Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1018–1060 | Cite as

Lomefloxacin

A Review of its Antibacterial Activity, Pharmacokinetic Properties and Therapeutic Use
  • Alison N. Wadworth
  • Karen L. Goa
Drug Evaluation

Abstract

Synopsis

The antibacterial efficacy of oral lomefloxacin has been investigated in a wide variety of infections, including respiratory and uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections, obstetric, gynaecological, joint, skin, oral, ear, nose, throat and eye infections. It has also been used as an otic solution in patients with otitis media and as an ophthalmic solution in the treatment of eye infections. In clinical trials its efficacy is equivalent to that of other quinolones and it is at least as effective as other antibacterial drugs ordinarily used in these infections. Lomefloxacin offers certain advantages compared with other quinolone antibacterial drugs in that it may be conveniently administered once daily and theophylline dosage adjustment does not appear to be necessary in patients receiving this bronchodilator concomitantly. Thus, orally administered lomefloxacin should prove a useful broad spectrum antibacterial drug for a wide variety of clinical infections.

Antibacterial Activity

Lomefloxacin is a difluorinated quinolone with a piperazinyl group on the quinolone ring. In vitro it has been shown to be active against most Gram-negative bacteria, including Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Proteus, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Campylobacter, and Haemophilus species, Escherichia coli and Neisseriaceae, with minimum concentrations required to inhibit 90% of strains (MIC90) ≤ 2 mg/L. Against such organisms lomefloxacin was as active as other quinolones, except ciprofloxacin, which was slightly more active in vitro. Compared with nonquinolone antibacterial drugs lomefloxacin was more potent than ampicillin or gentamicin, and at least as potent as cefotaxime, ceftazidime and cotrimoxazole against most Gram-negative organisms, including Enterobacteriaceae.

Lomefloxacin was more active against Pseudomonas aeruginosa than gentamicin, cefotaxime or ceftazidime and exhibited similar antibacterial activity to enoxacin, ofloxacin and norfloxacin against these isolates. However, Pseudomonas spp. were generally less susceptible to lomefloxacin and other quinolones than the majority of Gram-negative organisms. The activity of lomefloxacin against Providencia and Acinetobacter species was similar to that against P. aeruginosa. Chlamydia trachomatis, Legionella species (including L. pneumophila), Aeromonas species, Bordetella pertussis, Bordetella parapertussis, and both Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio parahaemolyticus were susceptible to lomefloxacin. Ureaplasma urealyticum and both Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Mycoplasma hominis were as susceptible to lomefloxacin as to ciprofloxacin.

Lomefloxacin was a less active inhibitor of Gram-positive than Gram-negative aerobic bacteria in vitro, but was considerably more effective against staphylococci than norfloxacin or nalidixic acid. Generally streptococci were only moderately susceptible to lomefloxacin.

Anaerobic bacteria were not generally susceptible to lomefloxacin. Lomefloxacin had similar antibacterial activity to enoxacin and norfloxacin against the anaerobes Bacteroides, Clostridium, Fusobacterium and Peptostreptococcus, but was less potent than ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin against these bacteria.

Growth media, inoculum size and the presence of serum were reported as having variable but minimal effects on the antibacterial activity of lomefloxacin, which nonetheless was reduced in acidic environments and urine. Although there have been some reports of reduced susceptibility of nalidixic acid resistant strains to lomefloxacin, bacterial resistance to nonquinolone antibacterial agents did not influence the activity of lomefloxacin. The incidence of development of resistance to lomefloxacin was generally similar to that for other quinolones. In in vitro studies the incidence of resistance in single step mutation studies was in the 10-10 range, although incidences were up to 8 x 10-7 for P. aeruginosa and other common bacterial isolates at 4 to 12 times the MIC. There is also increasing evidence of resistance to lomefloxacin and other quinolones among Pseudomonas spp., enterococci, Enterobacteriaceae and S. aureus isolates.

Pharmacological Effects

Preclinical toxicity studies in various species revealed no significant evidence of toxicity. In young rats lomefloxacin caused articular damage, but the clinical implications of these findings, if any, are unknown. In the gastrointestinal tract lomefloxacin markedly reduces Enterobacteriaceae numbers but has a lesser effect against streptococci or micrococci, and little or no effect on anaerobic bacteria.

The antibacterial activity of the quinolones has been attributed to inhibition of the enzyme DNA gyrase, a type II topoisomerase. However, lomefloxacin had no mutagenic effects in vitro and had cytotoxic effects on eukaryotic topoisomerases only at very high concentrations.

Pharmacokinetics

Following oral administration of a 200mg dose of lomefloxacin peak serum concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 mg/L are achieved within 2 hours, while peak serum concentrations of about 3 to 5.2 mg/L are reached after a 400mg dose. Accumulation was not observed during multiple dose administration of either 400mg once daily or 300mg 3 times daily for 7 days. An administration regimen of 400mg once daily resulted in plasma concentrations above the MIC90 for susceptible Enterobacteriaceae for at least 12 hours compared with only 5 hours during a 200mg twice daily regimen. Food had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin. The apparent volume of distribution of lomefloxacin has been calculated to be about 1.7 to 2.5 L/kg. Lomefloxacin is 10% protein bound and rapidly penetrates most tissues. Concentrations achieved in bile tissue or fluid, prostate and lung tissue, and bronchial mucosa were higher than those detected in serum.

Within 48 hours of administration of single doses of 200 and 400mg in healthy volunteers 70 to 80% of the drug was excreted unchanged in the urine, most of this within the first 24 hours. However, the urinary lomefloxacin concentration remained well above the MIC90 for most susceptible bacterial species 24 hours after administration. Small amounts of lomefloxacin glucuronide and 4 other metabolites have been detected in the urine and bile of healthy volunteers.

In such volunteers renal clearance of lomefloxacin following single 200 or 400mg doses ranged from 7 to 15 L/h and elimination half-life (t1/2) from about 6 to 9 hours. In patients with impaired renal function both the t1/2 and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) are substantially increased. Thus, dosage adjustments are necessary for patients with severe renal impairment.

Therapeutic Efficacy

The efficacy of lomefloxacin has been investigated in both noncomparative and controlled comparative studies in patients with several types of infections.

Oral lomefloxacin 200mg 3 times daily had similar clinical efficacy to cefaclor 500mg 3 times daily in Japaneses patients with bacterial pneumonia or acute exacerbation of chronic respiratory tract infection: 71 to 73% of patients in either group had ‘good to excellent’ improvement in clinical symptoms. In studies conducted in Western countries 72 to 94% of patients with respiratory tract infections treated with lomefloxacin (400mg once daily) in comparative trials showed improvement of clinical symptoms: causative bacteria were eradicated from about 80 to 90% of such patients. Overall, lomefloxacin eradicated 85 to 100% of bacteria isolated from patients with respiratory tract infections, although a lower eradication rate was observed for Gram-positive bacteria (61 to 100%). Lomefloxacin 400mg once daily was at least as effective as amoxicillin 500mg or cefaclor 250mg 3 times daily in Western patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.

In Japanese patients with either complicated or uncomplicated urinary tract infections, divided dose regimens of lomefloxacin (200mg 3 times daily) had comparable clinical (‘good to excellent’ improvement in clinical symptoms) and bacterial (eradication of isolated pathogen) efficacies to norfloxacin (300 to 800mg daily in divided doses). In Western patients with complicated urinary tract infections clinical efficacy rates (defined as amelioration of, or improvement in, clinical symptoms) achieved during treatment with lomefloxacin 400mg once daily (86 to 97%) were similar to those achieved during therapy with norfloxacin (400mg twice daily), ciprofloxacin (250 to 500mg twice daily) and cotrimoxazole (160/800mg twice daily) in controlled comparative studies. Higher clinical efficacy rates (93 to 100%) were, however, achieved in patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections treated with lomefloxacin. Bacteria were eradicated from 93 to 100% of patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections and 92 to 97% of patients with complications.

The antibacterial efficacy of lomefloxacin has also been evaluated in Japanese patients with other infections. Gynaecological infections as well as nongonococcal urethritis were responsive to treatment with lomefloxacin 300 to 600mg daily in divided doses (clinical efficacy rates of 70 to 100% were achieved in most studies). A single dose of lomefloxacin 200 or 400mg eradicated N. gonorrhoeae from 98 to 100% of patients with gonorrhoeal urethritis or cervicitis.

Clinical efficacy rates of 62 to 100% have been achieved using divided dosage regimens of oral lomefloxacin 300 to 600mg in Japanese patients with various oral, ear, nose or throat infections. In most noncomparative studies, all strains of isolated S. pneumoniae and Streptococcus spp. and 66 to 100% of S. aureus were eradicated from patients with various ear, nose and throat infections. Overall bacterial eradication rates of 72 and 82%, respectively, were achieved against Gram-positive cocci and Gram-negative bacteria in patients with acute, or exacerbation of chronic, otitis media.

Improved clinical symptoms were observed in about 90% of patients with either biliary tract infections or infectious enteritis treated with oral lomefloxacin 200mg 3 times daily.

A clinical efficacy rate of 97% has been achieved using a topical ophthalmic solution in patients with various eye infections. Treatment with oral lomefloxacin 200mg 3 times daily was associated with a reduction in clinical symptoms in 74 to 86% of Japanese patients with eye infections and 75 to 91% of patients with skin, soft tissue or joint infections. Bacteria were eradicated from 64 to 100% of the latter group of patients.

Tolerability

Lomefloxacin is generally well tolerated, with most adverse effects being of mild to moderate severity and transient in nature. Gastrointestinal symptoms, mainly nausea, diarrhoea, pain/discomfort, were reported most frequently. Headache, dizziness, transient sleeplessness, dermatological or hypersensitivity reactions and photosensitivity have also been reported, although in fewer patients. In comparative studies the overall incidence of adverse events during treatment with lomefloxacin was similar to that with norfloxacin, amoxicillin, cefotaxime, and cefaclor, but tended to be lower than that for cotrimoxazole. Serious reactions necessitating withdrawal were rare: in comparative studies, treatment associated adverse events necessitating withdrawal occurred in ≤ 1% of both lomefloxacin and norfloxacin recipients. Changes in laboratory values have been reported in patients treated with lomefloxacin in clinical studies but were not considered to be drug related.

Dosage and Administration

The recommended dosage of lomefloxacin is 400mg administered orally, once daily. In Japan the recommended dosage is 200mg 3 times daily. In most cases 7 to 14 days’ of therapy are required, although 3 to 4 days therapy have been used in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Prolonged administration may, however, be necessary in patients with severe and complicated infections.

Treatment with single doses of 200 to 400mg is usually sufficient for patients with gonorrhoeal urethritis or cervicitis, although more severe infections may require up to 14 days’ treatment. A single oral 400mg dose has been used as prophylaxis 2 to 6 hours prior to transurethral surgery, and twice daily administration of 0.3 to 0.5ml of a 0.3% solution has been used as topical treatment for otitis media.

Dosage adjustment is required for patients with severely compromised renal function. In patients with a creatinine clearance ≤ 2 L/h (≤ 30 ml/min) the recommended dosage is 400mg on day 1 and 200mg daily thereafter.

Antacids containing magnesium and/or aluminium hydroxide interfere with the absorption of lomefloxacin, resulting in subtherapeutic serum and urine concentrations. Thus, if concomitant antacids are required concurrent administration of these antacids with lomefloxacin should be avoided by separating the ingestion of these agents by more than 2 hours. Lomefloxacin does not interact with either theophylline or caffeine.

Keywords

Ofloxacin Norfloxacin Nalidixic Acid Cefaclor Enoxacin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akahane K, Sekiguchi M, Une T, Osada Y. Structure-epileptogenicity relationship of quinolones with special reference to their interaction with γr-aminobutyric acid receptor sites. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 22(33): 1704–1708, 1989Google Scholar
  2. Albera C, Grassi C, Pozzi E. Lomefloxacin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: Italy report. Abstract 1315. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  3. Aldridge KE, Henderberg A, Sanders CV. Lomefloxacin (SC47111 or NY-198), a new difluorinated quinolone: comparison of the in vitro activity with other broad spectrum antimicrobials against Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter spp, Aeromonas spp, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 1S–6S, 1989aGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldridge KE, Henderberg A, Gebbia K, Schiro DD, Janney A, et al. Lomefloxacin, a new fluoroquinolone. Studies on in vitro antimicrobial spectrum potency, and developments of resistance. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 221–233, 1989bGoogle Scholar
  5. Amaya G, Andrade J, Flores A, Martinez R, Medina F, et al. Safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis caused by Gram-negative pathogens. Abstract. Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1989Google Scholar
  6. Aoki T, Saito M, Shimizu N, Tomizawa I, Takizawa Y. Clinical study of NY-198 in infectious enteritis. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 792–801, 1988Google Scholar
  7. Aoki T, Shimizu N, Tomizawa I, Takizawa Y, Matsubara Y, et al. Comparison of clinical efficacy of lomefloxacin (LFLX, NY-198) and pipemidic acid (PPA) in the treatment of infectious enteritis by a double-blind method. Kansenshogaku Zasshi 63: 606–622, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Arata J, Yamamoto Y, Tamaki H, Ookawara A, Fukaya T, et al. Double-blind study of lomefloxacin vs norfloxacin in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Chemotherapy 37: 482–503, 1989Google Scholar
  9. Arisawa Y, Matsui Y, Michi K. NY-198 in odontogenic infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1384–1387, 1988Google Scholar
  10. Baba S, Inagaki M, Kobayashi T, Kawamura S, Itabashi T, et al. Evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and safety of lomefloxacin (NY-198) in acute lacunar tonsillitis. Jibi to Rinsho 35: 410–433, 1989Google Scholar
  11. Baba S, Kobayashi T, Kawamura S, Uehara N, Nawada Y, et al. Phase II study of lomefloxaciin (NY-198) otic solution in a multi-center double-blind clinical trial. Jibi to Rinsho 37: 46–77, 1991aGoogle Scholar
  12. Baba S, Kobayashi T, Kawamura S, Ichikawa G, Watanabe H. Phase III study results of lomefloxacin (NY-198) otic solution for the treatment of chronic purulent otitis media and its acute exacerbations. Jibi to Rinsho 37: 78–108, 1991bGoogle Scholar
  13. Baldwin DR, Honeybourne D, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, Wise R. Concentrations of oral lomefloxacin in serum and bronchial mucosa. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 1017–1019, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Beckmann J, Elsässer W, Gundert-Remy U, Hertrampf R. Enoxacin: a potent inhibitor of theophylline metabolism. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 33: 227–230, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bianchini HN, Sarachian B, Fernandez A, Paolasso R, Kaufman C, et al. A ten-laboratory study of lomefloxacin (NY-198 or SC 47111) antimicrobial activity in Argentina. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 45S–50S, 1989Google Scholar
  16. Blum RA, Schultz RW, Schentag JJ. Pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin in renally compromised patients. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 2364–2368, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Burnham JC, Sonstein SA. Antivirulence effects of lomefloxacin and other quinolones. Abstract 1010. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  18. Butler T, Cartagenova M, Dunn D. Treatment of experimental Salmonella typhimurium infection in mice with lomefloxacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 25: 629–634, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Campoli-Richards DM, Monk JP, Price A, Benfield P, Todd PA, et al. Ciprofloxacin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 35: 373–447, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cantón E, Gobernado M, Jiménez T, Izquierdo R. Lomefloxacin: laboratory study of antibacterial activity. Revista Espanola de Quimioterapia 2: 237–244, 1989Google Scholar
  21. Cassell GH, Waites KB, Pate MS, Canupp KC, Duffy LB. Comparative susceptibility of Mycoplasma pneumoniae to erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, and lomefloxacin. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 433–435, 1989Google Scholar
  22. Chambers ST, Peddie BA, Robson RA, Begg EJ, Boswell DR. Antimicrobial effects of lomefloxacin In vitro. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 27: 481–489, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Chan CY, Lam AW, French GL. Rapid HPLC assay of fluoroquinolones in clinical specimens. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 23: 597–604, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Chin N-X, Novelli A, Neu HC. In vitro activity of lomefloxacin (SC-47111; Ny-198), a difluoroquinolone 3-carboxylic acid, compared with those of other quinolones. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 656–662, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Cho N, Fukunaga K, Kunii K. NY-198 in the obstetric and gynecological field. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1091–1098, 1988Google Scholar
  26. Clarke AM, Zemcov SJV. Comparative in vitro activity of lomefloxacin, a new difluoroquinolone. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 8: 164–169, 1989Google Scholar
  27. Christ W. Central nervous system toxicity of quinolones: human and animal findings. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 26: 219–225, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Cowling P, Rogers S, McMullin CM, White LO, Lovering AM, et al. The pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin in elderly patients with urinary tract infection following daily dosing with 400 mg. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 28: 101–107, Jul 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Cox CE, White C, Hollahan M. A comparison of the safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of complicated or recurrent urinary tract infection. Abstract. Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 5, 1989Google Scholar
  30. Cox CE. A comparison of the safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of complicated or recurrent urinary tract infections. American Journal of Medicine, in press, 1992Google Scholar
  31. Crawford ED, Berger N, Davis M, Donohue R, Ramirez-Ronda C, et al. Lomefloxacin versus cefotaxime as prophylaxis for transurethral surgery. Abstract 1308. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  32. Crome P, Morrison PJ. Pharmacokinetcs of a single oral dose of lomefloxacin in healthy elderly volunteers. Drug Investigation 3: 183–187, No. 3 1991Google Scholar
  33. Derlot E, Poyart-Sálmeron C, Courvalin P. Antibacterial and plasmid curing activity of lomefloxacin in vitro. European Journal of Clinical Microbiological and Infectious Diseases 8: 1048–1052, 1989Google Scholar
  34. Dette GA, Knothe H. In-vitro evaluation of lomefloxacin. Arzneimittel-Forschung 39: 832–835, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Dubois J, Joly JR. In vitro activity of lomefloxacin (SC 47111 or NY-198) against isolates of Legionella spp. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 89S–91S, 1989Google Scholar
  36. Dubois J, St Pierre C. Antibacterial activity of lomefloxacin against urinary tract, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract pathogens. Current Therapeutic Research 45: 1000–1005, 1989aGoogle Scholar
  37. Dubois J, St Pierre C. The postantibiotic effect of lomefloxacin against Legionella pneumophila and Pseudomonas maltophilia. Abstract 938. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1989bGoogle Scholar
  38. Domagala JM, Hanna LD, Heifetz CL, Hutt MP. New structure-activity relationships of the quinolone antibacterials using the target enzyme. The development and application of a DNA gyrase assay. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 29: 394–404, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Durazo F, Resano F, Gonzalez MA. Lomefloxacin (SC-47111 or NY-198) Comparative antimicrobial activity against 2002 clinical isolates from hospitals in Mexico City. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 13: 71–75, 1990Google Scholar
  40. Edelstein PH, Gaudet EA, Edelstein MAC. In vitro activity of lomefloxacin (NY-198 or SC 47111), ciprofloxacin, and erythromycin against 100 clinical Legionella strains. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 93S–95S, 1989Google Scholar
  41. Edlund C, Brismar B, Nord CE. Effect of lomefloxacin on the normal oral and intestinal microflora. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 9: 35–39, 1990Google Scholar
  42. Edwards R, Kanematsu M, Greenwood D. Laboratory assessment of lomefloxacin (SC-47111) in comparison with norfloxacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 22: 885–890, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Fernandes PB, Swanson RN. Correlation of in vitro activities of the fluoroquinolones to their in vivo efficacies. Drugs Under Experimental and Clinical Research 14: 375–378, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Finch R, Martin J, Pilkington R. In-vitro assessment of lomefloxacin (SC-47111): a new quinolone derivative. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 22: 881–884, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Fisher LM, Lawrence JM, Josty IC, Hopewell R, Margerrison EEC, et al. Ciprofloxacin and the fluroquinolones. New concepts onthe mechanism of action and resistance. American Journal of Medicine 87(Supp. 5A): 2S–8S, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Fontana LO, Martin-Luengo F, Rico JL, Ros MT, Murcia A, et al. Prophylaxis in transurethral surgery: oral lomefloxacin versus parenteral cefuroxime. Abstract 1309. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  47. Forsgren A, Neringer R, Hansson C, Ode B. Lomefloxacin versus norfloxacin in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections: three-day versus seven-day treatment. Abstract 997. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  48. Forstall GJ, Knapp CC, Washington JA. Activity of new quinolones against ciprofloxacin resistant staphylococci. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 35: 1679–1681, Aug 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Forward KR, Degagne PA, Bartlett KR. The comparative activity of lomefloxacin (SC-47111, NY-198) and other orally absorbable agents against Haemophilus influenzile and Branhamella catarrhalis. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 437–440, 1989Google Scholar
  50. Foster TS. The effect of antacid timing on lomefloxacin bioavailability. Pharmacotherapy 11: 101, 1991Google Scholar
  51. Fuhr U, Wolff T, Harder W, Schymanski P, Staib AH. Quinolone inhibition of cytochrome p-450-dependent caffeine metabolism in human liver microsomes. Drug Metabolism and Disposition 18: 1005–1010, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Fujii A, Maeda H, Yamazaki H, Arakawa S, Kamidono S. Fundamental and clinical studies on NY-198 in the field of urology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 954–973, 1988Google Scholar
  53. Fukuda M, Sasaki K. Intraocular dynamic mode differences of new quinolone antibacterial agents between pigmented and albino rabbit eyes. Lens and Eye Toxicity Research 6: 339–351, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Furet YX, Pechère J-C. Usual and unusual antibacterial effects of quinolones. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 26: 7–15, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Furusawa T, Maekawa M, Kitamura K. Clinical study on NY-198 in urinary infections. Chemotherapy: 941-946, 1988Google Scholar
  56. Futaki T, Syu M-J, Suzaki H, Nomura Y. Fundamental and clinical studies on NY-198 in the field of otorhinolaryngology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1280–1288, 1988Google Scholar
  57. Garcia-Rodriguez, Garcia Sánchez, Truijillano I. Lack of effective bactericidal activity of new quinolones against Brucella spp. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 35: 756–759, Apr 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Gerard A, Chambers HF. Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus aortic valve endocarditis in rabbits with lomefloxacin. Abstract 972. Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1989Google Scholar
  59. Gillenwater JY, Culkin D, Mata J, Sugarman B. A multicenter evaluation of the safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin and norfloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection. Abstract 1305. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  60. Gima Y, Yamashiro M, Fujii N. NY-198 in oral and maxillofacial infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1415–1418, 1988Google Scholar
  61. Ginsberg D, Wood M, Burch K. Multicenter comparison of the safety and efficacy of once-daily lomefloxacin and twice-daily norfloxacin in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Abstract 1304. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  62. Glick EJ, Segreti J, Goodman LJ, Trenholme GM. In vitro activity of tosufloxacin against bacterial enteric pathogens. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 13: 333–336, 1990Google Scholar
  63. Gonzalez JP, Henwood JM. Pefloxacin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 37: 628–668, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Goossens H, De Mol P, Coignau H, Stas G, Bergen C, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of lomefloxacin against enteropathogens. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 11(Suppl. 5): 1151–1152, 1989Google Scholar
  65. Gotfried MH, Ellison WT. Safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin versus cefaclor in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. American Journal of Medicine, in press, 1992Google Scholar
  66. Goto N, Horiuchi S, Inagaki Y, Higaki M, Takano H, et al. In vitro antibacterial activity of NY-198 against fresh clinical isolates of enteropathogenic bacteria. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 93–98, 1988Google Scholar
  67. Griggs DJ, Wise R. A simple isocratic high-pressure liquid Chromatographic assay of quinolones in serum. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 24: 437–445, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Gros I, Carbon C. Pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin in healthy volunteers: comparison of 400 milligrams once daily and 200 milligrams twice daily given orally for 5 days. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 150–152, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Guibert J. Comparison of lomefloxacin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Abstract 1312. 30th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  70. Harder S, Schulze C, Staib AH. Influence of the quinolone derivatives lomefloxacin and pipemidic acid on theophylline metabolism in man. Abstract 265. Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology 338: R79, 1988Google Scholar
  71. Harder S, Staib AH, Beer C, Papenburg A, Stille W, et al. 4-Quinolones inhibit biotransformation of caffeine. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 35: 651–656, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Hasegawa T, Nadai M, Kuzuya T, Muraoka I, Apichartpichean R, et al. The possible mechanism of interaction between xanthines and quinolone. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 42: 767–772, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Hatano H, Wakamatsu K. NY-198 in ophthalmology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1327–1335, 1988Google Scholar
  74. Havili K, Marlin GE, Glanville AR. Penetration of lomefloxacin into human bronchial mucosa. Abstract. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 20: 534, 1990Google Scholar
  75. Hayashi I, Ohnuma K. Clinical results of NY-198 in respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 495–498, 1988Google Scholar
  76. Healy DP, Schoenle JR, Stotka J, Polk RE. Lack of interaction between lonefloxacin and caffeine in normal volunteers. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 35: 660–664, Apr 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Henwood JM, Monk JP. Enoxacin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 36: 32–66, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Hiraga Y, Kikuchi K, Yamamoto A. Clinical study of NY-198 in respiratory infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 475–479, 1988Google Scholar
  79. Hirata T, Sekitani T. Clinico-pharmacological study on NY-198 in otorhinolaryngology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1303–1313, 1988Google Scholar
  80. Hirose T, Okezaki E, Kato H, Ito Y, Inoue M, et al. In vitro and in vivo activity of NY-198, a new difluorinated quinolone. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 31: 854–859, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Hoban D, DeGagne P, Witwicki E. In vitro activity of lomefloxacin against Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Haemophilus ducreyi, Mycoplasma homini, and Ureaplasma urealyticum. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 83S–86S, 1989aGoogle Scholar
  82. Hoban D, Grabowski M, Koss J, Weselowski V. Lomefloxacin, a new difluoroquinolone: in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 77S–82S, 1989bGoogle Scholar
  83. Høiby N. Clinical uses of nalidixic acid analogues: the fluroquinolones. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 5: 138–140, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Höffler D, Waetcke K, Koeppe P, Metz R, Sörgel F. Pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin in normal and impaired renal function. Acta Therapeutica 15: 321–336, 1989Google Scholar
  85. Holt A, Bywater MJ, Reeves DS. Comparative in vitro activity of lomefloxacin and other agents against clinical bacterial isolates. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 11(Suppl. 5): S933–S934, 1989Google Scholar
  86. Hooper DC, Wolfson JS, Souza KS, Tung C, McHugh GL, et al. Genetic and biochemical characterization of norfloxacin resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 29: 639–644, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Hooper WD, Dickinson RG, Eadie MJ. Effect of food on absorption of lomefloxacin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 1797–1799, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Hoppe JE, Simon CG. In vitro susceptibilities of Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis to seven fluoroquinolones. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 2287–2288, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Horio S, Oguchi M, Asada Y. NY-198 in dermatology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1251–1257, 1988Google Scholar
  90. Hoshino K, Sato K, Une T, Osada Y. Inhibitory effects of quinolones on DNA gyrase of Escherichia coli and topoisomerase II of fetal calf thymus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 33: 1816–1818, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Humphreys H, Mulvihill E. Ciprofloxacin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet 2: 383, 17 Aug 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Hunt TL, Adams MA. Pharmacokinetics and safety of lomefloxacin following multiple doses. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 181–187, 1989Google Scholar
  93. Ikeno N, Takahashi K, Endo H, Morizuka T, Watanabe M, et al. Clinical efficacy of NY-198 in infections in obstetrics and gynecology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1079–1084, 1988Google Scholar
  94. Inagaki Y, Chida T, Nakaya R, Ekataksin C, Takahasi S, et al. Effect of NY-198, a new quinolone derivative, on human intestinal microflora. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 120–131, 1988Google Scholar
  95. Iravani A. Lomefloxacin versus norfloxacin in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Abstract 1311. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  96. Ito A, Ri M, Okubo T, Kaminaga Y. Basic and clinical studies on NY-198. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 572–579, 1988Google Scholar
  97. Itoh K, Katsuta K, Nobori T, Furuta S, Fukami K. NY-198 in the otolaryngological field. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1321–1326, 1988Google Scholar
  98. Janknegt R, Hekster YA. Developments in quinolones. Bacteriology, pharmacokinetics and initial clinical experience of several investigational quinolone derivatives. Pharmaceutisch Weekblad Scientific Edition 11: 33–43, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Jones RN, Aldridge KE, Barry AL, Fuchs PC, Gerlach EH, et al. Multicenter In vitro evaluation of lomefloxacin (NY-198, SC-47111), including tests against nearly 7,000 bacterial isolates and preliminary recommendations for susceptibility testing. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 10: 221–240, 1988Google Scholar
  100. Jones RN, and the Contributing National Monitors. Lomefloxacin International Surveillance Trial (LIST): 24-month report. Abstract 732. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1990Google Scholar
  101. Jungst G, Mohr R. Overview of postmarketing experience with ofloxacin in Germany. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 22: 167–175, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Kaatz GW, Barriere SL, Schaberg DR, Fekety R. The emergence of resistance to ciprofloxacin during treatment of experimental Staphyloccocus aureus endocarditis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 20: 753–758, Nov 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Kaatz GW, Seo SM, Ruble CA. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Infectious Diseases 163: 1080–1086, May 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Kaji M, Saito A, Shimada J, Ohmori M, Shiba K, et al. Clinical studies on NY-198. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 513–526, 1988Google Scholar
  105. Kandziora J, Zaltenbach G. Lomefloxacin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: Germany. Abstract 1316. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  106. Kanematsu M, Greenwood D. Studies on the emergence of resistance to lomefloxacin in vitro. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 8: 741–745, 1989Google Scholar
  107. Katayama N, Nishikawa M, Shirakawa S. Biokinetics of NY-198 in elderly persons and its clinical effectiveness. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 647–651, 1988Google Scholar
  108. Katoh O, Kuroki S, Yamaguchi T, Hiura K, Yamada H, et al. NY-198 in respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 732–737, 1988Google Scholar
  109. Kavi J, Stone J, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, Wise R. Tissue penetration and pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin following multiple doses. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 8: 168–170, 1989Google Scholar
  110. Kawamura S, Itabashi T, Wada M, Watanabe H, Nakamura M, et al. Comparative study of lomefloxacin (NY-198) and pipemidic acid (PPA) in the treatment for suppurative otitis media. Jibi to Rinsho 35: 434–457, 1989Google Scholar
  111. Kawamura N, Nishizawa K, Kawashima T, Koinuma A, Ohhara K. Clinical effect of NY-198 (lomefloxacin) for sexually transmitted disease. Bacteriological effect of U. urealyticum. Kansenshogaku Zasshi 64: 1–11, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Kemper P, Köhler D. A double-blind study of two dosage regimens of lomefloxacin in bacteriologically proven exacerbations of chronic bronchitis of Gram-negative etiology. American Journal of Medicine, in press, 1992Google Scholar
  113. Kiyohara T. Therapeutic effects of lomefloxacin (LFLX) ophthalmic solution with t.i.d. administration in the external bacterial infection of the eyes. Shinyaku to Rinsho 40: 37–54, 1991Google Scholar
  114. Klimberg IW, Childs SJ. Pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin penetration into prostatic tissue. Abstract 1006. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1990Google Scholar
  115. Kobayashi T, Baba S, Mori Y, Suzuki K, Shimada J, et al. NY-198 in the otorhinolaryngological field. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1296–1302, 1988Google Scholar
  116. Koga H. High-performance liquid chromatography measurement of antimicrobial concentrations in polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 31: 1904–1908, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Kohno S, Yamaguchi K, Dohtsu Y, Koga H, Hayashi T, et al. Efficacy of NY-198 against experimental Legionnaires disease. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 1427–1429, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Koshiura R, Miyamoto K, Wakusawa S. Cytotoxicity of NY-198 on mammalian cells in culture. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 325–337, 1988Google Scholar
  119. Kovarik JM, de Hond JAPM, Hoepelman IM, Boon T, Verhoef J. Intraprostatic distribution of lomefloxacin following multiple-dose administration. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 2398–2401, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Kovarik JM, De Hond JAPM, Hoepelman IM, Boon T, Verhoef J. Intraprostatic distribution of lomefloxacin following multiple-dose administration. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 2398–2401, 1990aPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Kovarik JM, Smit JM, Sips DJ, Rozenberg-Arska M, Hoepelman IM, et al. Steady state pharmacokinetics and sputum penetration of lomefloxacin in chronic bronchitis patients. Abstract 1005. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1990bGoogle Scholar
  122. Kumamoto Y, Henmi I, Tsunekawa T, Sakai S, Hayashi K, et al. Epidemiological and therapeutic study on gonorrhoeal infection. Study on NY-198 (lomefloxacin) single administration therapy. Hinyokika Kiyo 36: 969–977, 1990aPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Kumamoto Y, Hirose T, Hayashi K, Gohro T, Kodama N, et al. Epidemiological and therapeutic study on urethritis of male and cervicitis from viewpoint of STD. A study using NY-198. Hinyokika Kiyo 36: 979–987, 1990bPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Kumazawa J, Ogata N, Hirata H, Hara S, Omoto T, et al. A dose finding study of lomefloxacin (NY-198) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections: a double blind study. Nishinihon Journal of Urology 5: 2173–2190, 1988Google Scholar
  125. Kuriyama H, Terashima K, Morisaki M, Kinoshita T. Efficacy of the NY-198 (lomefloxacin) otic solution on experimental otitis media in guinea pigs. Yakuri to Chiryo 18: 49–58, 1990Google Scholar
  126. Kurkemyer J, Lima J, Adams M, Hunt T. Lomefloxacin pharmacokinetics: binding to plasma proteins and the effect of food on absorption. Abstract. Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 16, 1989Google Scholar
  127. Kuzuya T, Takagi K, Apichartpichean R, Muraoka I, Nadai M, et al. Kinetic interaction between theophylline and a newly developed quinolone, NY-198. Journal of Pharmacobiological Dynamics 12: 405–409, 1989Google Scholar
  128. LeBel M, Vallée F, St Laurent M. Influence of lomefloxacin on the pharmacokinetics of theophylline. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 1254–1256, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. LeBel M, Vallée F, Marcotte N, St Laurent M. Tissue penetration of lomefloxacin in young and elderly healthy volunteers. Abstract. Pharmacotherapy 9: 185, 1989Google Scholar
  130. Leigh DA, Harris C, Tait S, Walsh B, Hancock P. Pharmacokinetic study of lomefloxacin and its effect on the faecal flora of volunteers. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 27: 655–662, 1991aPubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. Leigh DA, Tait S, Walsh B. Antibacterial activity of lomefloxacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 27: 589–598, 1991bPubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Leroy A, Fillastre JP, Humbert G. Lomefloxacin pharmacokinetics in subjects with normal and impaired renal function. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 12–20, 1990Google Scholar
  133. Leroy A, Grise Ph, Dhib M, Valtchev B, Fillastre JP. Penetration of lomefloxacin into human prostatic tissue. Urology 38: 192, Aug 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Lewin CS, Allen RA, Amyes SGB. Antibacterial activity of fluroquinolones in combination with zidovudine. Journal of Medical Microbiology 33: 127–131, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. Lindh E, Dornbusch K, Jalakas K, Forsgren A. Antibiotic susceptibility and βr-lactamase production in clinical isolates of Enterobacter spp. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica et Immunologica Scandinavica 98: 462–470, 1990Google Scholar
  136. Loos U, Sörgel F, Muth P, Marklein G, Rose M, Vogel F. Pulmonary disposition of lomefloxacin. Abstract. Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 10, 1989Google Scholar
  137. Louie T, Nicolle L, Dubois J, Martel A, Sinave C. Randomized comparison of lomefloxacin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Abstract 1313. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1990Google Scholar
  138. Maeda H, Fujii A, Nakata K, Arakawa S, Kamidono S. In vitro activities of T-3262, NY-198, fleroxacin (AM-833; RO 23-6240), and other new quinolone agents against clinically isolated Chlamydia trachomatis strains. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 1080–1081, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Maeda H, Arakawa S, Kamidono S. Fundamental study on urogenital chlamydial infection and antichlamydial chemotherapy. Nishinihon Journal of Urology 52: 1352–1361, 1990Google Scholar
  140. Magalhaes M, Trabulsi LR, Montelli AC. Lomefloxacin activity against 2,813 clinical isolates: a collaborative study at three medical centers in Brazil. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 35S–39S, 1989Google Scholar
  141. Marina JM, Orozco A, Rodriguez NE. A comparative study: lomefloxacin versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Investigacion Médica Internacional 17: 165–169, 1991Google Scholar
  142. Matsuda S, Shimizu T, Chimura T, Yajima A, et al. Comparative double-blind study of lomefloxacin (NY-198) and bacampicillin (BAPC) on the infections in obstetrics and gynecology. Chemotherapy 37: 969–1003, 1989Google Scholar
  143. Matsuda S, Suzuki M, Oh K, Ninomiya K. NY-198 in obstetrics and gynecology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1085–1090, 1988Google Scholar
  144. Matsushima T, Nakamura J, Kawanishi M. Clinical study on concentrations of lomefloxacin in pleural fluid. Kawasaki Medical Journal 15: 97–103, 1989Google Scholar
  145. Molinari G, Bandelloni R, Paglia P, Debbia E, Schito GC. In vitro antimicrobial activity and postantibiotic effect of lomefloxacin, and new difluoroquinolone. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 53S–56S, 1989Google Scholar
  146. Monk JP, Campoli-Richards DM. Ofloxacin: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 33: 346–391, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. Morihana T, Kaneko A. Clinical study of NY-198 in oral infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1371–1377, 1988Google Scholar
  148. Morse IS. Pharmacokinetics and safety of single oral doses of lomefloxacin. Biopharmaceutics and Drug Disposition 11: 543–551, 1990Google Scholar
  149. Morrison PJ, Mant TGK, Norman GT, Robinson J, Kunka RL. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of lomefloxacin after sequentially increasing oral doses. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 1503–1507, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. Mulder GJ, Nagelkerke JF, Tijdens RB, Wijnands WJA, Van der Mark EJ. Inhibition of the oxidative metabolism of theophylline in isolated rat hepatocytes by the quinolone antibiotic enoxacin and its metabolite oxoenoxacin, but not by ofloxacin. Biochemical Pharacology 37: 2565–2568, No. 13 1988Google Scholar
  151. Munshi MH, Sack DA, Haider K, Ahmed ZU, Rahaman MM. Plasmid-mediated resistance to nalidixic acid in Shigella dysenteriae type I. Lancet 2: 419–421, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Morikawa K, Hashimoto S, Iwanaga Y, Yamauchi T, Yamazaki M. General pharmacology of NY-198. I. Effects on the central nervous system, respiration and cardiovascular system. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 265–283, 1988Google Scholar
  153. Nagata O, Yamada T, Yamaguchi T, Hasegawa H, Okezaki E. Disposition and metabolism of NY-198 V. Metabolism of 14C-NY-198 in rats and dogs. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 174–187, 1988Google Scholar
  154. Naito H, Hara T, Akagi T, Murakami T, Masaoka T, et al. NY-198 in obstetrics and gynecology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1125–1133, 1988Google Scholar
  155. Nakamura M, Kawabata T, Itoh T. Mechanism of renal excretion of NY-198, a new pyridonecarboxylic acid antimicrobial agent, in rabbits and dogs. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 645–651, 1988Google Scholar
  156. Nakashima M, Uematsu T, Takiguchi Y, Mizuno A, Kanamaru M, et al. Phase I study on NY-198. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 201–239, 1988Google Scholar
  157. Nakashima M, Uematsu T, Kanamaru M, Naganuma H. Clinical pharmacology of antimicrobial pyridonecarboxylic acids. I. Comparative study on pharmacokinetics in healthy humans and antimicrobial activity. Chemotherapy 38: 533–539, 1990Google Scholar
  158. Nakayama J; Asahi M, Urabe H. NY-198 in skin infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1270–1273, 1988aGoogle Scholar
  159. Nakayama I, Yamaji E, Kawamura H, Kawaguchi H, Akieda Y, et al. Clinical studies on an application of a hew oral quinolone (NY-198) to skin, soft tissue and joint infections in the field of surgery. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1159–1180, 1988bGoogle Scholar
  160. Nasu Y, Tsugawa M, Kishi M, Mizuno A, Kumon H, et al. Fundamental and clinical studies on NY-198 in the urological field. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 974–998, 1988Google Scholar
  161. Nasu Y, Nishitani Y, Yamada D, Hayata S, Tsugawa M, et al. Prostatic tissue and fluid levels of lomefloxacin (NY-198). Hinyokika Kiyo 35: 551–556, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. NCCLS. Thornsberry C, et al. (Eds) Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically: approved standard. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Publication M7-A Villanova PA. NCCLS, 1985Google Scholar
  163. Neu HC. Bacterial resistance to fluoroquinolones. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 10: S57–S63, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. Nicolle LE, Unas B, Kennedy J, Brunka J, Harding GKM. In vitro susceptibilities of organisms isolated from complicated urinary infection to lomefloxacin and other quinolones. Current Therapeutic Research 46: 240–244, 1989Google Scholar
  165. Niki Y, Tasaka Y, Tsukiyama K, Umeki S, Watanabe M, et al. Effect of NY-198 on serum concentration of theophylline. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 251–255, 1988Google Scholar
  166. Nilsen OG, Saltvedt E, Walstad RA. Single-dose pharmacokinetics of lomefloxacin in subjects with normal and impaired renal function. Abstract 1004. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1990Google Scholar
  167. Nishizawa K, Tanaka M, Nakajima N, Miyakita H, Kawashima T, et al. NY-198 in urological and uro-genital infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 879–888, 1988Google Scholar
  168. Nix DE, Norman A, Schentag JJ. Effect of lomefloxacin on theophylline pharmacokinetics. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 33: 1006–1008, 1989aPubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. Nix DE, Schentag JJ. Lomefloxacin absorption kinetics when administered with ranitidine and sucralfate. Abstract 13. Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1989bGoogle Scholar
  170. Nomura G, Watanabe M, Kawakami Y, Hirata M, Suzuki S, et al. Thirteen-week oral subacute toxicity study of NY-198 in rats. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 343–370, 1988Google Scholar
  171. Obana Y, Nishino T. Therapeutic efficacy of ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin and NY-198 in experimentally infected normal and alloxan-induced diabetic mice. Drugs Under Experimental and Clinical Research 14: 327–331, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. Ogata N, Matsumoto T, Tanaka M, Kumazawa J, Ando S, et al. Laboratory and clinical studies of NY-198 in urinary tract infection. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1033–1045, 1988Google Scholar
  173. Ohmori H, Kumon H, Kumamoto Y, Tsuchida S, Orikasa S, et al. A comparative study on lomefloxacin (NY-198) and norfloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Chemotherapy 37: 360–362, 1989aGoogle Scholar
  174. Ohmori H, Kumon H, Suzuki K, Kamidono S, Arakawa S, et al. A comparative study on lomefloxacin and norfloxacin in the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis. Japanese Journal of Antibiotics 42: 1025–1050, 1989bPubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. Okezaki E, Ohmichi K, Koike S, Takahashi Y, Makino E. Bacteriological evaluation of NY-198. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 99–111, 1988aGoogle Scholar
  176. Okezaki E, Koike S, Makino E. Mutagenicity of NY-198 on bacteria. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 422–427, 1988bGoogle Scholar
  177. Ooishi M, Sakaue F, Oomomo A, Tazawa H, Motoyama M. Basic and clinical studies on NY-198 in ophthalmology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1341–1348, 1988Google Scholar
  178. Onishi S, Sou N. Clinical effects of lomefloxacin (NY-198) ototopical solution. Jibi to Rinsho 37: 109–113, 1991Google Scholar
  179. Parent M, LeBel M. Meta-analysis of quinolone-theophylline interactions. DICP, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 25: 191–194, Feb 1991Google Scholar
  180. Pauli B, Ng D, Coghlan T. Safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Abstract 1314. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  181. Pascual A, Garcia I, Guzman MC, Perea EJ. Lomefloxacin and temafloxacin penetration into human neutrophils and peritoneal macrophages. Abstract 1009. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  182. Pertuiset E, Lenoir G, Jehanne M, Douchain F, Guillot M, et al. Joint tolerance of pefloxacin and ofloxacin in children and teenagers with mucoviscidosis. Revue du Rhumatisme 56: 733–740, 1989Google Scholar
  183. Piddock LJV, Wise R. Induction of the SOS response in Escherichia coli by 4-quinolone antimicrobial agents. FEMS Microbiology Letters 41: 289–294, 1987Google Scholar
  184. Piddock LJV, Wise R. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones and clinical perspectives. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 23: 475–483, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  185. Piddock LJV, Hall MC, Wise R. Mechanism of action of lomefloxacin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 1088–1093, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  186. Ping WL, Hatano H, Xiao X. Topical lomefloxacin against Pseudomonas corneal ulcer in rabbits. Ophthalmologica Japonica 41: 1291–1297, 1990Google Scholar
  187. Pruul H, McDonald PJ. Lomefloxacin-induced modification of the kinetics of growth of Gram-negative bacteria and susceptibility to phagocytic killing by human neutrophils. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 25: 91–101, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  188. Robbins MJ, Baskerville AJ, Sanghrajka M, Mumtaz G, Felmingham D, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of lomefloxacin, a difluoro-quinolone. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 65S–76S, 1989Google Scholar
  189. Robson RA, Begg EJ, Atkinson HC, Saunders DA, Frampton CM. Comparative effects of ciprofloxacin and lomefloxacin on the oxidative metabolism of theophylline. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 29: 491–493, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  190. Rodriguez-Noriega E. Safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin vs. trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Abstract 998. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  191. Rossolini GM, Valentini S, Satta G. Evaluation of in vitro antimicrobial activity of lomefloxacin against Staphylococci, Enterococci, Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 57S–64S, 1989Google Scholar
  192. Russell D. A multinational study of lomefloxacin vs amoxicillin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Abstract 995. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990aGoogle Scholar
  193. Russell D. Lomefloxacin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: United Kingdom. Abstract 1317. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990bGoogle Scholar
  194. Saenz C. Lomefloxacin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: Latin America. Abstract 1307. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  195. Saito A, Okezaki E, Yamada T, Yamaguchi T, Hasegawa H, et al. Biliary excretion and enterohepatic circulation of NY-198. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 195–200, 1988aGoogle Scholar
  196. Saito Y, Yorozu Y, Shimizu T, Haga H, Mizoguchi H, et al. NY-198 in obstetrics and gynecology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1067–1072, 1088bGoogle Scholar
  197. Sakai K, Ueda T, Morimoto K, Hirata S, Fujimoto M, et al. NY-198 in surgery. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 1206–1214, 1988Google Scholar
  198. Sasaki J, Morishima T, Sakamoto H, Takai H, Ikeshima K, et al. A comparative double-blind study to determine the dosage of NY-198 (lomefloxacin) in oral and maxillofacial infections. Oral Therapeutics and Pharmacology 7: 92–111, 1988Google Scholar
  199. Sato H, Okezaki E, Yamamoto S, Nagata O, Kato H, et al. Entry of the new quinolone antibacterial agents of ofloxacin and NY-198 into the central nervous system in rats. Journal or Pharmacobio-Dynamics 11: 386–394, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  200. Sato K. Phase 1 study of NY-198 ototopical solution. Igaku to Yakugaku 23: 1182–1186, 1990Google Scholar
  201. Satoh H, Kurono Y, Mogi G. NY-198 in otolaryngological infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1314–1320, 1988Google Scholar
  202. Shalit I, Berger SA, Gorea A, Frimerman H. Widespread quinolone resistance among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in a general hospital. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 33: 593–594, Apr 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. Segreti J, Nelson JA, Goodman LJ, Kaplan RL, Trenholme GM. In vitro activities of lomefloxacin and temafloxacin against pathogens causing diarrhea. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 33: 1385–1387, 1989aPubMedGoogle Scholar
  204. Segreti J, Kessler HA, Kapell HA, Trenholme GM. In vitro activity of lomefloxacin (SC47111 or NY-198) against Chlamydia trachomatis strains. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 87S–88S, 1989Google Scholar
  205. Shah PM, Müller S, Kipp J, Stille W. In vitro activity of lomefloxacin (NY-198 or SC 47111). Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 97S–101S, 1989bGoogle Scholar
  206. Seo K, Iwasa T, Okada M, Nishimoto K, Sanda N, et al. NY-198 in urinary tract infection. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 999–1009, 1988Google Scholar
  207. Sharifi R, Lomefloxacin Group. Lomefloxacin versus norfloxacin in complicated urinary tract infections. Abstract 98. Journal of Urology 145: 237A, 1991Google Scholar
  208. Shen LL, Pernet AG. Mechanism of inhibition of DNA gyrase by analogues of nalidixic acid: the target of the drugs is DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 82: 307–311, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  209. Shen LL, Kohlbrenner WE, Weigl D, Baranowski J. Mechanisms of quinolone inhibition of DNA gyrase. Appearance of unique norfloxacin binding sites in enzyme-DNA complexes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 264: 2973–2978, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  210. Shigeno Y, Kakazu T, Tamaki K, Fukuhara H, Miyagi M, et al. Laboratory and clinical evaluation of RU 28965 in respiratory infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 461–473, 1988Google Scholar
  211. Shiiki K. Penetration of new quinolones into saliva. Chemotherapy 37: 599–609, 1989Google Scholar
  212. Shimada K, Sano Y, Miyamoto Y, Saito A, Tomizawa M, et al. Comparative study on the efficacy of lomefloxacin (NY-198) and cefaclor in respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy 37: 642–645, 1989Google Scholar
  213. Shimazaki H, Yamada T, Ogawa S, Matsuda H, Kyoi M. Clinical study of lomefloxacin (NY-198) a new synthetic antibacterial agent, in biliary tract infections. Shinryo to Shinyaku 25: 2167–2172, 1988Google Scholar
  214. Shimo T, Matsuda K, Saito A, Yamazaki M. Arthrotoxicity study of NY-198 in rats. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 439–448, 1988Google Scholar
  215. Shimizu T. Biliary excretion of NY-198 (a new oral antimicrobial agent) and its clinical application. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1188–1193, 1988Google Scholar
  216. Shinkawa A, Tamura Y, Shimizu K, Miyake H. Clinical experience of NY-198 in the otorhinolaryngological field. Chemotherapy 36, (Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1289–1295, Jun 1988Google Scholar
  217. Simor AE, Fuller SA, Low DE. Comparative in vitro activities of sparfloxacin (CI-978; AT-4140) and other antimicrobial agents against Staphylococci, Enterococci, and respiratory tract pathogens. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 2283–2286, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  218. Shishido H, Matsumoto K, Nagatake T, Tabuchi S. Cross-over pharmacokinetics of NY-198 and ofloxacin in healthy volunteers and gastrectomized patients. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 256–264, 1988Google Scholar
  219. Siporin C. The evolution of fluorinated quinolones: pharmacology, microbiological activity, clinical uses, and toxicities. Annual Review of Microbiology 43: 601–627, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  220. Smith JT. Awakening the slumbering potential of the 4-quinolone antibacterials. Pharmaceutical Journal 233: 299–305, 1984Google Scholar
  221. Soejima R, Kawane H, Niki Y, Yagi S, Nakahama C, et al. NY-198 in respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 680–689, 1988Google Scholar
  222. Soejima R, Niki Y, Yagi S, Hayashi I, Ohnuma K, et al. Dose-finding study on lomefloxacin (NY-198, LFLX) in respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy 37: 776–795, 1989Google Scholar
  223. Sonstein SA, Dahlgren J. In vitro activity of lomefloxacin (SC 47111 or NY-198) a new quinolone antimicrobial, against clinical isolates of common pathogens. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12 (Suppl.): 21S–28S, May–Jun 1989Google Scholar
  224. Staib AH, Harder S, Fuhr U, Wack C. Interaction of quinolones with the theophylline metabolism in man: investigations with lomefloxacin and pipemidic acid. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Therapy and Toxicology 27: 289–293, 1989Google Scholar
  225. Stein GE. The 4-quinolone antibiotics: past, present and future. Pharmacotherapy 8: 301–314, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  226. Stone JW, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, Griggs D, Wise R. Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of orally administered lomefloxacin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 1508–1510, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  227. Sun ZM, Maskell JP, Sehgal SC, Williams JD. In-vitro activity of lomefloxacin (SC-47111) and other quinolones. Infection 17: 165–169, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  228. Suzuki K, Horiba M, Shiraki R, Takanashi K, Ogawa T, et al. NY-198, a new oral chemotherapeutic drug, in urinary tract and urogenital infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 920–933, 1988Google Scholar
  229. Takahashi K, Awaya K, Yamakido M, Matsuzaka S, Okamura M, et al. NY-198 in respiratory infection. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 696–700, 1988Google Scholar
  230. Takai H, Ikeshima K, Chiba T, Takemoto Y, Mori S. Clinical study on a new quinolone, NY-198, in acute oral and maxillary infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1353–1359, 1988Google Scholar
  231. Talbot H, Romanowski B. In vitro activities of lomefloxacin, tetracycline, penicillin, spectinomycin, and ceftriaxone against Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 33: 2049–2051, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  232. Tamai K, Nakashin T, Matsubara K, Nakagawa K. NY-198 in infections of the oral cavity. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1408–1414, 1988Google Scholar
  233. Tanimura H, Aoki Y, Uesaka K, Kasano Y, Nakai T. Chemotherapy for biliary tract infection (XXXII)-tissue concentration NY-198 in gallbladder, biliary excretion and clinical effects. Archiv fur Japanische Chirugie 57: 381–399, 1988Google Scholar
  234. Tateno M. Clinical studies on NY-198 in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1104–1108, 1988Google Scholar
  235. Tesh JM, McAnulty PA, Willoughby CR, Tesh SA, Wilby OK. Reproductive studies on NY-198 in rats. II. Teratology study. Japanese Journal of Antibiotics 41: 1352–1369, 1988aPubMedGoogle Scholar
  236. Tornii T, Fukuda M, Sasaki K, Watanabe N, Yasui S. Clinical study of NY-198 in external eye diseases. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1349–1352, 1988Google Scholar
  237. Tominaga T, Kishi H, Aso Y, Niijima T, Nishimura Y, et al. NY-198 in the field of urology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 841–854, 1988Google Scholar
  238. Tomizawa T, Eto H, Kurihara S. Laboratory and clinical studies on NY-198 in bacterial skin infection. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt2): 1239–1250, 1988Google Scholar
  239. Toyota S, Hoshi S, Orikasa S, Kanbe K, Konda R, et al. Clinical study on NY-198, a new peroral antibiotic in urogenital infection. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 831–840, 1988Google Scholar
  240. Tsuyuki K, Yokoyama S, Arai T, Nakatsu T, Saito T. Clinical trial of NY-198 in surgery. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1181–1187, 1988Google Scholar
  241. Uehara N, Fukamoto K, Ichikawa G, Kawamura S, Itabashi T, et al. NY-198 in otorhinolaryngological infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1274–1279, 1988Google Scholar
  242. Umemura T, Sasa H, Iizuka T, Yanagita T. Teratological study of oral administration of NY-198 in rabbits. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 391–410, 1988Google Scholar
  243. van der Auwera P, Grenier P, Glupczynski Y, Pierard D. In-vitro activity of lomefloxacin in comparison with pefloxacin and ofloxacin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 23: 209–219, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  244. van der Willigen AH, Degener JE, Vogel M, Stolz E, Wagenvoort JHT. In vitro activities of seven quinolone derivatives against Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Arzneimittel-Forschung 40: 684–685, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  245. Watanabe T, Okamura K, Akagi K, Yajima A, Okamura K, et al. Clinical efficacy of NY-198 in obstetric and gynecological infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1073–1078, 1988Google Scholar
  246. Weinstein MP. Comparative in vitro activity of lomefloxacin and other antimicrobials against 597 microorganisms causing bacteraemia. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 11: 195–200, 1988Google Scholar
  247. Westenfelder M, Zeman W. A multicenter study of lomefloxacin versus ciprofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection. Abstract 996. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  248. Wijnands WJA, Vree TB, Van Herwaarden CLA. The influence of quinolone derivatives on theophylline clearance. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 22: 677–683, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  249. Wijnands GJA, Cornel JH, Martea M, Vree TB. The effect of multiple-dose oral lomefloxacin on theophylline metabolism in man. Chest 98: 1440–1444, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  250. Wise R, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, Matthews RS. In vitro activity of lomefloxacin, a new quinolone antimicrobial agent, in comparison with those of other agents. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 617–622, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  251. Wise R, Stone J, Andrews JM, Ashby JP. Lomefloxacin: tissue penetration and pharmacokinetics. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 11: S1071, 1989Google Scholar
  252. Wolfson JS, Hooper DC. Fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agents. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 2: 378–424, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  253. Woodworth J, Fitzsimmons S. Lomefloxacin pharmacokinetics in young and elderly subjects. Abstract. Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 19, 1989Google Scholar
  254. Wright DN, Saxon B, Matsen JM. Comparative in vitro activity of lomefloxacin (SC 47111 or NY-198) against fresh clinical bacterial isolates. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 12: 7S–11S, 1989Google Scholar
  255. Yamagishi J-I, Furutani Y, Inoue S, Ohue T, Nakamura S, et al. New nalidixic acid resistance mutations related to deoxyribonucleic acid gyrase activity. Journal of Bacteriology 148: 450–458, 1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  256. Yamagishi J-I, Yoshida H, Yamayoshi M, Nakamura S. Nalidixic acid-resistant mutations of the gyrB gene of Escherichia coli. Molecular and General Genetics 204: 367–373, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  257. Yamamoto K-I, Naitoh Y, Inoue Y, Yoshimura K, Morikawa K, et al. Seizure discharges induced by the combination of a new quinolinecarboxylic acid antimicrobial drugs and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Effect of NY-198 on the central nervous system. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 1): 300–324, 1988Google Scholar
  258. Yamamoto T, Fujiwara H. NY-198 in oral and maxillofacial infections. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1402–1407, 1988Google Scholar
  259. Yamane N, Shiiki K, Yoshida T. Basic and clinical studies on NY-198 in oral surgery. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1365–1370, 1988Google Scholar
  260. Yamasaku F, Suzuki Y, Uno K. Pharmacokinetic and clinical studies on NY-198. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 625–629, 1988Google Scholar
  261. Yata K, Shimizu C, Ishiwata T, Tokuda H, Umazume Y. Basic and clinical studies on NY-198 in ophthalmology. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1336–1340, 1988Google Scholar
  262. Yernault J-C, Gris P. A multicenter comparison of the safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. Abstract 1306. 30th Interscience Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1990Google Scholar
  263. Yoshida H, Kojima T, Yamagishi J-I, Nakamura S. Quinoloneresistant mutations of the gyrA gene of Escherichia coli. Molecular and General Genetics 211: 1–7, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  264. Yura J, Shinagawa N, Mizuno A, Mashita K, Hori K, et al. NY-198 in surgery. Chemotherapy 36(Suppl. 2, Pt 2): 1194–1205, 1988Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison N. Wadworth
    • 1
  • Karen L. Goa
    • 1
  1. 1.Adis International LimitedAuckland 10New Zealand

Personalised recommendations