteria, although they may affect bacterial virulence: this may occur after therapy has been discontinued but does not occur during quinolone therapy of UTIs. Knowledge of the pharmacodynamic effect of subinhibitory concentrations and drug pharmacokinetic profiles is a useful basis for optimal therapy.
The present study evaluates the antibacterial activity of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin against recently isolated UTI pathogens, by studying MICs, MBCs, timekill curves and interference by the two drugs with bacterial adhesion to uroepithelial cells.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
A total of 200 strains isolated during 19992000 at L. Sacco Teaching Hospital of Milan (Italy) were tested. They included 27 E. coli [10 producers and 17 non-producers of extended-spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBLs)], 24 Klebsiella pneumoniae, 25 Proteus mirabilis, 16 Proteus vulgaris, 10 Providencia rettgeri, 22 Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 26 Enterococcus faecalis, 20 methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), 10 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and 20 Staphylococcus epidermidis. These strains were isolated from patients presenting with UTI; only one isolate per patient was used in order to avoid strain duplication.
S. aureus strains were evaluated for methicillin resistance (oxacillin disc test, Becton Dickinson, Cockeysville, MD, USA), and E. coli strains were assayed for production of ESBLs by the Vitek automatic system (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France); confirmation by ceftazidime/ clavulanic acid and cefotaxime/clavulanic acid test was in accordance with NCCLS procedures.13 S. aureus ATCC 29213, S. aureus ATCC 43300 and E. coli ATCC 25922 were used as controls for methicillin resistance and ESBL production.13
Antimicrobial agents
Stock solutions of levofloxacin (Aventis Pharma, Lainate, Italy) prepared at a concentration of 1280 mg/L in NaOH 0.05 mol/L and ciprofloxacin (Bayer SpA, Milan, Italy) dissolved in sterile phosphate buffer at a concentration of 2000 mg/L were stored at 20°C until use.
Determination of MICs and MBCs
Determinations of MICs and MBCs by the microdilution broth method were carried out according to NCCLS approved standards: an adjusted inoculum of the test organism was inoculated into MuellerHinton broth (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) containing two-fold serial dilutions of an initial antibiotic solution, so that each well contained approximately 5 x 105 cfu/mL.13,14 Results were observed after 18 h incubation at 37°C and the MIC was defined as the lowest concentration to inhibit visible growth. The MBC was determined by plating 0.010 mL from the wells showing no visible growth on to Mueller Hinton agar plates (Oxoid) and incubating for 1824 h. The MBC was defined as the concentration at which there was a 99.9% reduction in cfu compared with the original inoculum. For each analytical series, quality controls were carried out with E. coli ATCC 25922 strain: expected MIC ranges were 0.0080.06 mg/L for levofloxacin and 0.004 0.015 mg/L for ciprofloxacin.14
Timekill curves
Bactericidal activity was evaluated by performing timekill curves on the following strains: ESBL-positive E. coli (Ec 2068), ESBL-negative E. coli (Ec 2648), P. mirabilis (Pm 2912), MRSA (Sa 211) and MSSA (Sa 1492). MICs of each antibiotic for these strains are reported in Table I.
|
Interference with adhesion to uroepithelial cells
Strains of E. coli (Ec 2648) and S. aureus (Sa 1492) tested previously for their capacity to adhere to uroepithelial cells, were examined; their MICs are reported in Table I. Adhesion assays were performed as described previously.15,16 Briefly, human uroepithelial cells collected from healthy females (1 x 105 cells/mL) were incubated with bacteria (1 x 108 cfu/mL) previously grown with or without sub-inhibitory concentrations of levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin (0.25 x and 0.125 x MIC). Each sample was prepared in duplicate. After 45 min, non-adherent bacteria were eliminated by three centrifugations. The final pellet was then resuspended in a small quantity of PBS and placed either on a glass slide, dried and Gram stained, or on round microscope coverslips and dried for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Coverslips were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde (Sigma, St Louis, MO, USA) and postfixed with 1% osmium tetroxide (Sigma) for 90 min. Specimens were then dehydrated with ethanol and acetone, and, after critical point drying (Emitech), covered with gold and examined by SEM.
The mean number of adhered bacteria per cell was determined by counting the number of bacteria adhering to 40 uroepithelial cells. Each test was performed in triplicate. Inhibition of adherence (IA) was calculated using this formula:
![]() |
![]() |
Statistical analysis
Interference with adhesion to epithelial cells was compared by means of one-way analysis of variance. Differences were considered statistically significant when P 0.05.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The antibacterial activities of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin are summarized in Tables II and III, which report the MIC and MBC values for all the test microorganisms. Quality control results fell within the accepted ranges for ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin with a mean value of 0.03 mg/L for levofloxacin and 0.013 mg/L for ciprofloxacin. MICs and MBCs of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin were similar for most of the microorganisms tested, with differences of less than two dilutions. However, MIC90 and MIC50 values of levofloxacin were four-fold higher than those of ciprofloxacin for P. vulgaris, P. rettgeri and P. aeruginosa. Using NCCLS breakpoints of
2 and
1 mg/L for susceptibility to levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin,14 all E. coli isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin and only one was resistant to ciprofloxacin, with no remarkable differences between ESBL-positive and -negative strains. The K. pneumoniae strain resistant to ciprofloxacin was also resistant to levofloxacin, while P. mirabilis classified as intermediate for ciprofloxacin was susceptible to levofloxacin. One isolate of P. rettgeri and one of P. aeruginosa were susceptible to ciprofloxacin but intermediate for levofloxacin. None of the MSSA strains were resistant to levofloxacin, while four isolates were intermediate. By contrast, resistance to ciprofloxacin occurred in four of the 20 MSSA strains tested. MRSA seemed to be less susceptible than MSSA to levofloxacin; this difference seemed less marked for ciprofloxacin. S. epidermidis strains were generally susceptible to levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin, with the exception of two resistant strains, which were responsible for the high MIC and MBC values.
|
|
The bactericidal kinetics of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin against the test strains are shown in Figures 13. The two antimicrobials were considered to have bactericidal activity when a decrease of at least 3 logs from the starting inoculum was observed. levofloxacin was bactericidal against E. coli at 2 x and 4 x MIC after 24 h, while ciprofloxacin caused a 3 log decrease in bacterial count after 24 h only at 4 x MIC, with a similar trend for the ß-lactamase producer and non-producer. The bactericidal activity of levofloxacin against S. aureus was similar for methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant strains. In contrast, ciprofloxacin was bactericidal for the MSSA strain at 4 x MIC, and bacteriostatic against the MRSA strain. There was a marked decrease in P. mirabilis count in the presence of levofloxacin after 24 h, while the action of ciprofloxacin was less sustained.
|
|
|
Table IV illustrates the interference by levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin subinhibitory concentrations with adhesion of E. coli and S. aureus to uroepithelial cells. For both strains, incubation with subinhibitory concentrations of the two drugs reduced adherence to uroepithelial cells. In particular, a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of adherent bacteria/cell was observed at 0.25 x MIC with both drugs. Bacterial adhesion to uroepithelial cells was also reduced when bacteria were incubated with 0.125 x MIC levofloxacin, although there was no statistical difference. Consequently, inhibition of adhesion ranged from 36 to 43% when bacteria were incubated with 0.25 x MIC of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin, and from 10 to 27% at 0.125 x MIC. SEM photographs (Figure 4
) show the typical appearance of urinary cells incubated with E. coli in the presence or absence of antimicrobial compounds.
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Ciprofloxacin MICs were generally lower than those of levofloxacin, but since the established breakpoints for ciprofloxacin are about half of those for levofloxacin, the effective potency of the two compounds was comparable. Although only a few MRSA strains were tested, they seemed less susceptible than MSSA to levofloxacin, confirming data reported by other authors.18,22
Production of ESBLs did not influence levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin antibacterial activity against E. coli, which was markedly susceptible to these quinolones; the only ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli strain was ESBL negative. In vitro activity against P. aeruginosa indicated that MICs of ciprofloxacin are generally lower than those of levofloxacin, although the pattern of susceptibility to the two drugs remains quite similar.
Comparison of the killing kinetics showed more sustained activity against the MRSA and P. mirabilis strains by levofloxacin compared with ciprofloxacin, which was not bactericidal against the strains even at 4 x MIC.
Although it has been reported that exposure to quinolones has caused a decline in the susceptibility of urinary isolates to quinolones,2,22 in the present study levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin showed excellent activity against the urinary pathogens tested. Most of these strains were susceptible to both the test drugs, but resistance to ciprofloxacin was generally more frequent than to levofloxacin.
Levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin significantly affected the adherence properties of E. coli and S. aureus grown in the presence of subinhibitory concentrations of the two drugs. This effect has been observed for older and newer quinolones (oxolinic acid, ciprofloxacin, pefloxacin, enoxacin, lomefloxacin and rufloxacin) by several authors, who reported significant decreases in the adhesion of E. coli and S. aureus.15,20,21,23,24 Mechanisms involved include inhibition of synthesis or expression of adhesins, synthesis or release of cellular surface components, alterations in adhesion structures, modification of bacterial shape, all leading to the inability of bacteria to interact with host receptors.16,25 Pefloxacin and enoxacin limit bacterial adhesion by inhibiting synthesis or expression of adhesins,23,26 ciprofloxacin causes cell elongation in encapsulated K. pneumoniae strains,27 ofloxacin interferes heavily with expression of E. coli P fimbriae.28 Adhesion of S. aureus is mediated by specific adhesins,29,30 while in E. coli other mechanisms, including the production of fimbriae, are involved. Since, to the best of our knowledge, the mechanisms by which levofloxacin affects bacterial adhesion are not fully elucidated, it may be hypothesized that subinhibitory concentrations of this drug might interfere with some of these structures, thus reducing bacterial adhesion.
In conclusion, levofloxacin activity against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria was confirmed. However, further studies on the effects of low concentrations of levofloxacin on virulence factors are needed to clarify the role played by subinhibitory concentrations of levofloxacin in modifying interactions between host and pathogen.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
Notes |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2 . Mascellino, M. T., Farinelli, S., Iegri, F., Iona, E. & De Simone, C. (1998). Antimicrobial activity of fluoroquinolones and other antibiotics on 1,116 clinical gram-positive and gram-negative isolates. Drugs under Experimental and Clinical Research 24, 13951.[ISI][Medline]
3 . Goldstein, E. J. C., Citron, D. M., Hunt Gerardo, S., Hudspeth, M. & Merriam, C. V. (1997). Comparative in vitro activities of DU-6859a, levofloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin and ciprofloxacin against 387 aerobic and anaerobic bite wound isolates. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 41, 11935.[Abstract]
4 . Wimer, S. M., Schoonover, L. & Garrison, M. W. (1998). Levofloxacin: a therapeutic review. Clinical Therapeutics 20, 104970.[ISI][Medline]
5 . Norby, S. R., Petermann, W., Willcox, P. A., Vetter, N. & Salewski, E. (1998). A comparative study of levofloxacin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of hospitalized patients with pneumonia. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 30, 397404.[ISI][Medline]
6
.
Drugeon, H. B., Juvin, M. E. & Bryskier, A. (1999). Relative potential for selection of fluoroquinolone-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae strains by levofloxacin: comparison with ciprofloxacin, sparfloxacin and ofloxacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 43, Suppl. C, 559.
7
.
Chambers, H. F., Liu, Q. X., Chow, L. L. & Hackbarth, C. (1999). Efficacy of levofloxacin for experimental aortic-valve endocarditis in rabbits infected with viridans group streptococcus or Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 43, 27426.
8 . Evans, M. E. & Titlow, W. B. (1998). Levofloxacin selects fluoroquinolone-resistant Staphylococcus aureus less frequently than ciprofloxacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 41, 2858.[Abstract]
9 . Connell, H., Hedlund, M., Agace, W. & Svanborg, C. (1997). Bacterial attachment to uro-epithelial cells: mechanisms and consequences. Advances in Dental Research 11, 508.[Medline]
10 . Mannhardt, W., Becker, A., Putzer, M., Bork, M., Zepp, F., Hacker, J. et al. (1996). Host defense within the urinary tract. I. Bacterial adhesion initiates an uroepithelial defense mechanism. Pediatric Nephrology 10, 56872.[ISI][Medline]
11 . Shibl, A. M. (1985). Effect of antibiotics on adherence of microorganisms to epithelial cell surfaces. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 7, 5165.[ISI][Medline]
12 . Lorian, V. (1993). Medical relevance of low concentrations of antibiotics. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 31, Suppl. D, 13748.[ISI][Medline]
13 . National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. (1997). Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria that Grow AerobicallyFourth Edition: Approved Standard M7-A4. NCCLS, Villanova, PA.
14 . National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. (1999). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Ninth Informational Supplement; M100-S9. NCCLS, Villanova, PA.
15 . Braga, P. C. & Piatti, G. (1992). Influence of enoxacin subMICs on the adherence of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli to human buccal and urinary epithelial cells. Chemotherapy 38, 2616.[ISI][Medline]
16
.
Braga, P. C., Sala, M. T. & Dal Sasso, M. (1999). Pharmacodynamic effects of subinhibitory concentrations of rufloxacin on bacterial virulence factors. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 43, 10139.
17 . Takahashi, Y., Masuda, N., Otsuki, M., Miki, M. & Nishino, T. (1997). In vitro activity of HSR-903, a new quinolone. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 41, 132630.[Abstract]
18
.
McCloskey, L., Moore, T., Niconovich, N., Donald, B., Broskey, J., Jakillaszek, C. et al. (2000). In vitro activity of gemifloxacin against a broad range of recent clinical isolates from the USA. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 45, Suppl. S1, 1321.
19
.
Ednie, L. M., Jacobs, M. R. & Appelbaum, P. C. (1998). Comparative activities of clinafloxacin against gram-positive and -negative bacteria. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 42, 126973.
20
.
Jones, M. E., Visser, M. R., Klootwijk, M., Heisig, P., Verhoef, J. & Schmitz, F. J. (1999). Comparative activities of clinafloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and trovafloxacin and nonquinolones linezolid, quinupristindalfopristin, gentamicin, and vancomycin against clinical isolates of ciprofloxacin-resistant and -susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 43, 4213.
21 . Hammami, A., Agueda, S. & Archambaud, M. (1987). Etudes in vitro des effects de l'acide oxolinique à concentrations subinhibitrices sur l'activité de hemagglutinés et de l'adhesion aux cellules uro-epithéliales des Escherichia coli isolés des urines. Pathologie Biologie 35, 54550.[ISI][Medline]
22
.
Tsurumaki, Y., Mana, H., Takei, M. & Hosaka, M. (2000). In vitro antimicrobial activity of gatifloxacin against 873 clinical isolates from respiratory tract, urinary tract and surgical infections during 19971998 in Japan. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 45, 6859.
23 . Vrane, J., Zagar, Z. & Kurbel, S. (1996). Influence of subinhibitory concentrations of ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin and azithromycin on the morphology and adherence of P-fimbriated Escherichia coli. Journal of Chemotherapy 8, 25460.[ISI][Medline]
24 . Desnottes, J. F., Le Roy, D. & Diallo, N. (1988). Effect of subminimal inhibitory concentrations of pefloxacin on the piliation and adherence of E. coli. Drugs under Experimental and Clinical Research 14, 62934.[ISI][Medline]
25 . Lorian, V. & Ernst, J. (1987). Effects of antibiotics on bacterial structure and their pathogenicity. Pathologie Biologie 35, 13706.[ISI][Medline]
26 . Lorian, V., Ernst, J. & Amaral, L. (1989). The post-antibiotic effect defined by bacterial morphology. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 23, 48591.[Abstract]
27 . Burnham, J. C. (1988). Mediation by enoxacin of adherence of Escherichia coli to uroepithelial cells. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 10, S175.
28 . Funfstuck, R., Wolfram, M., Gerth, J., Schubert, K., Straube, E. & Stein, E. (1999). The influence of ofloxacin (Tarivid) on the parasitehost inter-relationship in patients with chronic urinary tract infection. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 11, 297303.[ISI][Medline]
29 . Williams, P. (1987). Sub-MICs of cefuroxime and ciprofloxacin influence interaction of complement and immunoglobulins with Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 31, 75862.[ISI][Medline]
30 . Foster, T. J. & McDevitt, D. (1994). Surface-associated proteins of Staphylococcus aureus: their possible roles in virulence. FEMS Microbiology Letters 118, 199206.[ISI][Medline]
Received 19 September 2000; returned 29 January 2001; revised 15 March 2001; accepted 27 March 2001