Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics

Review

Open Access Full open access to this and thousands of other papers at http://www.la-press.com.

Bacterial Infections in the Elderly Patient: Focus on Sitafloxacin Beniam Ghebremedhin OVG University Clinic Magdeburg, Clinical Microbiology, Magdeburg, Germany. Corresponding author email: [email protected]

Abstract: Sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) is a new-generation oral fluoroquinolone with in vitro activity against a broad range of ­Gram-positive and -negative bacteria, including anaerobic bacteria, as well as against atypical bacterial pathogens. Particularly in Japan this antibiotic was approved in 2008 for treatment of a number of bacterial infections caused by Gram-positive cocci and Gram-negative cocci and rods, including anaerobia atypical bacterial pathogens. As compared to oral levofloxacin sitafloxacin was non-inferior in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and non-inferior in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, according to the results of randomized, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority trials. Non-comparative studies demonstrated the efficacy of oral sitafloxacin in otorhinolaryngological infections, urethritis in men, cervicitis in women and odontogenic infections. Most common adverse reactions were gastrointestinal disorders and laboratory abnormalities in patients receiving oral sitafloxacin; diarrhea and liver enzyme elevations were among the common. In the Japanese population sitafloxacin covers broad spectrum of bacteria as compared to carbapenems, whereas in the Caucasians its use is currently limited due to the potential for ultraviolet A phototoxicity. Sitafloxacin is a promising therapeutic agent which merits further investigation in randomized clinical trials of elderly patients. Keywords: sitafloxacin, DU-6859a, fluoroquinolone, respiratory and urogenital infections, MDR organisms

Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4 185–200 doi: 10.4137/CMT.S7435 This article is available from http://www.la-press.com. © the author(s), publisher and licensee Libertas Academica Ltd. This is an open access article. Unrestricted non-commercial use is permitted provided the original work is properly cited. The authors grant exclusive rights to all commercial reproduction and distribution to Libertas Academica. Commercial reproduction and distribution rights are reserved by Libertas Academica. No unauthorised commercial use permitted without express consent of Libertas Academica. Contact [email protected] for further information. Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

185

Ghebremedhin

Introduction

Infectious diseases account for one third of all deaths in people 65 years and older. Bacterial infections are common in elderly patients associated with morbidity and mortality in this population group. Age-related predisposing factors determine the decrease in the ability of the human body to prevent penetration of pathogenic microorganisms and to resist the development of infectious process. General and local factors contribute to the development of frequent infections in the elderly population.1,2 Among the general factors are to mention: dehydration, reduction of the protective barrier of the skin and mucous as a result of atrophic processes, immunodeficiency (notably reduced IgM activity and function of T-lymphocytes), microcirculation disturbance, impaired consciousness, and poor personal hygiene.2,3 Urinary tract infections are the most common cause of bacteremia in older adults. Asymptomatic bacteriuria occurs frequently in the elderly; however, antibiotic treatment does not appear to be efficacious.4 There are higher proportions of antibiotic resistance among bacteria in elderly patients, especially methicillin resistance among Staphylococcus aureus isolates across all specimen types, and resistance to several empiric antibiotics among Enterobacteriaceae isolates in urine cultures.4,5 Older patients are at risk for COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and bronchiectasis.6 Besides viral infections, bacterial infections play a role in acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). Elderly patients are at risk for resistant bacterial organisms during their episodes of AECOPD. Organisms include the more-common bacteria implicated in AECOPD such as Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Mycobacteria other than tuberculosis (MOTT) are more often seen in AECOPD episodes.6 Appropriate therapy or newer antimicrobial compounds are required in such episodes while majority of pathogens are becoming for more resistant to the current available compounds. Since the last decades of the 20th century serious infections caused by bacteria that have become resistant to commonly used antibiotics have become a major global healthcare problem.7,8 Antibiotic resistance, initially a problem of the hospital setting associated with an increased 186

number of hospital-associated infections usually in critically ill and immunosuppressed patients, has now extended into the community causing severe infections difficult to diagnose and treat. The molecular mechanisms by which bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics are diverse and complex. Bacteria have developed resistance to all different classes of antibiotics discovered to date.8 Fluoroquinolones or quinolones remain as important antibiotics administered in bacterial infections.9,10 Quinolones comprise a relatively large, growing and most interesting group of antibiotics which have made a major impact on the field of antimicrobial chemotherapy, particularly in the past decade.11 The first quinolone to be administered for patient treatment was nalidixic acid, discovered by Lesher and co-workers in the 1960s, which was generated from the antimalarial agent chloroquine.12–14 It was active against some Gramnegative bacteria and had limited clinical efficacy because of its high protein binding (approximately 90%) and short half life (about 1.5 h).15 Unfortunately, bacteria rapidly develop resistance to this agent and other quinolones.16–20 Quinolones have been widely administered since the introduction norfloxacin which was patented in 1978. By modification of nalidixic acid structure the synthesis of norfloxacin, as the first fluoroquinolone, was enabled.11,21 This antibiotic exhibited enhanced activity for Gram-negative bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa.11,21 Despite some rather unpromising features of the early compounds, persistent efforts have been made over the years to produce congeners with superior antimicrobial properties.11 Over 10.000 quinolones have been synthesized and about 20 have been launched including the most widely used ciprofloxacin and ­levofloxacin.22 ­Quinolones consist of a bicyclic ring structure in which there is a substitution at position N-1, with various moieties. All the current agents have a carboxyl group at position 3, a keto group at position 4, a fluorine atom at position 6, and a piperazinyl group or a methylpiperazinyl group at the C-7 position. ­Differences in the moiety present at N-1 position or at C-7 position markedly influence both microbiological and pharmacokinetic properties.9 The new drug application for clinafloxacin to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was withdrawn in 1999, the clinical use of several other quinolones, including Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sitafloxacin in bacterial infections

gemifloxacin and ­trovafloxacin, was sharply limited, or have been withdrawn, eg, gatifloxacin, grepafloxacin, sparfloxacin and temafloxacin.23–26 In a study by Ball et  al it has been reported that sparfloxacin and grepafloxacin, have prolonged QT in either animals or humans.24 The abrupt withdrawal of grepafloxacin by its manufacturer, in association with possibly associated, sudden cardiac deaths, has again highlighted the phenomenon of quinolone-induced QT prolongation and the potential for associated ventricular tachy-arrhythmias originally described with sparfloxacin.23 However, quinolone-related malignant ventricular tachy-arrhythmias have been described very rarely and only with sparfloxacin, levofloxacin and, most recently, grepafloxacin.23,24,27,28 In animal toxicological assessment, these agents have been proved to prolong QT interval.24,29,30 For trovafloxacin, withdrawn because of hepatotoxicity, but no animal data are available but the European CPMP commented on QT prolongation within normal physiological limits.24 Sitafloxacin (also called Gracevit, DU-6859a, Figure  1) is a new-generation broad-spectrum oral fluoroquinolone that shows promise in the treatment of vast entities of bacterial infections, especially associated with multidrug-resistant bacteria.31–33 The structural nomenclature of sitafloxacin is unique: 7-[4(S)-amino-6-azaspiro[2,4]heptan-6-yl]-8-chloro6-fluoro-1-[(1R,2S)-2-flurocyclopropyl]-4-oxo-1,4dihdroquinoline-3-carboxylic acid which includes amino-pyrrolidine substituent at C-7 and a fluorocyclopropyl group at N-1. It contains a chlorine substituent at position 8 of the quinolone nucleus.14 The antimicrobial compound was identified by Daiichi O F

OH

N

N CI H2N

O

F

Figure 1. Chemical structure of sitafloxacin.

Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sankyo Co., which brought ofloxacin and levofloxacin to the market.34,35 Sitafloxacin has been in ­commercial use in Japan since 2008 and exhibits higher antimicrobial activity to pathogenetic Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria than does either levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin.9,36 In Japan, it has been approved in 2008 for bacterial infections such as laryngopharyngitis, tonsillitis, acute bronchitis, pneumonia, secondary infections of chronic respiratory diseases (eg, AECOPD), cystitis, pyelonephritis, urethritis, cervicitis, otitis media, sinusitis and few oral infections: most seen in elderly people, although fluoroquinolone resistance among elderly patients appears to be increasing.5,31,37

Pharmacodynamic Physico-chemical characteristics

Sitafloxacin has the properties of an ampholytic electrolyte due to the presence of a carboxyl and an amino group in its molecular structure; it shows a relatively low aqueous solubility (100  mg/mL), but higher solubility in organic solvents such as chloroform (3000 mg/mL). Thus, due to the solubility characteristics it was obviously important to develop and evaluate an oral formulation of sitafloxacin which could provide adequate oral bioavailability and plasma level profiles compatible with providing effective plasma antibacterial concentrations.38

Mode of action

The bactericidal activity and mode of action of many quinolones have been described in earlier studies.39–49 Sitafloxacin inhibits DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV. These enzymes are involved in bacteria DNA replication, transcription, DNA repair and recombination.11,50 Sitafloxacin has less activity against human topoisomerase II, an enzyme which is involved in cell growth.51 According to Akasaka et al.51 DNA gyrase, consisting of the subunits GyrA and GyrB, has ATP-dependent DNA supercoiling activity and is a primary target of quinolones in the Gram-negative species, such as Escherichia coli and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.11,14 In contrast, topoisomerase IV, consisting of the subunits ParC and ParE, has an essential role in partitioning replicated chromosomes and is more sensitive than DNA gyrase to some quinolones, such as levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin, in the Gram-positive species, 187

Ghebremedhin

such as Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae.14 However, S. pneumoniae in vitro studies by ­Okumura et  al, Onodera et  al and Morrissey et  al demonstrated that sitafloxacin has dual-activity in terms of inhibition of pneumococcal DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV.50,52–55 Whereas other studies described as the primary target of sitafloxacin DNA gyrase in E. coli, in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and topoisomerase in S. aureus.56–58

Antibacterial activity

Sitafloxacin has a high in vitro activity against Grampositive and -negative bacteria, including atypical pathogens, mycobacteria species, and anaerobes.36,59–63 Based on a mean AUC (0–24 h) of 25 µg ⋅ h/mL for sitofloxacin, microbiological and clinical efficacy would be achieved by MIC # 0.25 µg/mL for Gramnegative and #0.5  µg/mL for Gram-positive bacteria, revealing AUC/MIC breakpoints for sitafloxacin of 100 and 30, respectively.38 Thus, combining the pharmacokinetic results of the present study with the MIC data from the large European surveillance study and applying the above mentioned pharmacodynamic breakpoints, sitafloxacin appears to be active against 100% of the three major respiratory tract pathogens (S. ­pneumoniae, H. influenzae, M. catharrhalis), 96% of staphylococci including methicillin-resistant strains, 90% of the enterobacterial strains, 70% of the enterococci including vancomycin-resistant strains and 63% of Pseudomonas strains.36,38 In vitro and in vivo activity of sitofloxacin is reviewed in the section Efficacies of sitafloxacin in different bacterial species.

Resistance

Resistance to fluroquinolones is mainly associated with mutations in the quinolone resistance­determining regions (QRDR) of the genes encoding DNA gyrase (gyrA and gyrB) and topoisomerase IV (parC and parE).11 Mutations in genes encoding ­membrane-associated efflux pumps may also contribute to the development of fluoroquinolone resistance.11 ­Alterations in GyrA seem to play an important role in resistance. However, sitafloxacin demonstrated in vitro activity against various mutant S. pneumoniae with gyrA or parC mutations and fluoroquinolone­resistant isolates with multiple mutations in gyrA, parC and/or parE.50,64,65 188

Pharmacokinetics Absorption, serum protein binding and tissue distribution

Nakashima et  al studied the pharmacokinetics of ­sitafloxacin among other quinolones in healthy ­Japanese volunteers who received oral doses of 50 or 100 mg, a mean maximum sitafloxacin serum concentration (Cmax) of 0.51 and 1 µg/mL was revealed after tmax of 1.2  hours.66 The mean area under the serum ­concentration-time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity was 2.62  µg ⋅ h/mL (50  mg) and 5.55  µg ⋅ h/mL (100  mg), respectively. Thus, peak levels occurred about 1  hour after dosing. The peak concentration and AUC were roughly proportional to the drug dose. Food intake did not affect the pharmacokinetics of single-dose sitafloxacin 100 mg to a clinically significant extent. There was no evidence of drug accumulation after multiple dosing of sitafloxacin. Terminal half-life of sitafloxacin was 4.5–5 hours. The absolute oral bioavailability of sitafloxacin was 89%. After 1–8 hours of single 100 mg dose of sitafloxacin, the serum protein binding was 46%–55%.66 Sasaki et  al investigated the penetration of sitafloxacin into tissues and body fluids. Mean sitafloxacin concentrations were 0.57 µg/g in oral cavity and 0.32  µg/g in fluid extracted from the wound after 2.7–3.7  hours after administration of 50  mg sitafloxacin to odontoectomy patients with odontogenic infections.67 Baba et al studied the efficacy and safety of sitafloxacin in Japanese otorhinolaryngological patients. In the mucous membrane of the middle ear, mean sitafloxacin concentrations were 0.82  µg/g versus 0.59 µg/g in serum, 0.56 µg/g in the mucous membrane of the maxillary sinus, whereas the highest concentration of sitafloxacin was determined in the mucous membrane of the ethmoid sinus with 0.96  µg/g, after 2–4  hours administration of single dose of 100 mg sitafloxacin.68

Metabolism and excretion

For elimination of sitafloxacin metabolism plays only a small role. F-magnetic resonance spectroscopy suggested that sitafloxacin does not undergo retention in the liver when administered 500 mg/day for 5 days in healthy individuals.69,70 In vitro studies by the manufacturing company described modest inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP1A1 and CYP1A2, but no Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sitafloxacin in bacterial infections

i­nhibition of the other enzymes (CYP3A4, CYP2C9 and CPY2D6).31,32 Studies in different animals indicate that sitafloxacin is rapidly absorbed and widely distributed into various tissues. Sitafloxacin-related material is eliminated primarily through both renal and biliary excretion in rats, and possibly in dogs, whereas renal excretion is the major route of elimination in ­monkeys.69 In human, after 48 h post-dose, ­sitafloxacin (single dose 50 or 100 mg) sitafloxacin was excreted almost exclusively unchanged in the urine.66

Sitafloxacin in elderly patients and those with severe illness

Comprehensive studies of sitafloxacin in the elderly patients have not been published yet in English journals with clinically significant changes in pharmacokinetic parameters such as AUC, clearance and Cmax. And such sufficient studies are needed Data on the pharmacokinetics of sitafloxacin in renal disease are currently limited; however with increasing severity of renal impairment, the sitafloxacin concentration might increase due to delayed urinary excretion.71 Dosage adjustment is recommended in patients with creatinine clearance rates of 10–60 mL/min. In volunteers aged 67–80 years, as compared to younger volunteers (25–35 years) the mean AUC24, tmax and half-time of sitofloxacin increased, whereas Cmax decreased by one third.72 Similar to alterations in renal function, changes in hepatic function can potentially affect the dosage adjustments of fluoroquinolones, particularly those agents with significant non-renal clearance ­mechanisms. Although robust data on sitafloxacin are missing, dosage adjustments in hepatic dysfunction are not likely to be required as this antibiotic due to its renal elimination. In a recent publication Nakajima et al evaluated microbiological and clinical effects of the systemic administration of sitafloxacin on periodontal pockets in elderly patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy. The presence of periodontal bacteria (Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola and Tannerella forsythia) was significantly reduced at 1 month after treatment.73

Adverse effects

Side effects of the quinolones have varied according to the specific compounds and include central nervous system stimulation, gastrointestinal disturbances, Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

vasculitis, and photosensitization. The compound is ­characterized by a cis-oriented (1R,2S)-2-­fluorocy clopropylamine moiety that is indispensable for its reduced side effects and superior ­pharmacokinetic profile.37,74–76 Matsumoto et  al conducted a 2-yrs-­survey of Japanese 3558 sitafloxacin-treated cases and analysed the efficacy and safety of this antimicrobial agent. The incidence of adverse reactions was 4.44% (148/3331 cases). Major adverse reactions were diarrhea (55 cases) and hepatic function disorders (39 cases), and the incidences were 1.65% and 1.17%, respectively. Serious adverse reactions were observed in 5 cases: gastrointestinal bleeding, abnormal hepatic function, decreased white blood cell count, drug eruption, hypoglycemia, pneumonia, and superinfection. The authors concluded that sitafloxacin demonstrated no serious problems in its safety profile.37 According to Feldman et al, mild transient increases in alanine aminotransferase and alkaline phosphatase occurred in individuals treated with sitafloxacin, but there were no apparent trends in the other serum enzyme levels.77 Fluoroquinolones are associated with dermal phototoxicty following exposure to sunlight. A randomized controlled trial (volunteer study) by Dawe et  al was conducted in healthy Caucasians (n  =  40) and Orientals (n = 17) and compared the phototoxic potential of sitafloxacin, with sparfloxacin, enoxacin, levofloxacin and placebo. In healthy Caucasians, sitafloxacin 100 mg twice a day produced mild ultraviolet (UV) A-dependent phototoxicity at 365 ± 30 nm, maximal at 24 h with normalization by 24 h ­post-drug cessation. In comparison, the sparfloxacin group experienced severe phototoxicity maximal at 24 h and extended in the visible region (430 ± 30 nm), maximal at 400  ±  30  nm with abnormal pigmentation at on-drug phototest sites lasting, although fading, for up to 1 year. Phototoxicity was not detected in the levofloxacin or placebo groups. In the Oriental study, no clinically relevant phototoxicity was seen with either sitafloxacin or placebo groups.76 The authors conclude that 100 mg of sitafloxacin twice a day in ­Caucasians was associated with a mild degree of cutaneous ­phototoxicity. Enoxacin 200 mg three times a day and sparfloxacin 200 mg/day were much more ­photoactive. In the Oriental study group, which was limited by small numbers (n  =  17), sitafloxacin 50  mg twice a day and 100  mg twice a day failed to ­demonstrate 189

Ghebremedhin

a clinically significant phototoxic effect.76 Rash and seizures, probably associated with sitafloxacin, were observed in four patients by Shetty & Wilson.78

Drug-drug interactions

Niki et  al conducted in vitro and in vivo studies to investigate the drug interaction between a sitafloxacin (DU-6859a), and theophylline. Sitafloxacin administered at a dose of 50  mg resulted in no changes in serum theophylline concentrations, and slight increases in serum theophylline concentrations were observed at a dose of 100 mg. However, this was clinically not significant. Moreover, the administration of 100 mg of sitafloxacin resulted in decreases in all urinary theophylline metabolites.79 Another pharmacon, ranitidine, did not affect the pharmacokinetics of sitafloxacin significantly.80 Shiba investigated also the pharmacokinetic effects of metal-ions on sitafloxacin. Co-administration of aluminium hydroxide, magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate and ferrous sulphate reduced the sitafloxacin Cmax by 37%–82%, and similarly reduced AUC24 of sitafloxacin.81 Nakajima et  al studied the in vivo and in vitro antifungal activity of sitafloxacin in combination with antimycotic agents. Sitafloxacin combined with amphotericin B enhanced the in vitro antifungal activity of amphotericin B against Candida spp. and Cryptococcus neoformans. Positive interactions of sitofloxacin with amphotericin B against Aspergillus fumigatus were dependent on the medium used. ­Synergism was demonstrated in yeast nitrogen base supplemented with amino acids, ammonium sulfate, and 1% glucose, whereas antagonism between the drugs occurred in RPMI 1640  medium. In combination with fluconazole, sitofloxacin increased the activity of fluconazole against C. albicans both in synthetic amino acid medium-fungal and in supplemented yeast nitrogen base. Furthermore, in a mice model infected with C. albicans, the fungal load in the kidneys was significantly less in mice given the combination treatment of sitofloxacin plus either amphotericin B or fluconazole. The combination treatment resulted in prolonged survival of infected mice compared to the mice treated with either antimycotic agent alone. The prolonged survival in mice treated with sitafloxacin and amphotericin B was also observed in A. ­fumigatus infection, indicating that 190

sitofloxacin enhanced the activity of the antimycotic agents in vivo as well as in vitro.82

Efficacies of Sitafloxacin in Different Bacterial Species Gram-positive bacteria

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) poses a serious threat to worldwide health. Much focus over the past 50 years has been on hospital-­associated MRSA (HA-MRSA).83–87 However, more than a decade ago, MRSA (community-associated, CA-MRSA) has spread into the community causing disease in otherwise healthy people with no discernible contact with healthcare settings and facilities. In contrast to the HA-MRSA, the CA-MRSA strains do not necessarily harbour the quinolone resistance genes.85–87,88 Although the relative role of widespread fluoroquinolone use and ineffective infection prevention and control practices in encouraging the spread of virulent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in healthcare settings remain controversial, there are evidences that quinolone-driven colonization with MRSA enhances the risk of subsequent infection.89 However, Chong et  al observed that quinolone prophylaxis for neutropenia does not induce a significant increase in the growth of quinolone- and multidrug-resistant ­bacteria, but discontinuing quinolone prophylaxis may induce a dramatic increase in the growth of Gram-negative bacteria, including ESBL-producing pathogens.90 Similarly, Laufarie et  al showed that the reduction of quinolone use led to a significant decrease in ­quinolone-resistant MRSA rate.91 ­Therapy of infections caused by resistant Gram-positive ­bacteria requires appropriate use of available antibiotics and stewardship to prolong their ­effectiveness.92 ­Nosocomial MRSA strains displaying resistance to fluoroquinolones and acquiring additional resistance genes usually show compromised fitness and are not able to widely disseminate in the community where resistance to quinolones is not an asset and ­quinolone-sensitive CA-MRSA isolates could easily outgrow them. As one of the newer quinolones, sitafloxacin is active against ­staphylococci.36 The MIC90 for oxacillin­resistant strains ranged from 0.25 to 1 µg/mL and were ­considerably higher than those for ­oxacillin-susceptible strains (MIC90, 0.03 to 0.12  µg/mL), as shown for other ­quinolones (Table  1).93–96 Sitafloxacin was the most active agent against ­oxacillin-resistant Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sitafloxacin in bacterial infections Table 1. In vitro activity (MIC90 values) of sitafloxacin in comparison to ciprofloxacin against selected Gram­positive bacteria (MIC90 = minimal inhibitory concentration of 90% of the isolates).32,36,101,102,105 Bacterial species

Sitafloxacin Ciprofloxacin

Enterococcus faecalis Enterococcus faecium Staphylococcus aureus   Methicillin-sensitive   Methicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae Streptococcus pyogenes

0.25–2.0 4–8

32 $64

0.03–0.12 0.25–16 0.06 0.06

0.5–1.0 64–128 2 2

strains; its ­activity was twice or more higher than that of ­clinafloxacin and at least eight times more active than the other ­quinolones. Of the 457 MRSA isolates tested, 95.4% were resistant to ciprofloxacin, whereas only 0.4% of the MRSA isolates were resistant to clinafloxacin and 0.2% resistant to sitafloxacin (MIC $  4  µg/mL).36 Earlier study by GiamarellouBourboulis et  al demonstrated extended post-antibiotic and a rapid killing effect of sitafloxacin on MRSA resistant to ciprofloxacin and to rifampin, thus supporting their once daily administration in the therapy of infections by multiple drug-resistant MRSA.97 As reported for other quinolones, the activity of sitafloxacin against enterococci was generally lower than that against other Gram-positive cocci (staphylococci, streptococci.36,94,98 For E. faecalis, the MIC50 and MIC90 were 0.12 and 2 µg/mL, respectively. The in vitro activity of sitafloxacin was at least four times higher than that of the other fluoroquinolones. The MICs of sitafloxacin for E. faecium were higher (MIC50, 0.5 µg/mL; MIC90, 4  µg/mL). For vancomycin-susceptible and -resistant enterococci, the MICs of all quinolones tested were comparable. Similarly, other studies confirmed the in vitro activities of sitafloxacin against MRSA and multiresistant enterococci.78,99–101 Shetty & Wilson evaluated in a phase II non-comparative trial the activity of sitafloxacin (400 mg iv over 1 h once a day for 7–14 days) in patients with serious systemic infections with MRSA or vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE). There were 10 infections with MRSA alone, eight with VRE alone and one with MRSA plus VRE.101 Four out of 11 MRSA-patients, unresponsive to glycopeptides, were cured, six failed treatment and one was indeterminate. Five out of nine VRE-patients (one patient had both ­pathogens, MRSA and VRE), Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

were cured and four failed.111 Similar ­efficacy results for sitafloxacin in MRSA and enterococci were revealed in in vivo and in vitro studies by Kanda et al and in vitro studies by ­Yamaguchi et  al as compared with other fluoroquinolones.32,102 ­Yamaguchi et  al reported the results of in vitro susceptibilities of 12,919 clinical isolates from Japanese centers to selected antibiotics including sitafloxacin.32 According to Milatovic et  al sitafloxacin was also active against Streptococcus pneumoniae and the other Streptococcus spp. tested, with MIC90 ranging from 0.03 to 0.12 µg/mL.32 Milatovic et al observed no difference between penicillin-susceptible and -resistant isolates, as was also shown by Visalli et  al.103 In S. pneumoniae, sitafloxacin was the most active agent, followed by clinafloxacin, trovafloxacin, moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin. Browne et  al studied the antipneumococcal activity of DK-507k, sitafloxacin and other quinolones in 26 quinolone-resistant pneumococci with known resistance mechanisms.104 DK-507k and sitafloxacin were the most active quinolones (MICs, 0.125–1.0 µg/mL), followed by moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin. Mutations in quinolone resistance-determining regions (QRDR) of quinolone-resistant strains were in the usual regions of the parC and gyrA genes. Exposure to DK-507k and sitafloxacin led to mutations, mostly in gyrA. In the study by Amano et  al the in vitro activity of sitafloxacin and various oral antimicrobial agents against 1,620 bacterial isolates from different healthcare facilities in Japan was evaluated.101 The MIC90 of sitafloxacin was 0.06 µg/mL for methicillin-­susceptible S. aureus and was equal to that of garenoxacin, but lower than that of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin. ­Inhibitory activity of sitafloxacin in growth of S. pneumoniae isolates was at 0.06 µg/mL or less. The MIC90 of sitafloxacin ranged from 0.03 to 0.06  µg/mL and was lower than MIC90 of garenoxacin, moxifloxacin, and of levofloxacin with increasing factor. Similarly, the MIC90 of sitafloxacin was 0.06  µg/mL for Streptococcus pyogenes, which was lower than that of other tested quinolones (Table 1). The MIC90 of sitafloxacin for E. faecalis was higher (0.25 µg/mL), but still lower than that of the comparator quinolones.101

Gram-negative bacteria

In a comprehensive study by Milatovic et  al the in vitro activity of sitafloxacin in comparison to other 191

Ghebremedhin

q­ uinolones against Gram-negative and -positive ­bacteria, and anaerobes was determined.32 The MIC of sitofloxacin for Enterobacter aerogenes and Escherichia coli was 1  µg/mL for each. These species also exhibited the highest rates of ciprofloxacin resistance. The MIC90 of sitafloxacin for Citrobacter koseri, Klebsiella oxytoca, Pantoea agglomerans, Proteus vulgaris, Salmonella spp., Serratia liquefaciens, Shigella spp., and Yersinia enterocolitica ranged from 0.015 to 0.12 µg/mL and were similar to those of ­ciprofloxacin. Moreover, sitafloxacin was four times more active than ciprofloxacin against Citrobacter freundii, ­Klebsiella pneumoniae, Morganella morganii, and ­Serratia marcescens and at least eight times more active against E. aerogenes, E. cloacae, E. coli, and Proteus mirabilis.32 Amano et  al also evaluated sitofloxacin efficacy against Gram-negative bacteria.101 The MIC90 of sitafloxacin for E. coli was 2 µg/mL, and the MIC90 of other 10 species of Enterobacteriaceae which were the lowest values of the quinolones tested ranged from 0.03 to 1 µg/mL (Table 2). A randomized open-label multicenter phase II study of sitafloxacin (400  mg) versus imipenem/ cilastatin (500 mg three times per day) has been processed in South Africa patients with pneumonia associated with Gram-positive and -negative ­bacteria.77 In both groups clinically evaluable patients were cured in more than 90%. In bacteriologically evaluable patients, 90%–95% of the sitafloxacin patients had acceptable bacteriological response whereas the response of the imipenem/cilastatin group was 100%. For all patients in both treatment groups, no pathogens were isolated at the first follow-up assessment at 24–72 h after treatment. All of the pathogens tested in the sitafloxacin treatment group were sensitive to that Table 2. In vitro activity (MIC90 values) of ­sitafloxacin in comparison to ciprofloxacin against selected ­Enterobacteriaceae spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MIC90  =  minimal inhibitory concentration of 90% of the isolates).32,36,102,105 Bacterial species

Sitafloxacin Ciprofloxacin

Escherichia coli Klebsiella oxytoca Klebsiella pneumoniae Pseudomonas aeruginosa   Respiratory isolates   Urinary isolates

1–2 0.03–0.5 0.12–0.25

16–32 4 0.25–0.5

1–2 4–8

4 32–64

192

antibiotic and all pathogens tested in the imipenem treatment group were sensitive to that antibiotic. Of the tested pathogens in the imipenem treatment group, all were sensitive to sitafloxacin. Feldman et al concluded according to these data that sitafloxacin can be considered to show safety, tolerability and perhaps comparable efficacy as imipenem/cilastatin.77 Okuda et al evaluated the in vitro activity of sitafloxacin using clinical isolates of Vibrio cholerae O1  in comparison to other fluoroquinolones: ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin and levofloxacin. Against fluoroquinolone-susceptible V. cholerae O1, the MIC90 of sitafloxacin was 2- to 4-fold lower than the other fluoroquinolones. This suggests sitafloxacin might be used in the treatment of infections caused by V. cholerae O1 strains including the fluoroquinoloneresistant strains.106 According to Bale et al, Jones et al and Milatovic et al, sitafloxacin demonstrated high efficacy against Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Neisseria meningitidis, and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the MIC90 being #0.008 µg/mL for all species, including β-lactamase-positive strains.36,107,108 The sitafloxacin MICs for five gonococcal strains resistant to ciprofloxacin ranged from 0.03 to 0.12 µg/mL. ­Sitafloxacin inhibited the growth of Haemophilus influenzae at 0.004  µg/mL or less, and of Moraxella catarrhalis at 0.008 µg/mL, both MIC90 values were lower than those of the other quinolones.101 Another Gram-negative pathogen which might be also related to chronic infections in the elderly people is Helicobacter pylori. Over the last decades, eradication rates in first-line H. pylori therapy have been declining, mainly due to increasing resistance against the recommended antibiotics clarithromycin and ­metronidazole. Based on a large number of studies, quinolones have been introduced in second-line and rescue treatment and are recommended for these indications in current guidelines.60,109 Various studies have investigated alternative strategies for first-line treatment including quinolone-based regimens. In the context of increasing resistance rates of H. pylori against quinolones some risks and benefits have to be considered when using quinolones as a first-line strategy. Besides numerous studies investigating levofloxacin and moxifloxacin there are some promising results for sitafloxacin. Sitafloxacin might overcome primary resistance of H. pylori against ­conventional ­quinolones. It has been Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sitafloxacin in bacterial infections

reported to have a high ­antimicrobial ­activity against H. pylori, and has been suggested for use in therapy for patients who have failed H. pylori eradication using traditional therapies.60,110,111

Nonfermenters

Resistance to quinolones may occur generally in Gram-negative nonfermenters.36,98,112 Sitafloxacin was at least eight times more active than ciprofloxacin against Acinetobacter spp., Burkholderia cepacia, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Almost complete cross-resistance between ciprofloxacin and sitafloxacin was observed in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, with only 5% of the 165 ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates being susceptible to sitafloxacin at #1 µg/mL. The study results of Kitamura et  al led to the conclusion that DU-6859a is much more active against quinolone-resistant clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa than other quinolones, probably because of its strong inhibitory effects against mutant quinoloneresistant DNA gyrases, and that the C-8 chlorine is necessary for these potent effects.113 A study by Otani et  al demonstrates the results of comparison between sitafloxacin DK507k, and ciprofloxacin.114 Sitafloxacin showed less phototoxicity than DK507k and was more active against Pseudomonas spp., and the MIC90 value was lower than that of ciprofloxacin and DK507k.114 Amano et al reported that the MIC of sitafloxacin for urinary isolates of P. aeruginosa was 8 µg/mL which was 16 times lower than the MICs of the other quinolones, whereas the MIC of sitafloxacin for P. aeruginosa respiratory isolates was lower (2 µg/mL) and was 16–32 times lower than the MICs of the other quinolones (Table 2).101

Mycobacteria

Tuberculosis (TB) is an important public health problem worldwide due to AIDS epidemic, the advent of multidrug resistant strains (MDR) and the lack of new drugs in the market. Thus, there is an urgent need for new drugs or combination of currently available drugs to combat this disease. Due to the importance of the quinolones in the fight against tuberculosis, sitafloxacin has also been under preclinical and clinical study. The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of sitafloxacin was much lower than that of the comparator quinolones against supercoiling activity of DNA gyrase.57 Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sitafloxacin and gatifloxacin exhibited much more potent anti-M. tuberculosis activity than levofloxacin did. Notably, sitafloxacin and gatifloxacin were eight times more active against MDR-M. tuberculosis strains than levofloxacin in terms of MIC50, suggesting that these new quinolones might be useful in clinical control of MDR-M. tuberculosis.62 The antimicrobial effect of sitafloxacin against other Mycobacterium species, such as Mycobacterium leprae, was studied by Dhople & Namba, either alone or in combination with either rifampicin or rifabutin.116 The results were compared with those obtained with ofloxacin. When used singly, sitafloxacin and ofloxacin inhibited the growth of M. leprae completely at MIC values 25 and 100 mg per kg body weight per day, respectively, and the effects were bactericidal. Both sitafloxacin and ofloxacin exhibited excellent synergistic effects when combined with either rifabutin, but not with rifampicin. When compared to other quinolones, sitafloxacin was found to be more potent than the other three commonly used fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and ofloxacin), with MIC  =  0.1875  µg/mL against M. ­leprae (Table  3).116 The MIC values of sitafloxacin for M. ulcerans were in the range of 0.125–0.5 µg/mL, much lower than that of other quinolones.117 Sitafloxacin showed favourable antimycobacterial activity in vitro and in vivo, as compared with moxifloxacin against Mycobacterium avium infection in mice. Although moxifloxacin exhibited the strongest activity against intramacrophage M. avium, when each test quinolone was administered alone to infected mice, sitafloxacin and gatifloxacin exhibited greater therapeutic efficacy than moxifloxacin based on intrapulmonary bacterial elimination. However, moxifloxacin exerted Table 3. In vitro activity (MIC90 values) of ­sitafloxacin in comparison to ofloxacin against Mycobacteria (MIC90 = ­minimal inhibitory concentration of 90% of the isolates).115–117,119 Bacterial species

Sitafloxacin

Ofloxacin

Mycobacterium aviumintracellulare complex Mycobacterium kansasii Mycobacterium leprae Mycobacterium marinum Mycobacterium tuberculosis Mycobacterium ulcerans

12.5

50–100

0.78 0.1875 1.56 0.2

3.13 3 25 0.78

0.125–0.25

1–2

193

Ghebremedhin

greater activity in killing bacteria in the spleen. ­Sitafloxacin and moxifloxacin exhibited combined effects on intrapulmonary bacterial elimination when administered to mice in combination with clarithromycin plus ethambutol. Sitafloxacin exerted the most marked combined effects in bacterial killing in the spleen. Levofloxacin displayed the lowest in vitro and in vivo activities amongst the tested quinolones. In conclusion, these findings indicate that sitafloxacin and moxifloxacin exhibit favourable activities against M. avium in vitro and in vivo.118

Intracellular pathogens

Miyashita et al investigated the in vitro and vivo activity of sitafloxacin against Chlamydia spp. in comparison to other quinolones, including ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and ­tosufloxacin. The chlamydial species tested were C. psittaci, C. ­trachomatis and Chlamydophila pneumoniae.59 These bacterial species are well-known respiratory pathogens that cause upper and lower respiratory tract infections and pneumonia. The zoonotic pathogen C. ­psittaci is responsible for psittacosis, C. ­trachomatis for pneumonia in neonates and Chlamydophila pneumoniae is among the most common pathogens for ­community-associated pneumonia. Some of the ­previously developed quinolones have shown excellent antichlaymdial activity in clinical studies, in vitro and in vivo (Table 4).120–125 Sparfloxacin was the most active compound tested, followed by ofloxacin and temafloxacin. Ciprofloxacin and fleroxacin were the least active.120 In the study by Miyashita et al, sitafloxacin showed good in vitro antichlamdial activity equal or superior to that of sparfloxacin, tosufloxacin, ofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin. The MICs of sitafloxacin for the different species ranged from 0.031 to 0.125  µg/mL. Table 4. In vitro activity (MIC90 values) of sitafloxacin in comparison to ciprofloxacin against Chlamydophila ­pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and U. ­urealyticum (MIC90  =  minimal inhibitory concentration of 90% of the isolates).59,127 Bacterial species

Sitafloxacin

Ciprofloxacin

Chlamydophila pneumoniae Mycoplasma pneumoniae Ureaplasma urealyticum

0.06

2

0.12 0.5

2 8

194

The authors discussed the different activities of the ­quinolones and presumed that the differences may be due to the different pharmacokinetics of the ­compounds. The AUC was the lowest for sitafloxacin (0.34). From these results the authors concluded that the in vivo potency seen in their study was not due to a better pharmacokinetic profile.59 Another pathogen associated with acute nongonococcal urethritis or urogenital infections, besides C. trachomatis, is Mycoplasma genitalium. There is no precise clinical recommendation for M. genitalium induced cervicitis, although M. genitalium is one of the pathogens responsible for uterine cervicitis.126 Terada et al retrospectively investigated the antimicrobial efficacies of several antibiotics against cervicitis caused by M. genitalium. A total of 257 women with M. genitalium associated cervicitis, except for those with chlamydial and gonococcal infections, were treated with one of the following antibacterial agents: azithromycin, clarithromycin, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, and sitafloxacin. PCRbased assay was performed to evaluate the microbiological efficacy of eradication. M. genitalium was eradicated from the cervix in 90.5% of the patients treated with azithromycin (2 g single dose) and those treated with moxifloxacin (400 mg/day for 7 days). The pathogen was eradicated in all patients (100%) treated with moxifloxacin (400 mg/day for 14 days). ­However, M. ­genitalium was eradicated in 12 of the 13 (92.3%) patients treated with sitafloxacin (200  mg/day for 14  days). The authors concluded that azithromycin, moxifloxacin, and sitafloxacin would each be an effective treatment for M. genitalium infection.126

Anaerobes

Ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin as the first generation of fluoroquinolones are inactive against most anaerobic bacteria. However, some broad-spectrum quinolones, which have recently become clinically available, have significant antianaerobic activity. ­Fluoroquinolones with increased in vitro activity against anaerobes include levofloxacin, clinafloxacin, sparfloxacin, trovafloxacin, grepafloxacin, moxifloxacin and sitafloxacin.14,74 Quinolones with intermediate antianaerobic activity include sparfloxacin and grepafloxacin. Trovafloxacin, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin yield low MICs against most groups Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sitafloxacin in bacterial infections

of anaerobes. Quinolones with the greatest in vitro activity against anaerobes include clinafloxacin and sitafloxacin.14 Nord et al investigated the antimicrobial activity of sitafloxacin versus other quinolones in different anaerobic bacteria, including peptostreptococci, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium difficile, Bacteroides fragilis, Porphyromonas, Prevotella, and Fusobacterium (Table 5).61 The in vitro activity of sitafloxacin was superior to those of comparator quinolones. Kato et al compared the in vitro activity of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) with those of other fluoroquinolones against clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria and Gardnerella vaginalis.129 Sitafloxacin was the most active agent; it inhibited 90% of isolates of almost all species tested, including Bacteroides fragilis ,0.39  µg/mL. Although the other quinolones tested were active against Gram-positive anaerobes, inhibiting their growth at ,1.56 µg/mL, these agents were less active against the B. fragilis group and Prevotella bivia (90% of which were inhibited at .6.25 µg/mL). Mobiluncus species and G. vaginalis were inhibited by sitafloxacin at 0.1 µ/ mL. According to Kato et al, sitafloxacin is a promising oral agent for the treatment of bacterial infections due to anaerobic bacteria; ­however, further studies are obligatory concerning the effects of this compound in bacterial vaginosis.129 Spangler et  al studied the activities of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) and other quinolones, including ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and other antibiotics, eg, piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, clindamycin, and metronidazole against 11 anaerobes.131 Sitafloxacin was the most active drug tested (MIC: 0.06–0.5  µg/mL), followed by imipenem (MIC: 0.002–4.0 µg/mL). All compounds were bactericidal at the MIC after 48 h; after 24 h, 90% killing was shown for all strains when the comTable 5. In vitro activity (MIC90 values) of ­sitafloxacin in comparison to ciprofloxacin against anaerobes (MIC90  =  minimal inhibitory concentration of 90% of the isolates).36,128–131 Bacterial species

Sitafloxacin

Ciprofloxacin

Bacteroides fragilis Clostridium difficile Clostridium perfringens Fusobacterium spp. Peptostreptococcus spp.

0.25 0.5 0.06 0.5 0.12

16 16 1 8 4

Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

pounds were used at four times the MIC. DU-6859a at #0.5 µg/mL was bactericidal after 48 h. ­According to Goldstein et  al, gemifloxacin was tested against 359 ­clinical ­anaerobic isolates and its activity was compared with other antimicrobials, including trovafloxacin, levofloxacin, grepafloxacin, sparfloxacin, sitafloxacin, penicillin G, metronidazole etc.132 While all the comparative antibiotics were less active than gemifloxacin, sitafloxacin was equivalent to gemifloxacin against peptostreptococci, C. perfringens, and C. ramosum, and sitafloxacin was 2 to 3 ­dilutions more active against fusobacteria. The MICs of sitafloxacin ranged from 0.015 to 0.12 µg/mL for the species of anaerobic bacteria and were the lowest values of all the antimicrobial agents tested.101 Clostridium difficile infection has become one of the most significant threats to hospitalised patients and represents an increasingly important issue in terms of morbidity and mortality within health care facilities. ­Ackermann et  al analyzed the antimicrobial susceptibility of 80 clinical isolates of C. difficile. Nineteen strains that were found to be highly resistant to moxifloxacin (MIC $ 16 µg/mL) were then selected for extended antimicrobial susceptibility testing. All C. difficile isolates were inhibited by 2  µg/mL of ­sitafloxacin; among the other quinolones, only clinafloxacin showed similar activity.133

Summary

Sitafloxacin is a new-generation, broad-spectrum oral fluoroquinolone that is very active against Grampositive, -negative and anaerobic clinical isolates, including strains resistant to other fluoroquinolones, and has been approved in Japan for the treatment of respiratory and urinary tract infections in 2008. The mechanism of action of sitafloxacin, comparable to the majority of fluoroquinolones, involves the prevention of bacterial DNA synthesis, by inhibition of DNA gyrase, an enzyme required for the replication of DNA and of topoisomerase IV. Sitafloxacin, together with moxifloxacin, belongs to the same generation of fluoroquinolones and are called respiratory ­quinolones. They possess improved activity against Gram-positive bacteria and anaerobes located within a biofilm or intracellularly, and they demonstrated good tissue penetration. Among the Gram-positive and -negative, including anaerobic pathogens the in vitro antibacterial activity has been 195

Ghebremedhin

demonstrated against clinical isolates of S. aureus, including MRSA, and S. epidermidis, all strains of S. ­pneumoniae, S. ­pyogenes; P. ­aeruginosa, H. ­influenzae, M. ­catarrhalis, N. ­gonorrhoeae, the anaerobic bacteria, including Bacteroides fragilis, Clostridium spp., Fusobacteriuam spp. Peptostreptococcus spp., and the Enterobacteriaceae. Sitafloxacin has also been shown to be effective against pneumonia caused by Legionella pneumophila, S. pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa in animal models. Its activity against Gram-positive cocci was comparable or superior to those of garenoxacin, moxifloxacin and levofloxacin. Due to its favorable pharmacokinetic profile, excellent in vitro potency, and in particular its enhanced activity against Gram-positive organisms and anaerobes, sitafloxacin clearly has potential as a useful agent for the treatment of a variety of infections. Clinical trials and susceptibility studies indicate that sitafloxacin might be efficient in treating infections of the respiratory and genitourinary tract, as well as in treating intra-abdominal and skin and soft tissue infections caused by Gram-­positive cocci. The third-line treatment regimen including sitafloxacin is being considered for H. pylori after failure of clarithromycin- and metronidazole-based therapies, since it is in vitro active against H. pylori. Regarding the safety of sitafloxacin, few studies reported adverse reactions associated with sitafloxacin (eg, diarrhea, hepatic disorder, gastrointestinal bleeding etc.) whereas other studies concluded that sitafloxacin is an antibacterial agent with no serious problems in its safety profile and efficacy rates of over 90% against all infections. Daiichi has stated that it is believed to be inferior to its levofloxacin product, for which overseas data show the occurrence of photosensitivity adverse effects, especially in ­Caucasian population, although phototoxicity is essentially irrelevant if sitafloxacin is used in hospitals and especially in intensive care units. Therefore, Daiichi is planning for an IV formulation to be indicated only in patients with severe infections or drug-resistant diseases in markets outside Japan. No adverse effects have been reported in Japanese studies, believed to be most likely due to racial and dosage differences between patients overseas and in Japan. For Japanese patients, sitafloxacin provides the broad-spectrum coverage promised by clinafloxacin 196

and trovafloxacin and comparable to carbapenems. Although sitafloxacin has no antifungal properties on its own, studies indicated that it enhanced the activity of currently available ­antifungal agents and might be useful in the treatment of ­Candida albicans infections. In brief, sitafloxacin, as a new broad-spectrum quinolone, is a promising antimicrobial agent against several bacterial species including mycobacteria. However, more comprehensive in vitro studies, clinical trials on its safety and efficacy, especially in the elderly population in different regions other than in Japan should be conducted to rather reveal the pharmacodynamic and -kinetic parameters, the adverse effects and its reaction in co- morbidities within these patient groups.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: BG. Analysed the data: BG. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: BG. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: BG. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: BG. Jointly developed the structure and arguments for the paper: BG. Made critical revisions and approved final version: BG. The author reviewed and approved of the final manuscript.

Funding

Author(s) disclose no funding sources.

Competing Interests

Author(s) disclose no potential conflicts of interest.

Disclosures and Ethics

As a requirement of publication author(s) have provided to the publisher signed confirmation of compliance with legal and ethical obligations including but not limited to the following: authorship and contributorship, conflicts of interest, privacy and confidentiality and (where applicable) protection of human and animal research subjects. The authors have read and confirmed their agreement with the ICMJE ­authorship and conflict of interest criteria. The authors have also confirmed that this article is unique and not under consideration or published in any other publication, and that they have permission from rights holders to reproduce any copyrighted material. Any disclosures are made in this section. Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sitafloxacin in bacterial infections

The external blind peer reviewers report no conflicts of interest. Provenance: the authors were invited to submit this paper.

References

1. Miller RA. The aging immune system: Primer and prospectus. Science. 1996;273:70–4. 2. Stump TE, Callahan CM, Hendrie HC. Cognitive impairment and mortality in older primary care patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:934–40. 3. Sansoni P, Vescovini R, Fagnoni F, Biasini C, et al. The immune system in extreme longevity. Exp Gerontol. 2008;43(2):61–5. 4. Mouton CP, Bazaldua OV, Pierce B, Espino DV. Common infections in older adults. Am Fam Physician. 2001;63(2):257–68. 5. Xie C, Taylor DM, Howden BP, Charles PG. Comparison of the bacterial isolates and antibiotic resistance patterns of elderly nursing home and general community patients. Intern Med J. Jan 17, 2011. 6. Albertson TE, Louie S, Chan AL. The diagnosis and treatment of elderly patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(3):570–9. 7. Hawkey PM, Jones AM. The changing epidemiology of resistance. J ­Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64:i3–10. 8. Livermore DM. British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Working Party on The Urgent Need: Regenerating Antibacterial Drug Discovery and Development. Discovery research: the scientific challenge of finding new antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(9):1941–4. 9. Owens RC Jr, Ambrose PG. Antimicrobial safety: focus on ­fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41 Suppl 2:S144–57. 10. Mehlhorn AJ, Brown DA. Safety concerns with fluoroquinolones. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(11):1859–66. 11. Zhanel GG, Ennis K, Vercaigne L, et al. A critical review of the fluoroquinolones: focus on respiratory infections. Drug. 2002;62(1):13–59. 12. Lesher GY, Froelich EJ, Gruett MD, Bailey JH, Brundage RP. 1,8­Naphthyridine derivates. A new class of chemotherapeutic agents. J Med Pharm Chem. 1962;91:1063–5. 13. McChesney EW, Froehlich EJ, Lesher GY, Crain AV, Rosi D. Absorption, excretion, and metabolism of a new antibacterial agent, nalidixic acid. ­Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1964;6:292–309. 14. Appelbaum PC, Hunter PA. The fluoroquinolone antibacterials: past, present and future perspectives. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;16(1):5–15. 15. Dollery C. Therapeutic Drugs. Antibiotic Metabolite of Nalidixic acid, 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone; 1999. 16. Yokota S, Sato K, Kuwahara O, et al. Fluoroquinolone-resistant ­Streptococcus pneumoniae strains occur frequently in elderly patients in Japan. Antmicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46(10):3311–5. 17. Canton R, Morosini M, Enright MC, et al. Worldwide incidence, molecular epidemiology and mutations implicated in fluoroquinolone-resistant ­Streptococcus pneumoniae: data from the global PROTEKT surveillance programme. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52(6):944–52. 18. Wispelwey B, Schafer KR. Fluoroquinolones in the management of ­community-acquired pneumonia in primary care. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010;8(11):1259–71. 19. Keating GM. Sitafloxacin: in bacterial infections. Drugs. 2011;71(6):731–44. 20. Poirel L, Cattoir V, Nordmann P. Plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance; interactions between human, animal, and environmental ecologies. Front Microbiol. 2012;3:24. 21. Koga H, Itoh A, Murayama S, Suzue S, Irikura T. Structure-activity ­relationships of antibacterial 6,7- and 7,8-disubstituted 1-alkyl-1,4-dihydro-4-oxoquinoline-3-carboxylic acids. J Med Chem. 1980;23(12): 1358–63. 22. Takahashi H, Hayakawa I, Akimoto T. The history of the development and changes of quinolone antibacterial agents. Yakushigaku Zasshi. 2003;38(2): 161–79. 23. Jaillon P, Morganroth J, Brumpt I, Talbot G, The Sparfloxacin Safety Group. Overview of electrocardiographic and cardiovascular safety data for ­sparfloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996;37 Suppl A:161–7.

Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

24. Ball AP, Mandell L, Niki Y, Tillotson G. Comparative tolerability of the newer fluoroquinolone antibacterials. Drug Safety. 1999;21:407–21. 25. Breen G, Skuba K, Grasela S. Safety and tolerability of gatifloxacin, an advanced-generation, 8-methoxyfluoroquinolone. J Resp Dis. 1999;20: S70–5. 26. Iannini PB, et al. Reassuring Safety Profile of Moxifloxacin. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(7):1112–4. 27. DupontH, Timsit JF, Souweine B, Gachot B, Wolff M, Regnier B. Torsades de pointe probably related to sparfloxacin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996;15(4):350–1. 28. Samaha FF. QTC interval prolongation and polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in association with levofloxacin. Am J Med. 1999;107(5): 528–9. 29. Stahlmann R, Schwabe R. Safety profile of grepafloxacin compared with other fluoroquinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;40 Suppl A: 83–92. 30. Anderson ME, Mazur A, YangT, Roden DM. Potassium current antagonist properties and proarrhythmic consequences of quinolone antibiotics. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;296(3):806–10. 31. Daiichi Sankyo Co, Ltd. Gracevit® tablets 50  mg, fine granules 10%: ­prescribing information, Japan; 2009. 32. Yamaguchi K, Ohno A, Ishii Y, Tateda K, et al. In vitro susceptibilities to levofloxacin and various antibacterial agents of 12,919 clinical isolates obtained from 72 centers in 2007. Jpn J Antibiot. 2009;62(4):346–70. 33. Anderson DL. Sitafloxacin hydrate for bacterial infections. Drugs Today (Barc). 2008;44(7):489–501. 34. http://www.daiichisankyo.com/news/mt_pdf/news2008_01_28_107_en.pdf Jan 28, 2008. 35. Daiichi Clinical Report, 1999 (Study PRT-015). Covance Clinical Research Unit, Leeds, UK. A randomised open label, multicentre study to compare the safety and efficacy of DU-6859a and ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole in the treatment of hospitalised patients with intra-abdominal infections. 36. Milatovic D, Schmitz FJ, Brisse S, Verhoef J, Fluit AC. In vitro activities of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) and six other fluoroquinolones against 8,796 clinical bacterial isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44:1102–7. 37. Matsumoto T, Uchino K, Yamaguchi H, Yoshida S, et al. Study on the safety and efficacy of sitafloxacin—results of the use-results survey. Jpn J ­Antibiot. 2011;64(5):319–37. 38. O’Grady J, Briggs A, Atarashi S, et  al. Pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability of sitafloxacin, a new fluoroquinolone antibiotic, in healthy male and female Caucasian subjects. Xenobiotica. 2001;31(11): 811–22. 39. Ratcliffe NT, Smith JT. Ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin exhibit a rifampicinresistant bactericidal mechanism not detectable in other 4-quinolone ­antibacterial agents. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1984;36 Suppl:59P. 40. Ratcliffe NT, Smith JT. Norfloxacin has a novel bactericidal mechanism unrelated to that of other 4-quinolones. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1985; 37 Suppl:92P. 41. Lewin CS, Smith JT. Bactericidal mechanisms of ofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;22 Suppl C:1–8. 42. Lewin CS, Amyes SGB. The bactericidal activity of DR-3355, an optically active isomer of ofloxacin. J Med Microbiol. 1989;30:227–31. 43. Lewin CS, Amyes SGB, Smith JT. Bactericidal activity of enoxacin and lomefloxacin against Escherichia coli KL 16. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989;8:731–3. 44. Lewin CS, Amyes SGB. Bactericidal action of PD 127, 391, an enhanced spectrum quinolone. J Med Microbiol. 1990;33:67–70. 45. Lewin CS, Morrissey I, Smith JT. The fluoroquinolones exert a reduced rate of kill against Enterococcus faecalis. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1991;43: 492–4. 46. Lewin CS, Morrissey I, Smith JT. The mode of action of quinolones: the paradox in activity of low and high concentrations and activity in the anaerobic environment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10:240–8. 47. Lewin CS. Antibacterial activity of a 1,8-naphthyridine quinolone, PD131628. J Med Microbiol. 1992;36:353–7. 48. Lewin CS, Morrissey I, Smith JT. The bactericidal activity of sparfloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1992;30:625–32.

197

Ghebremedhin 49. Morrissey I, Smith JT. Activity of quinolone antibacterials against. ­Streptococcus pneumoniae. Drugs. 1993;45 Suppl 3:196–7. 50. Okumura R, Hirata T, Onodera Y, Hoshino K, Otani T, Yamamoto T. Dual-targeting properties of the 3-aminopyrrolidyl quinolones, DC-159a and sitafloxacin, against DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV: contribution to reducing in vitro emergence of quinolone-resistant Streptococcus ­pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(1):98–104. 51. Akasaka T, Kurosaka S, Uchida Y, Tanaka M, et al. Antibacterial activities and inhibitory effects of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) and its optical isomers against type II topoisomerases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42(5): 1284–7. 52. Morrissey I, Smith JT. The new 4-quinolones DU-6859a and DV-7751a show enhanced activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae. Drugs. 1995;49(2): 228–9. 53. Morrissey I, Smith JT. Bactericidal activity of the new 4-quinolones DU-6859a and DV-7751a. J Med Microbiol. 1995;43(1):4–8. 54. Morrissey I, George J. Activities of fluoroquinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae type II topoisomerases purified as recombinant proteins. ­Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(11):2579–85. 55. Onodera Y, Uchida Y, Tanaka M, Sato K. Dual inhibitory activity of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) against DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV of Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999;44(4):533–6. 56. Hoshino K, Kitamura A, Morrissey I, Sato K, Kato J, Ikeda H. Comparison of inhibition of Escherichia coli topoisomerase IV by quinolones with DNA gyrase inhibition. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38(11):2623–7. 57. Onodera Y, Tanaka M, Sato K. Inhibitory activity of quinolones against DNA gyrase of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47(4):447–50. 58. Tanaka M, Onodera Y, Uchida Y, Sato K, Hayakawa I. Inhibitory activities of quinolones against DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV purified from Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(11):2362–6. 59. Miyashita N, Niki Y, Matsushima T. In vitro and in vivo activities of sitafloxacin against Chlamydia spp. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(11): 3270–2. 60. Murakami K, Okimoto T, Kodama M, et  al. Sitafloxacin activity against Helicobacter pylori isolates, including those with gyrA mutations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:3097–9. 61. Nord CE. In vitro activity of quinolones and other antimicrobial agents against anaerobic bacteria. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23 Suppl 1:S15–8. 62. Tomioka H, Sato K, Akaki T, Kajitani H, Kawahara S, Sakatani M. Comparative in vitro antimicrobial activities of the newly synthesized quinolone HSR-903, sitafloxacin (DU-6859a), gatifloxacin (AM-1155) and levofloxacin against Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium ­complex. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:3001–4. 63. Saito A, Tanigawara Y, Watanabe A, et  al. Open study of sitafloxacin in patients with respiratory tract infections: PK/PD sutdy. Jpn J Chemother. 2008;56(1):63–80. 64. Yokota S, Ohkoshi Y, Fujii N. Susceptibility and bactericidal ­activity of 8 oral quinolones against conventional-fluoroquinolone-resistant ­Streptococcus pneumoniae clinical isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;65(1):76–80. 65. Touyama M, Higa F, Nakasone C, Shinzato T, et al. In vitro activity of sitafloxacin against clinical strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae with defined amino acid substitutions in QRDRs of gyrase A and topoisomerase IV. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;58(6):1279–82. 66. Nakashima M, Uematsu T, Kosuge K, Umemura K, Hakusui H, Tanaka M. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of DU-6859a, a new fluoroquinolone, after single and multiple oral doses in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39(1):170–4. 67. Sasaki J, Hori S. Oral tissue distribution, efficacy, and safety of sitofloxacin in patients with dentistry and oral surgery infection. Jpn J Chemother. 2008: 56(1):121–9. 68. Baba S, Suzuki K, Yamanaka N, et al. Efficacy and safety of sitafloxacin in patients with otorhinolaryngological infections and its tissue distribution in the otorhinolaryngological field. Jpn J Chemother. 2008;56(1):110–20. 69. Tachibana M, Tanaka M, Mitsugi K, Jin Y, Takaichi M, Okazaki O. ­Pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution, and excretion of sitafloxacin, a new fluoroquinolone antibiotic, in rats, dogs, and monkeys. ­Arzneimittelforschung. 2004;54(12):898–905.

198

70. Payne GS, Collins DJ, Loynds P, Mould G, et al. Quantitative assessment of the hepatic pharmacokinetics of the antimicrobial sitafloxacin in humans using in vivo 19F magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59(2):244–8. 71. Nakashima M, Kawada Y. Pharmacokinetic profiles of sitafloxacin in renal dysfunction. Jpn J Chemother. 2008;56(1):21–4. 72. Sekino H, Kawada Y. Pharmacokinetic profiles of sitafloxacin in elderly voluteers. Jpn J Chemother. 2008;56(1):18–20. 73. Nakajima T, Okui T, Miyauchi S, et al. Effects of systemic sitafloxacin on periodontal infection control in elderly patients. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2): e1024–32. 74. Goldstein EJ. Possible role for the new fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ­grepafloxacin, trovafloxacin, clinafloxacin, sparfloxacin, and DU-6859a) in the treatment of anaerobic infections: review of current information on efficacy and safety. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23 Suppl 1:S25–30. 75. Shimoda K, Ikeda T, Okawara S, Kato M. Possible relationship between phototoxicity and photodegradation of sitafloxacin, a quinolone antibacterial agent, in the auricular skin of albino mice. Toxicol Sci. 2000;56(2):290–6. 76. Dawe RS, Ibbotson SH, Sanderson JB, Thomson EM, Ferguson J. A randomized controlled trial (volunteer study) of sitafloxacin, enoxacin, levofloxacin and sparfloxacin phototoxicity. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149(6):1232–41. 77. Feldman C, White H, O’Grady J, Flitcroft A, Briggs A, Richards G. An open, randomised, multi-centre study comparing the safety and efficacy of sitafloxacin and imipenem/cilastatin in the intravenous treatment of hospitalised patients with pneumonia. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001;17(3): 177–88. 78. Shetty N, Wilson AP. Sitafloxacin in the treatment of patients with infections caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;46(4):633–8. 79. Niki Y, Itokawa K, Okazaki O. Effects of DU-6859a, a new quinolone antimicrobial, on theophylline metabolism in in vitro and in vivo studies. ­Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42(7):1751–5. 80. Shiba K. Effects of ranitidine on sitofloxacin absorption. Jpn J Chemother. 2008:56(1):32–5. 81. Shiba K. Effects of metal-ion on sitofloxacin absorption. Jpn J Chemother. 2008:56(1):25–31. 82. Nakajima R, Kitamura A, Someya K, Tanaka M, Sato K. In vitro and in vivo antifungal activities of DU-6859a, a fluoroquinolone, in combination with amphotericin B and fluconazole against pathogenic fungi. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39(7):1517–21. 83. Holden MT, Feil EJ, Lindsay JA, et al. Complete genomes of two clinical Staphylococcus aureus strains: evidence for the rapid evolution of virulence and drug resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:9786–91. 84. Ghebremedhin B, König W, Witte W, Hardy KJ, Hawkey PM, König B. Subtyping of ST22-MRSA-IV (Barnim epidemic MRSA strain) at a university clinic in Germany from 2002 to 2005. J Med Microbiol. 2007;56(3): 365–75. 85. Deurenberg RH, Stobberingh EE. The evolution of Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Genet Evol. 2008;8(6):747–63. 86. Collins J, Rudkin J, Recker M, Pozzi C, O’Gara JP, Massey RC. ­Offsetting virulence and antibiotic resistance costs by MRSA. ISME J. 2010;4: 577–84. 87. Harris SR, Feil EJ, Holden MT, et al. Evolution of MRSA during hospital transmission and intercontinental spread. Science. 2010;327:469–74. 88. Ghebremedhin B, Olugbosi MO, Raji AM, et al. Emergence of a communityassociated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain with a unique resistance profile in Southwest Nigeria. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(9): 2975–80. 89. Bow EJ. Fluoroquinolones, antimicrobial resistance and neutropenic cancer patients. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2011;24(6):545–53. 90. Chong Y, Yakushiji H, Ito Y, Kamimura T. Clinical impact of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with hematological ­malignancies. Int J Infect Dis. 2011;15(4):e277–81. 91. Lafaurie M, Porcher R, Donay JL, Touratier S, Molina JM. Reduction of fluoroquinolone use is associated with a decrease in methicillin-­resistant Staphylococcus aureus and fluoroquinolone-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolation rates: a 10 year study. J Antimicrob Chemother. Jan 11, 2012. [Epub ahead of print.]

Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

Sitafloxacin in bacterial infections 92. Rivera AM, Boucher HW. Current concepts in antimicrobial therapy against select gram-positive organisms: methicillin-resistant ­Staphylococcus aureus, penicillin-resistant pneumococci, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(12):1230–43. 93. Forstall GJ, Knapp CC, Washington JA. Bactericidal activities of DU-6859a and clinafloxacin (CI-960) against staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38(8):1868–70. 94. Cormican MG, Marshall SA, Jones RN. Cross-resistance analysis for DU-6859a, a new fluoroquinolone, compared to six structurally ­similar compounds (ciprofloxacin, clinafloxacin, fleroxacin, levofloxacin, ­ofloxacin, and sparfloxacin). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;21:51–4. 95. Bauernfeind A. Comparison of the antibacterial activities of the quinolones Bay 12-8039, gatifloxacin (AM 1155), trovafloxacin, clinafloxacin, levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob. Chemother. 1997;40:639–51. 96. Cohen MA, Huband MD, Gage JG, et al. In-vitro activity of ­clinafloxacin, trovafloxacin, and ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;40: 205–11. 97. Giamarellou-Bourboulis EJ, Sambatakou H, Grecka P, Chryssouli Z, Giamarellou H. Sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) and trovafloxacin: postantibiotic effect and in vitro interactions with rifampin on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Diag Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;34:301–7. 98. Fuchs PC, Barry AL, Brown SD. In vitro activities of clinafloxacin against contemporary clinical bacterial isolates from 10 North American centers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42:1274–7. 99. Jones RN, Johnson DM, Biedenbach DJ, Marshall SA. Activity of two novel fluoroquinolones (DU-6859a and DV-7751a) tested against ­glycopeptide-resistant enterococcal isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;23:123–7. 100. Korten V, Erdem L, Murray BE. Bactericidal activity of the fluoroquinolone DU-6859a alone and in combination with other antimicrobial agents against multiresistant enterococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996;26:79–85. 101. Amano A, Matsuzaki K, Kishi N, Saika T, et al. In vitro activity of sitafloxacin against clinical isolates in 2009. Jpn J Antibiot. 2010;63(6):411–30. 102. Kanda H, Kurosaka Y, Fujikawa K, et al. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activity of sitafloxacin. Jpn J Chemother. 2008;56(1):1–17. 103. Visalli MA, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. 1996. 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: 362–6. 104. Browne FA, Bozdogan B, Clark C, Kelly LM, et  al. Antipneumococcal Activity of DK-507k, a New Quinolone, Compared with the Activities of 10 Other Agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(12): 3815–24. 105. Thomson KS, Sanders CC. The effects of increasing levels of quinolone resistance on in-vitro activity of four quinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998;42(2):179–87. 106. Okuda J, Ramamurthy T, Yamasaki S. The potent antibacterial activity of sitafloxacin against fluoroquinolone-resistant clinical isolates of Vibrio cholerae O1. Microbiol Immunol. 2007;51(4):467–9. 107. Bale MJ, Jones RN, Erwin ME. Minimum inhibitory concentration ­quality-control guidelines for biapenem, DU-6859a, FK-037, ­levofloxacin, grepafloxacin, and ceftizoxime when using various National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards susceptibility test methods. Quality Control Study Group. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994;19(1): 65–8. 108. Jones RN, Barrett MS, Biedenbach DJ. Interpretive criteria for susceptibility tests with DU-6859a and FK-037 tested against Haemophilus influenzae and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994;19(2): 93–9. 109. Miyachi H, Miki I, Aoyama N, Shirasaka D, et al. Primary levofloxacin resistance and gyrA/B mutations among Helicobacter pylori in Japan. Helicobacter. 2006;11(4):243–9. 110. Suzuki H, Nishizawa T, Muraoka H, Hibi T. Sitafloxacin and garenoxacin may overcome the antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori with gyrA mutation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:1720–1.

Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4

111. Rimbara E, Noguchi N, Kawai T, Sasatsu M. Fluoroquinolone Resistance in Helicobacter pylori: Role of Mutations at Position 87 and 91 of GyrA on the Level of Resistance and Identification of a Resistance Conferring Mutation in GyrB. Helicobacter. 2012;17(1):36–42. 112. Visalli MA, Bajaksouzian S, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Comparative activity of trovafloxacin, alone and in combination with other agents, against gram-negative non-fermentative rods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:1475–81. 113. Kitamura A, Hoshino K, Kimura Y, Hayakawa I, Sato K. Contribution of the C-8 substituent of DU-6859a, a new potent fluoroquinolone, to its activity against DNA gyrase mutants of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39(7):1467–71. 114. Otani T, Tanaka M, Ito E, Kurosaka Y, et al. In Vitro and In Vivo Antibacterial Activities of DK-507k, a Novel Fluoroquinolone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(12):3750–9. 115. Dhople AM, Namba K. In vivo susceptibility of Mycobacterium leprae to sitafloxacin (DU-6859a), either singly or in combination with rifampicin analogues. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2003;21(3):251–5. 116. Dhople AM, Namba K. In-vitro activity of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a), either singly or in combination with rifampin analogs, against Mycobacterium leprae. J Infect Chemother. 2003;9(1):12–5. 117. Dhople AM, Namba K. In vitro activity of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) alone, or in combination with rifampicin, against Mycobacterium ulcerans. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002;50(5):727–9. 118. Sano C, Tatano Y, Shimizu T, Yamabe S, Sato K, Tomioka H. Comparative in vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activities of sitafloxacin, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin against Mycobacterium avium. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;37(4):296–301. 119. Saito H, Tomioka H, Sato K, Dekio S. In vitro and in vivo antimycobacterial activities of a new quinolone, DU-6859a. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38(12):2877–82. 120. Hammerschlag MR, Hyman CL, Roblin PM. In vitro activities of five quinolones against Chlamydia pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36(3):682–3. 121. Hammerschlag MR, Roblin PM. Microbiologic efficacy of moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia due to Chlamydia pneumoniae. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;15(2):149–52. 122. Hammerschlag MR, Roblin PM. Microbiological efficacy of levofloxacin for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia due to Chlamydia ­pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(5):1409. 123. Hammerschlag MR. Activity of quinolones against Chlamydia pneumoniae Drugs. 1999;58 Suppl 2:78–81. 124. Roblin PM, Hammerschlag MR. In-vitro activity of gatifloxacin against Chlamydia trachomatis and Chlamydia pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999;44(4):549–51. 125. Kutlin A, Roblin PM, Hammerschlag MR. Effect of gemifloxacin on viability of Chlamydia pneumoniae (Chlamydophila pneumoniae) in an in vitro continuous infection model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002;49(5): 763–7. 126. Terada M, Izumi K, Ohki E, Yamagishi Y, Mikamo H. Antimicrobial efficacies of several antibiotics against uterine cervicitis caused by Mycoplasma genitalium. J Infect Chemother. 2012;18(3):313–7. 127. Hoogkamp-Korstanje JA. In vitro activities of ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, lomefloxacin, ofloxacin, pefloxacin, sparfloxacin and trovafloxacin against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens from respiratory tract ­infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;40(3):427–31. 128. Hecht DW, Wexler HM. In vitro susceptibility of anaerobes to quinolones in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23(Suppl 1):S2–8. 129. Kato N, Kato H, Tanaka-Bando K, Watanabe K, Ueno K. Comparison of in vitro activities of DU-6859a and other fluoroquinolones against Japanese isolates of anaerobic bacteria. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23 Suppl 1: S31–5. 1 30. Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Hunt Gerardo S, Hudspeth M, Merriam CV. Comparative in vitro activities of DU-6859a, levofloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and ciprofloxacin against 387 aerobic and anaerobic bite wound isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(5): 1193–5.

199

Ghebremedhin 131. Spangler SK, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Bactericidal activity of DU6859a compared to activities of three quinolones, three beta-lactams, clindamycin, and metronidazole against anaerobes as determined by time-kill methodology. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(4):847–9. 132. Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Warren Y, Tyrrell K, Merriam CV. In vitro activity of gemifloxacin (SB 265805) against anaerobes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(9):2231–5.

200

133. Ackermann G, Tang YJ, Rodloff AC, Silva J Jr, Cohen SH, Heisig P. In vitro activity of sitafloxacin against Clostridium difficile. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47(5):722–4.

Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2012:4