 |
|
In Vitro Fluoroquinolone Resistance in Staphylococcal Endophthalmitis Isolates
Darlene Miller, DHSc, MPH;
Patrick M. Flynn;
Ingrid U. Scott, MD, MPH;
Eduardo C. Alfonso, MD;
Harry W. Flynn, Jr, MD
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:479-483.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objective To evaluate the in vitro susceptibility and cross-resistance of gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin vs older fluoroquinolones among coagulase-negative staphylococci recovered from patients with clinical endophthalmitis.
Methods A combination of E tests and disk diffusion methods was used to determine in vitro susceptibility and cross-resistance for 111 coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates recovered during a 15-year period (January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2004) against 5 fluoroquinolones.
Results In vitro susceptibilities (percentage sensitive) in descending order were as follows: gatifloxacin, 74.5%; moxifloxacin, 72.1%; levofloxacin, 69.3%; ciprofloxacin, 65.6%, and ofloxacin, 60.4%. More than 65% of the coagulase-negative staphylococci resistant to ciprofloxacin (n = 38) demonstrated in vitro cross-resistance to gatifloxacin (25 [65.8%] of 38) and moxifloxacin (27 [71.1%] of 38). During the initial 5 years (January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1994), 96.6% of the coagulase-negative staphylococci were sensitive to gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin, with minimal inhibitory concentration required to inhibit or kill 90% of the isolates of 0.19 µg/mL and 0.12 µg/mL, respectively. During the last 5-year period (January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2004), the percentage of sensitive coagulase-negative staphylococci declined to 65.4% for gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin (P=.02). Minimal inhibitory concentration required to inhibit or kill 90% of the isolates was 32 µg/mL or greater for both drugs.
Conclusions Gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin demonstrated an in vitro efficacy of less than 80% for coagulase-negative staphylococci endophthalmitis in the present study. Ciprofloxacin resistance may serve as a surrogate for concurrent in vitro resistance for gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin. Resistance increased significantly during the last 5 years. Declining in vitro susceptibility to gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin may have important implications for the prevention and treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis.
INTRODUCTION
Endophthalmitis is an uncommon but potentially devastating adverse event following ocular surgery.1 The incidence of endophthalmitis after phacoemulsification and extracapsular cataract extraction ranges from 0.07% to 0.13%.1-6 Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) are the most frequent bacterial pathogens recovered from patients with postoperative endophthalmitis.3, 7-8
Techniques to reduce the risk of endophthalmitis following cataract surgery include the use of topical preoperative antibiotics, the application of a combination of povidone and iodine to the ocular surface before surgery, the instillation of antibiotics in the infusion solution, intracameral antibiotic injections, and the administration of postsurgical subconjunctival or topical antibiotics.9-12 Of this group, only preoperative povidone-iodine antisepsis has been supported by evidence-based medicine to have an effect on clinical outcomes.9
The role of preoperative and postoperative topical antibiotics for patients undergoing cataract surgery is controversial.13-14 Issues include antibiotic selection, pathogen spectrum, emerging resistance, and drug pharmacodynamics.
The fluoroquinolones have been recommended as preferred therapeutic agents to guard against and manage all ocular infections.15 The newest members of this group, moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin, target DNA gyrase and type IV topoisomerase and are predicted to reduce cross-resistance with older fluoroquinolones as well as provide broader coverage for common gram-positive ocular pathogens.16-17
The present laboratory study evaluates the in vitro susceptibility and cross-resistance of gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin vs ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, and levofloxacin against CNS isolates recovered from the vitreous of patients with postoperative endophthalmitis during a 15-year period.
METHODS
One hundred eleven current and cryopreserved CNS isolates recovered from the vitreous of patients with postoperative endophthalmitis between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2004, were retrieved from the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute Microbiology Department Bacteria Collection and rehydrated according to standard microbiological protocols. Frozen isolates were thawed, resuspended in trypticase soy broth, and incubated at 35°C for 18 to 24 hours in a non–carbon dioxide incubator. Newly recovered isolates were subcultured onto 5% sheep blood agar and incubated an additional 18 to 24 hours at 35°C.
A combination of E tests (minimal inhibitory concentrations [MICs], measured in micrograms per milliliter; AB Biodisk NA, Inc, Piscataway, NJ) (n = 78) and disk diffusion (antibiotic-impregnated paper disks; Becton Dickinson, Cockeysville, Md) (n = 33) were used to document and report the percentage of isolates with in vitro resistance to gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, ofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin during the 15-year study period. Vancomycin susceptibility was also determined for comparison. Available MIC distributions (78 [70.3%]) were used to detect and compare emerging resistance (percentage resistant) and declining susceptibility (changes in modal MIC or MIC50 [the concentration required to inhibit or kill 50% of the isolates]) for January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1994 (n = 29), January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1999 (n = 23), and January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2004 (n = 26).18 Total counts for the 3 periods were as follows: 1990 to 1994 (n = 40, ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin; and n = 34, ofloxacin and levofloxacin), 1995 to 1999 (n = 34, ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin; n = 29, ofloxacin; and n = 33, levofloxacin), and 2000 to 2004 (n = 37, ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin; and n = 34, ofloxacin and levofloxacin).
Test inoculum for each isolate and quality control strains was prepared using a 0.5 McFarland standard and then swabbed onto a 150-mm Mueller-Hinton agar plate. Either E test strips (AB Biodisk NA, Inc) or antibiotic-impregnated disks (Becton Dickinson) were dropped on a plate for each isolate. Plates were then incubated for 18 to 24 hours in a non–carbon dioxide incubator.
The MIC value (E test range, 0.002-32 µg/mL) was read at 18 to 24 hours as the point where the edge of the growing culture intersected the strip. The zone diameter (measured in millimeters) of growth inhibition around each disk was measured and recorded. Interpretations for sensitive, intermediate, and resistant were in accordance with Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute break points for MICs and zone sizes.19 Minimal inhibitory concentration values of greater than 2 µg/mL were recorded as resistant for gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin. The resistant cutoff value was greater than 4 µg/mL for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and ofloxacin. The percentage susceptible was less than 1% for the 3 oldest fluoroquinolones and less than 0.05% for gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin. Zone diameters of less than 15 mm (ciprofloxacin), less than 14 mm (gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin), less than 13 mm (levofloxacin), and less than 12 mm (ofloxacin) were recorded as resistant. Zone sizes for percentage susceptible were greater than 21 mm (ciprofloxacin), greater than 19 mm (levofloxacin), greater than 18 mm (ofloxacin), greater than 23 mm (gatifloxacin), and greater than 24 mm (moxifloxacin).19
Previous and current identification of the isolates were performed using a combination of coagulase tests, analytical profile index manual kits, and a gram-positive identification card (Vitek; BioMerieux, St Louis, Mo).
This was a fixed sample size, at a power of 0.80 and an  of .05; a minimum of 34 isolates per study period could detect a difference of 8 points or more in the number of resistant isolates between the groups.20 An Armitage trends in proportions test and the McNemar paired-sample test were used to compare and determine trends, drug differences, and statistical significance.
RESULTS
Staphylococcus epidermidis (75 [67.6%] of 111) was the most frequently isolated CNS species and was at least twice (39 [52.0%] of 75 vs 6 [16.7%] of 36; P<.001) as likely to be resistant to ciprofloxacin as non–S epidermidis isolates. Comparative in vitro susceptibilities to the 5 fluoroquinolones and vancomycin are displayed in Table 1. Significant differences between in vitro susceptibility were observed for gatifloxacin vs ciprofloxacin (P<.001), levofloxacin (P = .007), and ofloxacin (P = .001), but not moxifloxacin (P = .37). Similarly, significant differences were observed for moxifloxacin vs ciprofloxacin (P = .009) and ofloxacin (P = .02), but not levofloxacin (P = .08) or gatifloxacin (P = .37). No significant difference in in vitro susceptibility was detected for ciprofloxacin vs ofloxacin (P=.89), ciprofloxacin vs levofloxacin (P=.50), or ofloxacin vs levofloxacin (P=.58). None of the 111 isolates were resistant to vancomycin.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Comparative In Vitro Susceptibilities for the Fluoroquinolones
|
|
|
Considerable cross-resistance with ciprofloxacin, the oldest of the fluoroquinolones, was confirmed for these isolates (Table 1). At least 65% of the CNS isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin (n = 38) were also resistant to gatifloxacin (n = 25) and moxifloxacin (n = 27). More than 85% of the ciprofloxacin-resistant CNS isolates evaluated were also resistant to levofloxacin (30/34) and ofloxacin (31/32). Cross-resistance with ofloxacin and levofloxacin was greater than 60% for moxifloxacin (69.7% and 76.7%, respectively) and gatifloxacin (62.5% and 70.0%, respectively).
Gatifloxacin provided increased coverage for 34.2% (13/38) of the ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates, and moxifloxacin provided coverage for 28.9% (11/38). The difference in expanded coverage for gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin was not significant (P = .47). Less than 15% of the ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates were sensitive to levofloxacin (11.8%) or ofloxacin (3.1%). Coverage for ciprofloxacin-sensitive CNS isolates was 100.0% for gatifloxacin (73/73) and levofloxacin (67/67), 98.6% (72/73) for moxifloxacin, and 98.4% (63/64) for ofloxacin.
Minimal inhibitory concentration distributions ranged from 0.03 to 32 µg/mL. Comparative 5-year MIC50 and MIC90 (the concentration required to inhibit or kill 90% of the isolates) values are displayed in Table 2. An increase in the MIC50 and a decrease in the percentage of isolates inhibited by the MIC50 were documented for each successive period for all 5 fluoroquinolones. The decline in the number of susceptible isolates from the initial 5 years (1990-1994) through the last 5 years (2000-2004) was significant (by Armitage trends in proportions and 95% confidence interval) for ciprofloxacin (P = .03), levofloxacin (P = .004), gatifloxacin (P = .006), and moxifloxacin (P = .03), but not ofloxacin (P = .06). The greatest decline in in vitro activity for susceptible isolates was documented for levofloxacin (36.1%), followed by gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin (32.2%), ciprofloxacin (30.8%), and ofloxacin (20.6%).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Declining In Vitro Susceptibility Trends and 5-Year MIC50 and MIC90 Values for Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Recovered From Patients With Postoperative Endophthalmitis
|
|
|
An increase in the prevalence of resistant isolates was documented for each successive 5-year period and was significant for ciprofloxacin (P = .03), levofloxacin (P = .001), gatifloxacin (P = .003), and moxifloxacin (P = .007). Resistance increased for ofloxacin during the 15-year period but did not reach significance (P = .08). The MIC90 in 2000 to 2004 increased by 8 (ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin) to 266 (moxifloxacin) times the initial concentration recorded in 1990 to 1994. The increase in the prevalence of resistant isolates matched the decline in the percentage of susceptible isolates.
During the first 5 years, only low-level resistance (4 µg/mL) was detected for ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin. None of the isolates at baseline demonstrated in vitro resistance to levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, or moxifloxacin. Isolates with intermediate susceptibility ranged from 4% to 7%. In the subsequent 5 years (1995-1999), resistance levels for ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin increased to moderate (8 µg/mL), and low to moderate-level resistance emerged for levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin. The appearance of high-level (32-µg/mL) resistance in ciprofloxacin during the last 5-year period correlated with high-level resistance in all other fluoroquinolones.
COMMENT
In this laboratory-based study, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin demonstrated an in vitro efficiency of less than 80% against CNS recovered from the vitreous of patients with postoperative endophthalmitis. Cross-resistance was documented between gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin and all older fluoroquinolones. Expanded in vitro coverage for fluoroquinolone-resistant CNS vitreous isolates was less than 40% for moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin.
Staphylococcus epidermidis and other CNS remain the most frequent pathogens recovered from patients with postoperative endophthalmitis.3, 8 Declining in vitro susceptibility to the older fluoroquinolones of CNS and other ocular pathogens is problematic and has been documented by our institute and others.21-22 Gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin, the newest and most potent of the fluoroquinolones, have been offered as replacements to provide expanded coverage for the prevention and management of postoperative endophthalmitis and other ocular infections.16-17
The development of resistance to the newer fluoroquinolones is thought to be more difficult because of the bulky side chains and the need for mutations in the DNA gyrase and type IV topoisomerase enzymes.16-17 However, the stage for gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin resistance may have already been set by the ubiquitous use of the older ocular fluoroquinolones, such as ciprofloxacin, and the high level of in vitro resistance reported for these drugs.22-24
Emerging resistance to moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin has been documented for ocular and nonocular CNS isolates. In a study evaluating ocular isolates from European countries, Morrissey and colleagues25 documented a 2% resistance for gatifloxacin among their CNS isolates. A study by Pong and colleagues26 documented a 30% in vitro resistance for moxifloxacin against nonocular CNS isolates. Mather and colleagues27 documented in vitro resistance of 20% or more among their ocular CNS isolates for moxifloxacin (5 [25%] of 20) and gatifloxacin (4 [20%] of 20). One study28 reported no in vitro resistance among CNS ocular isolates.
In vitro susceptibility results alone may be insufficient to predict in vivo efficacy. A combination of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the drug, infection site, and the MIC90 is needed to predict the in vivo efficacy and clinical applicability. For concentration-dependent antibiotics, such as the fluoroquinolones, the most effective clinical outcomes and microbiological cures have been documented for cases in which the ratio of peak drug concentration–MIC90, or the inhibitory quotient, at the site exceeds 10.29-30 Others31-34 recommend reducing the selection of resistant isolates (mutants) by maintaining a concentration at the site of 8 to 10 times the MIC, the mutant prevention concentration. It might be difficult to obtain inhibitory quotients greater than 8, or mutant prevention concentrations 8 to 12 times the MIC, with currently described aqueous35 and/or vitreous levels of gatifloxacin36 and moxifloxacin37 and reported MIC90 values of 0.10 to 32 µg/mL.24, 28, 38-40
The present study documents declining in vitro susceptibility and increasing resistance to the fluoroquinolones, including gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin, among CNS isolates recovered from the vitreous of patients with postoperative endophthalmitis. These results may have important implications for the prevention and treatment of endophthalmitis.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Correspondence: Darlene Miller, DHSc, MPH, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, 900 NW 17th St, Miami, FL 33136 (dmiller{at}med.miami.edu).
Submitted for Publication: March 8, 2005; final revision received June 3, 2005; accepted June 12, 2005.
Financial Disclosure: None.
Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by a core grant from Research to Prevent Blindness.
Previous Presentation: This study was presented in part as a poster at the 2004 ARVO Annual Meeting; April 25-29, 2004; Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Author Affiliations: Departments of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Fla (Drs Miller, Alfonso, and Flynn and Mr Flynn), and Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa (Dr Scott).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Eifrig CW, Flynn HW Jr, Scott IU, Newton J. Acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis: review of incidence and visual outcomes (1995-2001). Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33:373-378.
PUBMED
2. Eifrig CW, Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr, et al. Endophthalmitis after pars plana vitrectomy: incidence, causative organisms, and visual acuity outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:799-802.
PUBMED
3. Benz MS, Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr, et al. Endophthalmitis isolates and antibiotic sensitivities: a 6-year review of culture-proven cases. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:38-42.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
4. Kattan HM, Flynn HW Jr, Pflugfelder SC, et al. Nosocomial endophthalmitis survey: current incidence of infection after intraocular surgery. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:227-238.
ISI
5. Buzard K, Liapis S. Prevention of endophthalmitis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:1953-1959.
PUBMED
6. Aaberg TM Jr, Flynn HW Jr, Schiffman J, Newton J. Nosocomial acute-onset postoperative endophthalmitis survey: a 10-year review of incidence and outcomes. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1004-1010.
7. Hanscom TA. Postoperative endophthalmitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:542-546.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
8. Han DP, Wisniewski SR, Wilson LA, et al. Spectrum and susceptibilities of microbiologic isolates in the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:1-17.
ISI
| PUBMED
9. Ciulla TA, Starr MB, Masket S. Bacterial endophthalmitis prophylaxis for cataract surgery: an evidence-based update. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:13-24.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
10. Montan PG, Wejde G, Koranyi G, Rylander M. Prophylactic intracameral cefuroxime: efficacy in preventing endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:977-981.
PUBMED
11. Speaker MG, Menikoff JA. Prophylaxis of endophthalmitis with topical povidone-iodine. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:1769-1775.
ISI
| PUBMED
12. Colleaux KM, Hamilton WK. Effect of prophylactic antibiotics and incision type on the incidence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. Can J Ophthalmol. 2000;35:373-378.
PUBMED
13. Liesegang TJ. Use of antimicrobials to prevent postoperative infection in patients with cataracts. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001;12:68-74.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
14. Osher RH, Amdahl LD, Cheetham JK. Antimicrobial efficacy and aqueous humor concentration of preoperative and postoperative topical trimethoprim/polymyxin B sulfate versus tobramycin. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1994;20:3-8.
PUBMED
15. Smith A, Pennefather PM, Kaye SB, Hart CA. Fluoroquinolones: place in ocular therapy. Drugs. 2001;61:747-761.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
16. Mah FS. Fourth-generation fluoroquinolones: new topical agents in the war on ocular bacterial infections. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15:316-320.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
17. Hwang DG. Fluoroquinolone resistance in ophthalmology and the potential role for newer ophthalmic fluoroquinolones. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49(suppl 2):S79-S83.
PUBMED
18. Walker RD, Thornsberry C. Decrease in antibiotic susceptibility or increase in resistance? J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998;41:1-4.
FREE FULL TEXT
19. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Fifteenth Informational Supplement. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 2005.20. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designing Clinical Research. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.21. Marangon FB, Miller D, Muallem MS, et al. Ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin resistance among methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus isolates from keratitis and conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:453-458.
PUBMED
22. Goldstein MH, Kowalski RP, Gordon YJ. Emerging fluoroquinolone resistance in bacterial keratitis: a 5-year review. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1313-1318.
ISI
| PUBMED
23. Alexandrakis G, Alfonso EC, Miller D. Shifting trends in bacterial keratitis in south Florida and emerging resistance to fluoroquinolones. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1497-1502.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
24. Bassetti M, Dembry LM, Farrel PA, et al. Comparative antimicrobial activity of gatifloxacin with ciprofloxacin and beta-lactams against gram-positive bacteria. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001;41:143-148.
PUBMED
25. Morrissey I, Burnett R, Viljoen L, Robbins M. Surveillance of the susceptibility of ocular bacterial pathogens to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin and other antimicrobials in Europe during 2001/2002. J Infect. 2004;49:109-114.
PUBMED
26. Pong A, Thomson KS, Moland ES, et al. Activity of moxifloxacin against pathogens with decreased susceptibility to ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999;44:621-627.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Mather R, Karenchak LM, Romanowski EG, Kowalski RP. Fourth generation fluoroquinolones: new weapons in the arsenal of ophthalmic antibiotics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:463-466.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
28. Chalita MR, Hofling-Lima AL, Paranhos A Jr, Schor P, Belfort R Jr. Shifting trends in in vitro antibiotic susceptibilities for common ocular isolates during a period of 15 years. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:43-51.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
29. Gunderson BW, Ross GH, Ibrahim KH, Rotschafer JC. What do we really know about antibiotic pharmacodynamics? Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21(pt 2):302S-318S.
PUBMED
30. Wilhelmus KR. Evaluation and prediction of fluoroquinolone pharmacodynamics in acterial keratitis. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2003;19:493-499.
PUBMED
31. Drlica K. The mutant selection window and antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52:11-17.
FREE FULL TEXT
32. Blondeau JM, Zhao X, Hansen G, Drlica K. Mutant prevention concentrations of fluoroquinolones for clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:433-438.
FREE FULL TEXT
33. Drlica K. The future of fluoroquinolones. Ann Med. 2000;32:585-587.
PUBMED
34. Drlica K, Schmitz FJ. Therapeutic options in an era of decreasing antimicrobial susceptibility. J Chemother. 2002;14(suppl 2):5-12.
PUBMED
35. Solomon R, Donnenfeld ED, Perry HD, et al. Penetration of topically applied gatifloxacin 0.3%, moxifloxacin 0.5%, and ciprofloxacin 0.3% into the aqueous humor. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:466-469.
36. Hariprasad SM, Mieler WF, Holz ER. Vitreous and aqueous penetration of orally administered gatifloxacin in humans. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:345-350.
FREE FULL TEXT
37. Hariprasad SM, Blinder KJ, Shah GK, et al. Penetration pharmacokinetics of topically administered 0.5% moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution in human aqueous and vitreous. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:39-44.
FREE FULL TEXT
38. Blondeau JM, Laskowski R, Bjarnason J, Stewart C. Comparative in vitro activity of gatifloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin and trovafloxacin against 4151 Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;14:45-50.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
39. Callegan MC, Ramirez R, Kane ST, et al. Antibacterial activity of the fourth-generation fluoroquinolones gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin against ocular pathogens. Adv Ther. 2003;20:246-252.
ISI
| PUBMED
40. Kowalski RP, Karenchak LM, Eller AW. The role of ciprofloxacin in endophthalmitis therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116:695-699.
ISI
| PUBMED
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Topical ophthalmic fourth-generation fluoroquinolones: Appropriate use and cost considerations
Fiscella et al.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64:2069-2073.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Role of Topical Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Intravitreal Injections
Scott and Flynn
Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:974-976.
FULL TEXT
|
