Skip to main content

Levofloxacin

An Updated Review of Its Use in the Treatment of Bacterial Infections

Drugs volume 62, pages 2127–2167 (2002)Cite this article

Summary

Abstract

Levofloxacin is the L-form of the fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent, ofloxacin. In in vitro studies, levofloxacin demonstrated a broad range of activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms and anaerobes. The drug is more active against Gram-positive organisms than ciprofloxacin, but less active than newer fluoroquinolones such as gatifloxacin. Its activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae is unaffected by the presence of penicillin resistance.

In several randomised controlled trails, 5 to 14 days’ treatment with intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin proved an effective therapy for upper and lower respiratory tract infections. In patients with mild to severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin 500mg once or twice daily was as effective as intravenous and/or oral gatifloxacin, clarithromycin, azithromycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. Overall, clinical response rates with levofloxacin ranged from 86 to 95% versus 88 to 96% with comparator agents; bacteriological response rates were 88 to 95% and 86 to 98%, respectively. Sequential (intravenous ± oral switch) therapy with levofloxacin 750mg once daily was as effective as intravenous imipenem/cilastatin (± oral switch to ciprofloxacin) in patients with severe nosocomial pneumonia. Generally, oral levofloxacin 250 or 500mg once daily was at least as effective as oral cefaclor, cefuroxime axetil, clarithromycin or moxifloxacin in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis as assessed by either clinical or bacteriological response rates. This approach also provided similar efficacy to amoxicillin/ clavulanic acid or clarithromycin in patients with acute sinusitis.

Sequential therapy with levofloxacin 500mg twice daily for 7 to 14 days’ was as effective as intravenous imipenem/cilastatin in patients with suspected bacteraemia. Oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7 to 10 days was also an effective treatment in patients with uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, and in those with complicated urinary tract infections. A higher dosage of sequential levofloxacin 750mg once daily proved as effective as intravenous ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (± oral switch to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid) in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections.

Pharmacoeconomic studies suggest that levofloxacin may be cost-saving in comparison to conventional therapies.

Conclusions: Levofloxacin continues to demonstrate good clinical efficacy in the treatment of a range of infections, including those in which S. pneumoniae is a potential pathogen. Importantly, it has efficacy in CAP similar to that of gatifloxacin and at least as good as that of the third generation cephalosporins. Extensive clinical data confirm the good tolerability profile of this agent without the phototoxicity, hepatic and cardiac events evident with some of the other newer fluoroquinolone agents. Levofloxacin therefore offers a unique combination of documented efficacy and tolerability, and provides an important option for the treatment of bacterial infections.

Pharmacodynamic Profile

Levofloxacin, the L-isoform of the fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent ofloxacin, inhibits both bacterial DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV. The primary target of action depends on the type of bacteria.

The minimum concentration of levofloxacin required to inhibit the growth of 90% of strains (MIC90) for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, S. pneumoniae and viridans or β-haemolytic streptococci was ≤2 mg/L (susceptibility breakpoint). The activity of levofloxacin against S. pneumoniae was not affected by the presence of penicillin resistance; 99.4% of 9499 S. pneumoniae isolates were sensitive to levofloxacin in one study. Against other Gram-positive organisms, levofloxacin tended to be more active than ciprofloxacin but 2- to 4-fold less active than other newer fluoroquinolones such as moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin.

Levofloxacin was active against 96.1% of 5034 Enterobacteriaceae isolates in one survey, with MIC90 values of <0.5 to 2 mg/L. Levofloxacin is also highly active against \-lactamase-positive and -negative strains of Haemophilus influenzae (mean MIC90 ≤0.5 mg/L) and Moraxella catarrhalis (mean MIC90 ≤0.5 mg/L), and is at least as active as ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin against anaerobic and intracellular bacteria. Like most other fluoroquinolones, levofloxacin shows limited antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp. and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.

Less than 1% of S. pneumoniae (9499 isolates), H. influenzae (1934) and M. catarrhalis (1108) isolates collected in the US between 1999 and 2000 were resistant to levofloxacin. Importantly, levels of S. pneumoniae resistance to levofloxacin were generally low throughout the world in ≈5000 isolates. For example, of 17 943 S. pneumoniae isolates collected from 1997 to 2000 in the US, only 0.7% were resistant to levofloxacin; this level of resistance was 5-fold lower than that to ceftriaxone, more than 20-fold lower than penicillin resistance and 35-fold lower than that for azithromycin or cotrimoxazole.

Levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7 days significantly reduced numbers of both enterococci and enterobacteria in the intestinal microflora of ten healthy volunteers, with partial suppression of clostridia.

In patients with pulmonary, skin and skin structure, and urinary tract infections receiving clinically relevant dosages of levofloxacin, maximum plasma concentration (Cmax):MIC ratios of >12.2 produced rates of clinical and bacteriological cure of ≥99% in a prospective study. Greater than 97, >99 and >99% of S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis isolates, respectively, were susceptible to levofloxacin according to area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC):MIC ratios for Gram-positive (ratio ≥30) and -negative (>100) organisms in vitro.

Levofloxacin shows a postantibiotic effect against S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. epidermidis, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli and Legionella pneumoniae. In in vitro studies, levofloxacin is rapidly bactericidal against S. pneumoniae at concentrations of 2 to 8 times the MIC, achieving a 99% killing rate within 0.9 to 6 hours; bactericidal activity was not affected by the presence of penicillin resistance.

Pharmacokinetic Profile

The bioavailability of levofloxacin is ≥99% following oral administration. Oral or intravenous levofloxacin has linear pharmacokinetics over the therapeutic dosage range (100 to 1000 mg/day); after single dose levofloxacin 500mg, mean maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) values ranged from 4.5 to 7.6 mg/L in healthy volunteers or patients. In healthy volunteers, steady-state Cmax(5.7 mg/L) was attained within 48 hours following multiple doses of oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily. Like other newer fluoroquinolones, Cmax and AUC values were significantly (p < 0.01 both comparisons) higher after a single dose of levofloxacin 500mg than after a single dose of ciprofloxacin 250mg.

Levofloxacin distributes rapidly and extensively into tissues throughout the body including lung, skin, maxillary sinus, sputum and alveolar macrophages; a notable exception is its relatively poor penetration of the CSF. Concentrations in tissues are generally markedly higher than those seen in the plasma and are usually many times greater than the MICs of bacterial pathogens commonly found at these sites. After a single oral dose of levofloxacin 500mg, the mean volume of distribution is 88 to 96.7L. Approximately 24 to 38% of levofloxacin is bound to plasma proteins.

The drug undergoes limited metabolism and is primarily excreted renally. The elimination half-life after single or multiple doses of levofloxacin 500mg ranged from 6.4 to 7.4 hours and 6.9 to 7.6 hours, respectively.

The mean total body clearance for levofloxacin 500mg (oral or intravenous administration) ranges from 8.4 to 11.9 L/h in healthy volunteers, with mean renal clearance of 5.7 to 7.5 L/h. The renal clearance of levofloxacin decreases with increasing renal impairment; dosage reductions are necessary in patients with significant renal impairment. The pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin are not affected by age (in those with normal renal function) or gender in healthy adult volunteers.

Fluoroquinolones can chelate alkaline earth and transition metal cations; the absorption of levofloxacin is reduced by coadministration with aluminium hydroxide in healthy volunteers, although to a lesser degree than that observed with ciprofloxacin. No clinically significant interactions between levofloxacin and theophylline, warfarin or digoxin have been reported.

Therapeutic Efficacy

Randomised comparative trials in adult patients confirm the efficacy of intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin in a range of infections including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), nosocomial pneumonia, acute sinusitis, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), uncomplicated and complicated skin or skin structure infections, complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and sepsis. All data are for evaluable patients unless stated otherwise.

Respiratory tract infections: In patients with mild to severe CAP, after 7 to 14 days’ intravenous and/or oral treatment, clinical response rates (cure or improvement) in on-treatment groups ranged from 86 to 95% with levofloxacin 500 or 1000 mg/day versus 88 to 96% with comparator agents in several randomised trials. Corresponding bacteriological response rates were satisfactory (presumed or presumptive eradiation) in 88 to 95% versus 86 to 98% of recipients. Comparator agents included oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 1875 mg/day, intravenous and/or oral gatifloxacin 400 mg/day, oral clarithromycin 1000 mg/day (extended release formulation) and intravenous and/or oral azithromycin (500 mg/day). A once-daily (500 mg/day) regimen was as effective as a twice-daily regimen (1000 mg/day) with oral levofloxacin as assessed by clinical or bacteriological response rates. The majority of these trials were double-blind.

In patients with severe CAP, sequential (intravenous ± oral switch) therapy with levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7 to 14 days was at least as effective as treatment for the same duration with intravenous or intramuscular ceftriaxone 1000 to 2000 mg/day plus intravenous erythromycin 2000 to 4000 mg/day switched to oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 1750 mg/day plus oral clarithromycin 1000 mg/day. Respective clinical response rates were 90 versus 83% in on-treatment groups in this nonblind, multicentre trial.

When analysed by pathogen, oral or intravenous levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7 to 14 days was effective against CAP caused by Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella spp., Chlamydophila (Chlamydia)pneumoniae or penicillin-or macrolide-resistant strains of S. pneumoniae.

Sequential therapy with levofloxacin 750mg once daily was as effective as imipenem/cilastatin (± switch to oral ciprofloxacin) in 438 patients with severe nosocomial pneumonia. In this randomised, nonblind, multicentre trial, clinical and bacteriological response rates with levofloxacin were 59 and 67% versus 63 and 61% with imipenem/cilastatin in on-treatment groups.

Oral levofloxacin (250 or 500mg once daily) produced a good clinical response rate in patients with AECB in several randomised comparative trials, the majority of which were double-blind. Five to 10 days’ treatment with the drug was as effective as treatment of similar duration with other oral agents including moxifloxacin, cefaclor, cefuroxime axetil and clarithromycin. Clinical response rates with levofloxacin ranged from 70 to 100% versus 61 to 93% with these comparator agents; respective ranges for bacteriological response rates were 63 to 96% and 48 to 96%. Significantly more levofloxacin (500mg once daily) recipients achieved a bacteriological response in one trial [77 vs 60% with cefuroxime axetil 250mg twice daily; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4, 30%]. Notably, clinical (83 vs 85% of patients) and bacteriological (82 vs 83%) response rates were similar after 5 versus 7 days’ treatment with oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily in a randomised, double-blind study in 532 patients with AECB.

In patients with acute sinusitis, 10 to 14 days’ treatment with oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily was as effective as oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (500/125mg three times daily) or clarithromycin (500mg twice daily) in three randomised trials; clinical response rates ranged from 88 to 96% with levofloxacin versus 87 to 94% with comparators in on-treatment analyses. Bacteriological efficacy was not assessed in these studies.

Other infections: Treatment with intravenous levofloxacin 500mg twice daily, with or without a subsequent switch to oral administration, was as effective as intravenous imipenem/cilastatin 1g three times daily in a randomised, nonblind trial in patients with suspected bacteraemia; clinical responses were achieved in 77 and 68% of recipients, respectively, and bacteriological responses by 87 and 84%. In addition, the median time from the start of treatment to the time of hospital discharge was significantly shorter with levofloxacin than with imipenem/cilastatin (9 vs 11 days, p = 0.015).

In patients with uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections treated with oral fluoroquinolones for 7 to 10 days, a satisfactory clinical response was achieved by 84 to 98% of levofloxacin recipients (500mg once daily) compared with 91 to 94% of those receiving ciprofloxacin (500mg twice daily) or gatifloxacin (400mg once daily). Corresponding bacteriological response rates were 92 to 98% versus 87 to 92%. In those with complicated skin and skin structure infections, after 7 to 14 days’ treatment cure or improvement was experienced by 84% of those receiving intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin (750mg once daily) compared with 80% of intravenous ticarcillin/clavulanic acid recipients (3.1g every 4 to 6 hours). Bacteriological response rates were significantly greater with levofloxacin than with ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (84 vs 71%; 95% CI-24.3, -0.2) in this nonblind study.

Oral levofloxacin (250 or 300 mg/day) was at least as effective as oral ciprofloxacin (1000 mg/day), gatifloxacin (400 mg/day) or lomefloxacin (400 mg/day) in patients with complicated UTIs in three randomised trials; 87 to 93% of patients had a satisfactory clinical response with levofloxacin compared with 89 to 95% of those receiving a comparator agent. Bacteriological eradication occurred in 94 and 95% of levofloxacin recipients versus 92 to 94% of those receiving ciprofloxacin or lomefloxacin in two trials; the other study found no between-group differences in the per pathogen eradication rate.

Oral levofloxacin is also effective in the treatment of peritonitis complicating continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, cervicitis, acute or chronic prostatitis, tularaemia and chronic osteomyelitis, according to limited data. Oral levofloxacin has also been used effectively as part of triple therapy in patients with Helicobacter pylori infection.

Pharmacoeconomic Considerations

Intravenous levofloxacin 500mg once daily was associated with significantly lower mean total costs than intravenous ceftriaxone 1 to 2g once daily ($US6012 vs $US7422, p = 0.048; 1997 values) in a randomised, nonblind, multicentre study in 178 inpatients with CAP. Mean total direct costs per patient also tended to be lower with oral levofloxacin (500mg once daily) than with oral cefuroxime axetil (500mg twice daily) treatment in 210 outpatients with CAP ($US716 vs $US883, p = 0.094; 1997 values).

In patients with CAP, a critical pathway comparing levofloxacin with conventional management resulted in cost savings per patient of $Can457 (hospital perspective) to $Can994 (government perspective) [1998 values], depending on whether a healthcare system, government or societal perspective was taken.

The cost-effectiveness of levofloxacin treatment in hospitalised patients with CAP has been evaluated using US and German pharmacoeconomic models (year of costings not reported). In a US pharmacoeconomic model, the costs of treating hospitalised patients with CAP were similar with either levofloxacin ($US208 per pneumonia cure) or azithromycin ($US228); both treatments were more cost-effective than cefuroxime axetil plus erythromycin ($US323; p-value not reported). However, acquisition costs for levofloxacin were higher than those for azithromycin or erythromycin plus cefuroxime axetil ($US126 vs $US80 and $US83; no p-values reported). Intravenous levofloxacin was also more cost effective than intravenous ceftriaxone or ciprofloxacin in the treatment of inpatients with CAP, with cost-effectiveness ratios of DM1178, DM1246 and DM1447 per effectively treated patient, respectively, according to a German pharmacoeconomic model based on data from observational studies, clinical trials and expert opinion.

Tolerability

Levofloxacin was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. Most adverse events have typically been transient and mild to moderate in severity. The most common adverse events considered to be drug-related that were reported during phase III clinical trials were nausea (1.3%) diarrhoea (1.1%), vaginitis (0.7%), pruritus (0.5%), abdominal pain (0.4%), dizziness (0.4%), flatulence (0.4%) and rash (0.4%). The overall incidence of levofloxacin-related adverse events was 6.2%, with less than 4% of patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events attributable to levofloxacin.

The nature, incidence and severity of adverse events was generally similar with once- or twice-daily oral levofloxacin 500mg in patients with CAP. In a retrospective analysis of phase III clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance data, intravenous and/or levofloxacin at a higher dosage (750mg once daily; n = 439) was generally as well tolerated as lower dosages (250 to 500mg once or twice daily; n = 4515).

Intravenous levofloxacin was associated with a higher rate of local irritation than intravenous gatifloxacin in one small clinical trial (20 vs 4%, no statistical comparison); otherwise, oral and intravenous levofloxacin were at least as well tolerated as gatifloxacin, ciprofloxacin and lomefloxacin when compared in clinical trials, and at least as well tolerated as a range of antibacterial agents from other drug classes. In patients with acute sinusitis, adverse events were significantly less common with oral levofloxacin than with oral clarithromycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid.

Levofloxacin appears to have a low potential for phototoxic reactions, and levofloxacin-associated tendinitis and/or tendon rupture is also uncommon. Other rare adverse events documented during levofloxacin therapy include pseudo-membraneous colitis and haemolytic anaemia. Furthermore, abnormal hepatic function associated with levofloxacin-treatment is rare, as confirmed by post-marketing surveillance data.

Cardiac adverse events associated with levofloxacin treatment also appear rare according to postmarketing surveillance studies. One case of levofloxacin-associated QTc interval prolongation has been reported in an 88-year-old woman with atrial fibrillation, bronchitis and mild congestive heart failure; the QTc interval returned to the baseline value after treatment discontinuation. There has also been a case report of levofloxacin-induced intermittent polymorphic ventricular tachycardia with a normal QTc; these symptoms disappeared upon discontinuation of levofloxacin-treatment. Rare episodes of torsades de pointes have been reported during levofloxacin treatment (in patients receiving concomitant treatment), although the relationship to levofloxacin has not been established.

Furthermore, single doses of levofloxacin 500 or 1000mg had no clinically relevant effects on the QTc interval in two randomised, double-blind, crossover studies in healthy adult volunteers. In one study, respective mean changes in QTc interval from baseline after single doses of levofloxacin 500 or 1000mg, or placebo were 1.36, 2.81 and −0.69 msec. The other study showed levofloxacin 1000mg had similar effects on the QTc interval to those seen with ciprofloxacin 1500mg or placebo, whereas moxifloxacin 800mg caused a significant (p < 0.001 for both comparisons) prolongation of the QTc interval versus both fluoroquinolone agents. Mean changes from baseline in the QTc interval with levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin and placebo were 3.88,2.27,16.34 and −1.25 msec, respectively.

Dosage and Administration

Levofloxacin is available in both oral and intravenous forms. Guidelines for levofloxacin usage vary according to the country; in the US, oral and/or intravenous levofloxacin 500mg once daily is recommended for the treatment of patients with AECB (administered for 7 days), CAP (7 to 14 days), acute sinusitis (10 to 14 days) and uncomplicated skin or skin structure infections (7 to 10 days). In patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections, 7 to 14 days’ treatment with intravenous or oral levofloxacin 750mg once daily is recommended. Intravenous or oral levofloxacin 250mg once daily is recommended for patients with uncomplicated or complicated UTIs (for 3 and 10 days, respectively).

In Europe, oral levofloxacin 250 to 500mg once daily for 7 to 10 days is recommended for patients with AECB, and 500mg once daily for 10 to 14 days in patients with acute sinusitis. Oral or intravenous levofloxacin is recommended for patients with CAP (500mg once or twice daily for 7 to 14 days), uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (250 or 500mg once daily, or 500mg twice daily, for 7 to 14 days) or complicated UTIs (250mg once daily for 7 to 10 days). No dosage adjustments are required in elderly patients or in those with hepatic impairment.

Patients with renal impairment (creatinine clearance ≤3 L/h) require modifications of levofloxacin dosage. Levofloxacin is contraindicated in those <18 years of age, patients with epilepsy, those with a history of tendon disorders related to fluoroquinolone administration and women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Preparations containing di- or trivalent cations should not be taken within 2 hours of levofloxacin administration. Caution is also advised when levofloxacin is being taken concomitantly with theophylline or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Table I
Table II
Table III
Fig. 1
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table XI
Fig. 2
Table VII
Table VIII
Fig. 3
Table IX
Table X
Fig. 4

References

  1. FDA approves new indication for Levaquin. Ortho-McNeil News Centre-press releases, 17/07/ 00. From http://www.ortho-mcneil.com/news/archive/pr/2-3-00.htm

  2. Davis R, Bryson HM. Levofloxacin: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1994; 47(4): 677–700

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Langtry HD, Lamb HM. Levofloxacin: its use in infections of the respiratory tract, skin, soft tissues and urinary tract. Drugs 1998 Sep; 56(3): 487–515

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hooper DC. Mode of action of fluoroquinolones. Drugs 1999; 58 Suppl. 2: 6–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Morrissey I, George JT. Purification of pneumococcal type II topoisomerases and inhibition by gemifloxacin and other quinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000 Apr, 45 Suppl. S1: 101–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fukuda H, Hiramatsu K. Primary targets of fluoroquinolones in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999 Feb; 43: 410–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Blondeau JM. A review of the comparative in-vitro activities of 12 antimicrobial agents, with a focus on five new respiratory quinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43 Suppl. B: 1–11

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. National Committee Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: twelfth informational supplement. v. 22. Wayne (PA):, 2002. NCCLS document M100-S12

  9. Schmitz F-J, Verhoef J, Fluit AC. Comparative activities of six different fluoroquinolones against 9,682 clinical bacterial isolates from 20 European university hospitals participating in the European SENTRY surveillance programme. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999 Aug; 12: 311–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Diekema DJ, Jones RN, Rolston KVI. Antimicrobial activity of gatifloxacin compared to seven other compounds tested against gram-positive organisms isolated at 10 cancer-treatment centers. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1999 May; 34: 37–43

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Milatovic D, Schmitz F-J, Brisse S, et al. In vitro activities of sitafloxacin (DU-6859a) and six other fluoroquinolones against 8,796 clinical bacterial isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000 Apr; 44(4): 1102–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Montanari MP, Mingoia M, Marchetti F, et al. In vitro activity of levofloxacin against Gram-positive bacteria. Chemotherapy 1999 Nov–Dec; 45: 411–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blondeau JM, Laskowski R, Bjarnason J, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of gatifloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin and trovafloxacin against 4151 Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2000 Feb; 14: 45–50

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deshpande LM, Diekema DJ, Jones RN. Comparative activity of clinafloxacin and nine other compounds tested against 2000 contemporary clinical isolates from patients in United States hospitals. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1999 Sep; 35: 81–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fluit AC, Jones ME, Schmitz F-J, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility and frequency of occurrence of clinical blood isolates in Europe from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997 and 1998. Clin Infect Dis 2000 Mar; 30: 454–60

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Thornsberry C, Sahm DF. Antimicrobial resistance in respiratory tract pathogens: results of an international surveillance study. Chemotherapy 2000; 46 Suppl. 1: 15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thornsberry C, Sahm DF, Kelly LJ, et al. Regional trends in antimicrobial resistance among clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis in the United States: results from the TRUST Surveillance Program, 1999–2000. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34 Suppl. 1:S4–S16

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ho P-L, Yung RWH, Tsang DNC, et al. Increasing resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to fluoroquinolones: results of a Hong Kong multicentre study in 2000. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48: 659–65

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jones RN, Croco MAT, Pfaller MA, et al. Antimicrobial activity evaluations of gatifloxacin, a new fluoroquinolone: contemporary pathogen results from a global antimicrobial resistance surveillance program (SENTRY, 1997). Clin Microbiol Infect 1999 Sep; 5(9): 540–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoban DJ, Doern GV, Fluit AC, et al. Worldwide prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis in the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997–1999. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32 Suppl. 2: S81–93

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fluit AC, Schmitz F-J, Jones ME, et al. Antimicrobial resistance among community-acquired pneumonia isolates in Europe: first results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program 1997. Int J Infect Dis 1999; 3: 153–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jones RN, Pfaller MA. In vitro activity of newer fluoroquinolones for respiratory tract infections and emerging patterns of antimicrobial resistance: data from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31 Suppl. 2: S16–23

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Doern GV, Pfaller MA, Erwin ME, et al. The prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance among clinically significant respiratory tract isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States and Canada: 1997 results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1998; 32: 313–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Karlowsky JA, Kelly LJ, Thornsberrry C, et al. Susceptibility to fluoroquinolones among commonly isolated Gram-negative bacilli in 2000: TRUST and TSN data for the United States. Tracking Resistance in the United States Today. The Surveillance Network. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002; 19(1): 21–31

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones RN, Beach ML, Pfaller MA. Spectrum and activity of three contemporary fluoroquinolones tested against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from urinary tract infections in the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (Europe and the Americas; 2000): more alike than different! Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2001; 41: 161–3

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Visalli MA, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Determination of activities of levofloxacin, alone and combined with gentamicin, ceftazidime, cefpirome, and meropenem, against 124 strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by checkerboard and time-kill methodology. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 Apr, 42: 953–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Minehart HW, Chalker AF. In vitro activity of gemifloxacin against Helicobacter pylori. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47(3): 360–1

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Goldstein EJ, Citron DM, Hudspeth M, et al. Trovafloxacin compared with levofloxacin, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, azithromycin and clarithromycin against unusual aerobic and anaerobic human and animal bite-wound pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998 Mar; 41: 391–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wexler HM, Molitoris E, Molitoris D, et al. In vitro activity of levofloxacin against a selected group of anaerobic bacteria isolated from skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 Apr; 42: 984–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Donskey CJ, Chowdhry TK, Hecker MT, et al. Effect of antibiotic therapy on the density of vancomycin resistant enterococci in the stool of colonized patients. N Engl J Med 2000; 343(26): 1925–32

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stout JE, Arnold B, Yu VL. Comparative activity of ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, levofloxacin, and erythromycin against Legionella species by broth microdilution and intracellular susceptibility testing in HL-60 cells. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1998 Jan; 30: 37–43

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Piddock LJV. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance: an update 1994–1998. Drugs 1999; 58 Suppl. 2: 11–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Thornsberry C, Sahm DF. Resistance in respiratory tract pathogens: an international study 1997–1998. J Chemother 2001; 12 Suppl. 4: 16–27

    Google Scholar 

  34. Davies T, Pfleger S, Evangelista A, et al. Prevalence of single mutations in topoisomerase IV and DNA gyrase among US levofloxacin susceptible clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae [abstract no. C2-702]. Proceedings of the 41st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 2001 Dec 16–19; Chicago, Illinois; 132

  35. Jones ME, Sahm DF, Martin N, et al. Prevalence of gyrA, gyrB, parC, and parE mutations in clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae with decreased susceptibilities to different fluoroquinolones and originating from Worldwide Surveil-lance Studies during the 1997–1998 respiratory season. Anti-microb Agents Chemother 2000 Feb; 44(2): 462–6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Piddock LJ, Johnson M, Ricci V, et al. Activities of new fluoroquinolones against fluoroquinolone-resistant pathogens of the lower respiratory tract. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 Nov; 42: 2956–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Davies TA, Pankuch GA, Dewasse BE, et al. In vitro development of resistance to five quinolones and amoxicillin-clavulanate in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999 May; 43: 1177–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jones ME, Blosser RS, Karlowsky JA, et al. The activity of levofloxacin against 1999–2000 isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated from patients in 12 countries distributed across five continents [abstract no. P12]. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47 Suppl. S1: 19

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Thornsberry C, Sahm DF, Kelly LJ, et al. Risk factors associated with antimicrobial resistance among Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States [abstract no. P66]. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47 Suppl. 1: 997

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kelly LA, Thornsberry C, Jones ME, et al. Multidrug-resistant pneumococci isolated in the US: 1997‐2001 TRUST Surveillance [abstract no. C2-2109]. Proceedings of the 41st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 2001 16‐19 Dec, Chicago, Illinois; 142–143

  41. Drugeon HB, Juvin ME, Bryskier A. Relative potential for selection of fluoroquinolone-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae strains by levofloxacin: comparison with ciprofloxacin, sparfloxacin and ofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999 Jun; 43 Suppl. C: 55–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bast DJ, De Azavedo JCS, Duncan C, et al. Activity of newer fluoroquinolones against isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae with increasing resistance to ciprofloxacin [abstract]. Proceedings of the 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1999 Sep 26, San Francisco, California: 264

  43. Entenza JM, Que YA, Cottagnoud P, et al. In vitro activity of gemifloxacin (SB-265805) and seven other quinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae containing specific mutations in the topoisomerase IV (parC) and gyrase (gryA) genes [abstract]. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1999 Sep 26; San Francisco, California: 264

  44. Davidson RJ, MacKenzie H, Forward K, et al. Comparative activity of new generation fluoroquinolones against S. pneumoniae with documented topoisomerase IV (parC) and DNA gyrase mutations [abstract]. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1999 26 Sep, San Francisco, California; 111

  45. Jorgensen JH, Weigel LM, Ferraro MJ, et al. Activities of newer fluoroquinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae clinical isolates including those with mutations in the gyrA, parC, and parE loci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999 Feb; 43: 329–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Klepser ME, Ernst EJ, Petzold CR, et al. Comparative bactericidal activities of ciprofloxacin, clinafloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and trovafloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in a dynamic in vitro model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45(3): 673–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Edlund C, Sjöstedt S, Nord CE. Comparative effects of levofloxacin and ofloxacin on the normal oral and intestinal microflora. Scand J Infect Dis 1997; 29: 383–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Adamantidis MM, Dumotier BM, Caron JF, et al. Sparfloxacin but not levofloxacin or ofloxacin prolongs cardiac repolarization in rabbit Purkinje fibers. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 1998; 12: 70–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Craig WA. Choosing an antibiotic on the basis of pharmacody-namics. Ear, Nose, Throat J 1998; 77 Suppl.: 7–12

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Preston SL, Drusano GL, Berman AL, et al. Levofloxacin population pharmacokinetics and creation of a demographic model for prediction of individual drug clearance in patients with serious community-acquired infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 May; 42(5): 1098–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Turnidge J. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of fluoroquinolones. Drugs 1999; 58 Suppl. 2: 29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nightingale CH, Grant EM, Quintiliani R. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin. Chemotherapy 2000; 46 Suppl. 1: 6–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Preston SL, Drusano GL, Berman AL, et al. Pharmacodynamics of levofloxacin: a new paradigm for early clinical trials [see comments]. JAMA 1998 Jan 14; 279(2): 125–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Harding I, Simpson I. Relating pharmacodynamic principles to clinical studies and experience with levofloxacin in the treatment of respiratory tract infections [abstract no. P102]. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47 Suppl. S1: 42

    Google Scholar 

  55. Credito KL, Clark CL, Jacobs MR, et al. Post-antibiotic effect of gemifloxacin (SB 265805) compared with five other quinolones against pneumococci [abstract]. Proceedings of the 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1999 Sep 26, San Francisco, California: 21

  56. Spangler SK, Lin G, Jacobs MR, et al. Postantibiotic effect of levofloxacin against pneumococci. Drugs 1999; 58 Suppl. 2: 378–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Spangler SK, Bajaksouzian S, Jacobs MR, et al. Postantibiotic effects of grepafloxacin compared to those of five other agents against 12 Gram-positive and -negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000 Jan; 44(1): 186–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Smith RP, Baltch AL, Ritz W, et al. Postantibiotic effect measurement for levofloxacin and four other antibiotics against Legionella pneumophila, using mathematical modelling of the growth curve [abstract no. 4109]. Proceedings of the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1998 Sep 24, San Diego, California; 34

  59. Shah PM. Serum bactericidal activity of levofloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999 Jun; 43 Suppl. C: 61–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Fuchs PC, Barry AL, Brown SD. Streptococcus pneumoniae killing rate and post-antibiotic effect of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. J Chemother 1997; 9(6): 391–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Shah PM, Schwarzel R. Bactericidal activity of levofloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in an in vitro model simulating serum pharmacokinetic parameters. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999 Jun; 43 Suppl. C: 71–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pankuch GA, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Antipneumococcal activity of grepafloxacin compared to that of other agents by time-kill methodology. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 May; 42(5): 1263–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Pendland SL, Diaz-Linares M, Garey KW, et al. Bactericidal activity and postantibiotic effect of levofloxacin against anaerobes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999 Oct; 43: 2547–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Fish DN, Chow AT. The clinical pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997 Feb; 32(2): 101–19

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Chien S-C, Rogge MC, Gilscon LG, et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of levofloxacin following once-daily 500-milligram oral or intravenous doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997 Oct; 41(10): 2256–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Lubasch A, Keller I, Borner K, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, trovafloxacin, and moxifloxacin after single oral administration in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000 Oct; 44: 2600–3

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Chow AT, Fowler C, Williams RR, et al. Safety and pharmaco-kinetics of multiple 750-milligram doses of intravenous levofloxacin in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45(7): 2122–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Chien SC, Wong FA, Fowler CL, et al. Double-blind evaluation of the safety and pharmacokinetics of multiple oral once-daily 750-milligram and 1-gram doses of levofloxacin in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 Apr; 42: 885–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Amsden GW, Graci DM, Cabelus LJ, et al. A randomized, crossover design study of the pharmacology of extended-spectrum fluoroquinolones for pneumococcal infections. Chest 1999 Jul; 116: 115–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lee L-J, Hafkin B, Lee I-D, et al. Effect of food and sucralfate on levofloxacin after a single oral dose of 500mg in male and female subjects [abstract no. A40]. American Society for Microbiology: Abstracts of the 35th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1995 Sep 17–29: San Francisco, California

  71. OrthoMcNeil. Levaquin tablets/injection [prescribing information] 2002

  72. Chow AT, Chen A, Lattime H, et al. Penetration of levofloxacin into skin tissue after oral administration of 750mg once-daily doses. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002; 27: 143–50

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Gotfried MH, Danzinger LH, Rodvold KA. Steady-state plasma and intrapulmonary concentrations of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in healthy adult subjects. Chest 2001; 119: 1114–22

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Drusano GL, Preston SL, Gotfried MH, et al. The penetration of 750mg of levofloxacin administered intravenously into the epithelial lining fluid (ELF) [poster no. 1033]. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Infectious Diseases; 2002 11–14 Mar; Singapore

  75. Preston SL, Redell M, Chien SC, et al. Evaluation of the target attainment rate of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin for intensive care unit patients [poster]. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Infectious Diseases; 2002 11–14 Mar; Singapore

  76. Smith RP, Baltch AL, Franke MA, et al. Levofloxacin penetrates human monocytes and enhances intracellular killing of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000 Apr; 45: 483–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Vazifeh D, Bryskier A, Labro MT. Mechanism underlying levofloxacin uptake by human polymorphonuclear neutrophils. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999 Feb; 43: 246–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Gaja M, Higa F, Yamashiro T, et al. Penetration of levofloxacin, a new quinolone antibacterial agent, into human neutrophils. Chemotherapy 1992; 40 Suppl. 3: 64–7

    Google Scholar 

  79. Taira K, Koga H, Kohno S. Accumulation of a newly developed fluoroquinolone, OPC-17116, by human polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1877–81

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Drusano GL, Preston SL, Van Guilder M, et al. A population pharmacokinetic analysis of the penetration of the prostate by levofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44(8): 2046–51

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Gisclon LG, Curtin CR, Chien SC, et al. The pharmacokinetics (PK) of levofloxacin (LVFX) in subjects with renal impairment, and in subjects receiving hemodialysis or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis [abstract no. A13]. American Society for Microbiology: Abstracts of the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1996 Sep 15–18: New Orleans

  82. Kees F, Hansen E, Bucher M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin in patients during continuous venovenous hemofiltration [abstract]. Antiinfect Drugs Chemother 2000; 17(1): 77

    Google Scholar 

  83. Rebuck JA, Abraham E, Fish DN. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous levofloxacin in adult critically ill patients [abstract no. 345]. Crit Care Med 1999 Jan; 27 Suppl.: 138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Traunmüller F, Thalhammer-Scherrer R, Locker G, et al. Single-dose pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin during continuous venovenous hemofiltration [abstract no. P247]. Clin Microbiol Infect 2000; 6 Suppl. 1: 203

    Google Scholar 

  85. Piscitelli SC, Spooner K, Baird B, et al. Pharmacokinetics and safety of high-dose and extended-interval regimens of levofloxacin in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999 Sep; 43(9): 2323–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Chien S, Abels R, Blumer J, et al. Single-dose pharmacokinetics and tolerability of intravenous levofloxacin in pediatric patients [abstract no. A-42]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163(5) Suppl.: 7

    Google Scholar 

  87. Zhanel GG, Walkty A, Vercaigne L, et al. The new fluoroquinolones: a critical review. Can J Infect Dis 1999 May–Jun; 10(3): 207–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Cunha BA. Quinolones: clinical use and formulary considerations. Adv Ther 1998 Sep–Oct; 15: 277–87

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Shiba K, Sakamoto M, Nakazawa Y, et al. Effects of antacid on absorption and excretion of new quinolones. Drugs 1995; 49 Suppl. 2: 360–1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tanaka M, Kurata T, Fujisawa C, et al. Mechanistic study of inhibition of levofloxacin absorption by aluminium hydroxide. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993 Oct; 37: 2173–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Nakamura H, Ohtsuka T, Enomoto H, et al. Effect of levofloxacin on theophylline clearance during theophylline and clarithromycin combination therapy. Ann Pharmacother 2001; 35: 691–3

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Gisclon LG, Curtin CR, Fowler CL, et al. Absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between intravenous theophylline and orally administered levofloxacin [abstract no. A39]. American Society for Microbiology: Abstracts of the 35th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1995 Sep 17–29: San Francisco, California

  93. Liao S, Palmer M, Fowler CA, et al. Absence of an effect of levofloxacin on warfarin pharmacokinetics and anticoagulation in male volunteers [abstract no. A42]. American Society for Microbiology: Abstracts of the 35th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1995 Sep 17–29: San Francisco, California

  94. Gheno G, Cinetto L. Levofloxacin-warfarin interaction. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57: 427

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Chien S-C, Rogge MC, Williams RR, et al. Absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between digoxin and levofloxacin. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002; 27: 7–12

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Gaitonde MD, Mendes P, House ESA, et al. The effects of cimetidine and probenecid on the pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin (LVFX) [abstract no. A41]. American Society for Microbiology: Abstracts of the 35th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1995 Sep 17–29: San Francisco, California

  97. Physicians’ desk reference. 54th ed. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics Company, 2000

  98. Capone D, Carrano R, Gentile A, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between tacrolimus and levofloxacin in kidney transplant recipients [abstract]. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16(6): A207

    Google Scholar 

  99. Gotfried MH, Dattani D, Riffer E, et al. A controlled, double-blind, multicenter study comparing clarithromycin extended-release tablets with levofloxacin tablets in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Ther 2002; 24: 736–51

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Fujita K, Fujime M, Kawachi Y, et al. Clinical evaluation of levofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infections — Study on the recurrence and the susceptibility of urinary isolates to levofloxacin [in Japanese]. Jap J Chemother 2000; 48(1): 68–74

    Google Scholar 

  101. Gotfried M, Sullivan JG, Mayer H, et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative study of gatifloxacin vs levofloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia [abstract]. In: 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1999 Sep 26, San Francisco, California; 703

  102. Perry CM, Goa KL. Community-acquired pneumonia and its management: the role of levofloxacin. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2001; 9(1): 43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Carbon C, Ariza H, Rabie WJ, et al. Comparative study of levofloxacin and amoxycillin/clavulanic acid in adults with mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect 1999; 5(12): 724–32

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Saito A, Koike T, Taneichi K, et al. A double-blind comparative study of gatifloxacin and levofloxacin in pneumonia [in Japanese]. Jap J Chemother 1999; 47(11): 712–33

    Google Scholar 

  105. Watanabe A, Niki Y, Aoki N, et al. Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of oral telithromycin (TEL) 600mg once daily versus oral levofloxacin (LFX) 100mg three times daily in adult subjects with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) [abstract no. P895]. Clin Microbiol Infect 2002; 8 Suppl. 1: 193

    Google Scholar 

  106. Kahn JB, Wiesinger BA, Olson WH, et al. Levofloxacin vs. ceftriaxone sodium and erythromycin in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia at high risk of mortality [poster no. 115]. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium of New Quinolones; 2001 June; Edinburgh, Scotland

  107. Kahn JB, Weisenger BA, Oross MP, et al. Multicentre, open-label, randomized comparison of levofloxacin vs azithro-mycin in the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe community-acquired pneumonia. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; 1999 Nov; Philadelphia, PA; poster no. 146

  108. Sullivan JG, McElroy AD, Honsinger RW, et al. A double-blind, randomized study of safety and efficacy: Treating community-acquired pneumonia with once-daily gatifloxacin vs once-daily levofloxacin. J Resp Dis 1999 November; 20(11): S49–59

    Google Scholar 

  109. Norrby SR, Petermann W, Willcox PA, et al. A comparative study of levofloxacin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of hospitalized patients with pneumonia. Scand J Infect Dis 1998; 30: 397–404

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Berdeaux D, Tennenberg A, Wiesenger B, et al. A multicenter, randomized study to compare the safety and efficacy of oral levofloxacin vs parenteral ceftriaxone and amikacin with the potential of conversion to oral ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin/ clavulanate in the treatment of Talcott group IV subjects with febrile neutropenia [poster]. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Infectious Diseases; 2002 11–14 Mar; Singapore, Singapore

  111. File Jr TM, Segreti J, Dunbar L, et al. A multicenter, randomized study comparing the efficacy and safety of intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin versus ceftriaxone and/or cefuroxime axetil in treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997 Sep; 41(9): 1965–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Kahn JB, Wiesinger BA, Oross MP, et al. Levofloxacin vs azithromycin plus ceftriaxone in moderate to severe community acquired pneumonia [abstract no. 132]. Clin Infect Dis 1999 Oct; 29(4): 985

    Google Scholar 

  113. Oross M, Wiesenger B, Wu S-C, et al. A multicenter, randomized, open-label study to compare the safety and efficacy of levofloxacin with that of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia [poster]. Proceedings of the 10th International congress on Infectious Diseases; 2002 11–14 Mar; Singapore, Singapore

  114. Fogarty CM, Sullivan JG, Chattman MS, et al. Once a day levofloxacin in the treatment of mild to moderate and severe community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Infect Dis Clin Pract 1998; 7(8): 400–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Marrie T, Christenson J, Nicolle L, et al. Effectiveness and safety of levofloxacin for the treatment of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) and etiology of CAP in Canada [abstract]. Can J Infect Dis 1999 Sep–Oct; 10 Suppl. D: 35

    Google Scholar 

  116. Starling C, Telles F, Lopes HV, et al. Efficacy and security evaluation of levofloxacin in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia [in Portuguese]. Rev Bras Med 1999; 56(6): 524–8

    Google Scholar 

  117. Wiesinger BA, Kahn JB, Williams RR, et al. Efficacy of levofloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia due to penicillin- and macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae[abstractno. P404]. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44 Suppl. A: 130

    Google Scholar 

  118. Williams RR, Fogarty C, Dunbar L, et al. The efficacy of levofloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia due to Mycoplasma pneumoniae or Chlamydia pneumoniae [abstract no. 168]. Clin Infect Dis 1998 Oct; 27(4): 952

    Google Scholar 

  119. Williams RR, Stout JE, Yu YL, et al. Levofloxacin is safe and effective in the management of community-acquired pneumonia due to Legionella[abstract no. 167]. Clin Infect Dis 1998 Oct; 27(4): 489

    Google Scholar 

  120. Kahn J, Oross M, Tennenberg A, et al. Levofloxacin in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients with nosocomial pneumonia [abstract no. P1421]. Clin Microbiol Infect 2002; 8 Suppl. 1: 335

    Google Scholar 

  121. Shah PM, Maesen FP, Dolmann A, et al. Levofloxacin versus cefuroxime axetil in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis: results of a randomized, double-blind study. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999 Apr; 43: 529–39

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Davies BI, Maesen FP. Clinical effectiveness of levofloxacin in patients with acute purulent exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: the relationship with in-vitro activity. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999 Jun; 43 Suppl. C: 83–90

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Weiss LR. Clarithromycin (CL) 500mg BID, vslevofloxacin (LF) 500mg QD, vscefuroxime axetil (CAE) 250mg BID, in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163(5) Suppl.: A930

    Google Scholar 

  124. Habib MP, Gentry LO, Rodriguez-Gomez G, et al. Multicenter, randomized study comparing efficacy and safety of oral levofloxacin and cefaclor in treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis [abstract]. Infect Dis Clin Pract 1998; 7(2): 101–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Hautamaki D, Kureishi A, Warner J, et al. Five day moxifloxacin compared to 7 day levofloxacin therapy in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163(5) Suppl.: A771

    Google Scholar 

  126. Masterton RG, Burley CJ, The Study Group. Randomized, double-blind study comparing 5- and 7-day regimens of oral levofloxacin in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. IntJ Antimicrob Inf 2001; 18: 503–12

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Adelglass J, DeAbate CA, McElvaine P, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of levofloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of acute sinusitis in adults [see comments]. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999 Mar; 120: 320–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Adelglass J, Jones TM, Ruoff G, et al. A multicenter, investigator-blinded, randomized comparison of oral levofloxacin and oral clarithromycin in the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis. Pharmacotherapy 1998 Nov-Dec; 18(6): 1255–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Lasko B, Lau CY, Saint-Pierre C, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral levofloxacin compared with clarithromycin in the treatment of acute sinusitis in adults: a multicentre, double-blind, randomized study. The Canadian Sinusitis Study Group. J Int Med Res 1998 Dec; 26: 281–91

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Francisco S, on behalf of the Peruvian Group Study of Levofloxacin. Efficacy and tolerance assessment of short term course of levofloxacin in the treatment of acute sinusitis in adult patients [abstract]. 9th International Congress on Infectious Diseases; 2000 Apr 10–13; Buenos Aires, Argentina: 181

  131. Geddes A, Thaler M, Schonwald S, et al. Levofloxacin in the empirical treatment of patients with suspected bacter-aemia/sepsis: comparison with imipenem/cilastatin in an open, randomized trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999 Dec; 44: 799–810

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Nicodemo AC, Robledo JA, Jasovich A, et al. A multicentre, double-blind, randomised study comparing the efficacy and safety of oral levofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin in the treat ment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections. Int J Clin Pract 1998 Mar; 52(2): 69–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Nichols RL, Smith JW, Gentry LO, et al. Multicenter, randomized study comparing levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin for uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections. South Med J 1997; 90(12): 1193–200

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Tarshis GA, Miskin BM, Jones TM, et al. Once-daily oral gatifloxacin versus oral levofloxacin in the treatment of uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections: double-blind, multicenter, randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45(8): 2358–62

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Fowler CL, Graham DR, Talan DA, et al. A randomized open-label comparative trial of levofloxacin 750 mg once-daily versus IV ticarcillin/clavulanate with or without amoxicillin/clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections [abstractno. 171]. Clin Infect Dis 2000 Jul; 31: 242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Graham DR, Talan DA, Nichols RL, et al. A randomized open-label comparative trial of levofloxacin 750 mg once-daily versus intravenous ticarcillin/clavulanate with or without amoxicillin/clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections [poster]. American College of Surgeons Poster, presented at Infectious Diseases Society of America and American College of Surgeons symposia 2000 Sep 7–10; New Orleans, Louisianna

  137. Graham DR, Talan DA, Nichols RL, et al. A randomized, open-label comparative trial of levofloxacin 750mg once-daily versus intravenous ticarcillin/clavulanate with or without amoxicillin/clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections [poster]. Proceedings of the 1 Oth International Congress on Infectious Diseases; 2002 11–14 Mar; Singapore

  138. Kawada Y, Saito I, Hirose T, et al. Comparative study of gatifloxacin and levofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infections [abstract no. P459]. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44 Suppl. A: 141

    Google Scholar 

  139. Kawada Y, Ban Y, Kumamoto Y, et al. Comparative study on gatifloxacin and levofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infections [in Japanese]. Jap J Chemother 1999; 47(10): 662–79

    Google Scholar 

  140. Klimberg IW, CoxII CE, Fowler CL, et al. A controlled trial of levofloxacin and lomefloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection. Urology 1998 Apr;51(4):610–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Richard GA, Klimberg IN, Fowler CL, et al. Levofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin versus lomefloxacin in acute pyelonephritis. Urology 1998 Jul; 52: 51–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Mikamo H, Sato Y, Hayasaki Y, et al. Adequate levofloxacin treatment schedules for uterine cervicitis caused by Chlamydia trachomatis. Chemotherapy 2000 Mar–Apr; 46: 150–2

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Chimura T, Arai M, Onuma Y, et al. Concentration of levofloxacin in cervical mucus and its clinical effects on cervicitis. Jpn J Antibiot 1997; 50(11): 871–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Mikamo H, Tamaya T. Effects of levofloxacin given once daily versus twice daily on uterine cervicitis [abstract no. P126]. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47 Suppl. S1: 48

    Google Scholar 

  145. Cheng IKP, Fang GX, Chau PY, et al. A randomized prospective comparison of oral levofloxacin plus intraperitoneal (IP) vancomycin and IP netromycin plus IP vancomycin as primary treatment of peritonitis complicating CAPD. Perit Dial Int 1998 Jul–Aug; 18: 371–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Matsui T, Lee M, Sakai Y, et al. Clinical study on levofloxacin for prostatitis and cytokines in urine or expressed prostatic secretion of prostatitis patients [in Japanese]. Jap J Chemother 1999; 47(2): 89–96

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Limaye AP, Hooper CJ. Treatment of tularemia with fluoroquinolones: two cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1999 Oct; 29: 922–4

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Greenberg RN, Newman MT, Shariaty S, et al. Ciprofloxacin, lomefloxacin, or levofloxacin as treatment for chronic osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000 Jan; 44: 164–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Kahn JB, Wiesinger BA, Williams RR, et al. Levaquin (Rm) in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1998 Oct; 27: 945

    Google Scholar 

  150. Cammarota G, Cianci R, Cannizzaro O, et al. Efficacy of two one-week rabeprazole/levofloxacin-based triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000 Oct; 14: 1339–43

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Magnano A, Pallio S, Tortora A, et al. Ranitidine bismuth citrate plus levofloxacin and tinidazole a new alternative therapy in Helicobacterpyloriinfection. A preliminary report [abstract no. 17/10]. Gut 2000 Oct; 47 Suppl. 1: A125

    Google Scholar 

  152. Rittenhouse BE, Stinnett AA, Dulisse B, et al. Evaluating the costs of levofloxacin and ceftriaxone in inpatient adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Pharmacol Ther 1999; 24(4): 169–79

    Google Scholar 

  153. Rittenhouse BE, Stinnett AA, Dulisse B, et al. An economic evaluation of levofloxacin versus cefuroxime axetil in the outpatient treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am Manage Care 2000; 6(3): 381–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  154. Palmer CS, Zhan C, Elixhauser A, et al. Economic assessment of the community-acquired pneumonia intervention trial employing levofloxacin. Clin Ther 2000 Feb; 22(2): 250–64

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Schädlich PK, Huppertz E, Brecht JG, et al. Levofloxacin versus relevant alternatives in inpatient treatment of community-acquired pneumonia; results of a German economic evaluation [abstract no. T105]. Antiinfect Drugs Chemother 1998; 16 Suppl. 1: 62

    Google Scholar 

  156. Richerson MA, Ambrose PG, Quintiliani R, et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of alternative antibiotic regimens in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Infect Dis Clin Pract 1998 Jun–Jul; 7(5): 227–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Pill MW, Sudol T. Evaluating the costs of levofloxacin and ceftriaxone in inpatient adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Pharmacol Ther 1999 Dec; 24(12): 575–89

    Google Scholar 

  158. Lipsky BA, Baker CA. Fluoroquinolone toxicity profiles: a review focusing on newer agents. Clin Infect Dis 1999 Feb; 28: 352–64

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Stahlmann R, Lode H. Toxicity of quinolones. Drugs 1999; 58 Suppl. 2: 37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Harding I, Simpson I. Levofloxacin: low potential for hepato-biliary adverse reactions [abstract no. P851]. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7 Suppl. S1: 165

    Google Scholar 

  161. Wiesenger BA, Noel GJ, Tennenberg AM, et al. The safety of high-dose (750mg qd) levofloxacin [poster]. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Infectious Diseases; 2002 11–14 Mar; Singapore, Singapore

  162. Li J, Zhang Y, Zhao M, et al. A randomized clinical study of levofloxacin IV vsciprofloxacin IV in treatment of bacterial infections [abstract]. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44 Suppl. A: 133

    Google Scholar 

  163. Li J, Zhang Y, Zhao M, et al. A randomized comparative clinical study of levofloxacin IV vsciprofloxacin IV in treatment of bacterial infections [abstract no. 003]. Jap J Chemother 1999 Aug; 47(8): 483–4

    Google Scholar 

  164. Iwata M, Tateda K, Matsumoto T, et al. Primary Shewanella alga septicemia in a patient on hemodialysis. J Clin Microbiol 1999 Jun; 37: 2104–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. Menzies DJ, Dorsainvil PA, Cunha BA, et al. Severe and persistent hypoglycemia due to gatifloxacin interaction with oral hypoglycemic agents. Am J Med 2002; 113. 232–234

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company. Tequin facts. http://www.tequin.com [accessed on line 2002 Sep 2]

  167. Edlund C, Nord CE. Effect of quinolones on intestinal ecology. Drugs 1999; 58 Suppl. 2: 65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Takahashi H, Higuchi H, Shimizu T. Lithium interaction: first report of an interaction with concomitant levofloxacin leading to renal failure and neurological disorders: case report [letter]. J Clin Psychiatry 2000 Dec; 61: 949–50

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Boccumini LE, Fowler CL, Campbell TA, et al. Photoreaction potential of orally administered levofloxacin in healthy subjects. Ann Pharmacother 2000 Apr; 34: 453–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Lewis JR, Gums JG, Dickensheets DL. Levofloxacin-induced bilateral Achilles tendonitis. Ann Pharmacother 1999 Jul–Aug; 33: 792–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Mandell LA, Marrie TJ, Grossman RF, et al. Canadian guidelines for the initial management of community-acquired pneumonia: an evidence-based update by the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society and the Canadian Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis 2000 Aug; 31(2): 383–421

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  172. O’Hare M, Simpson IN. Levofloxacin: low potential for cardiovascular adverse reactions. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7 Suppl. 1: 164–5

    Google Scholar 

  173. Noel GJ, Abels R, Minton N, et al. Effects of three fluoroquinolones (FQs) on QTc intervals in healthy volunteers [abstract no. 639a]. Proceedings of the 41st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 2001 Dec 16–19; Chicago, Illinois

  174. Samaha FF. QTC interval prolongation and polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in association with levofloxacin [letter]. Am J Med 1999 Nov; 107: 528–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Paltoo B, O’Donoghue S, Moussavi MS. Levofloxacin induced polymorphic ventricular tachycardia with normal QT interval. Pace Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001; 24: 895–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  176. British National Formulary. No. 40th London: The Pharmacuetical Press, 2000

  177. Tavanic®IV: ABPI compendium of data sheets and summaries of product characteristics. London: Datapharma Publications Ltd, 1999: 592–7

  178. Levofloxacin. American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information. Bethesda: American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, 2000: 723–5

  179. Mosby. Moxifloxacin hydrochloride. Rabbitt KE, editor. Mosby’s GenRx. 11th ed. Missouri: Mosby’s Inc, 2001: III-1714-8

  180. Mosby. Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride. Rabbitt KE, editor. Mosby’s GenRx. 11th ed. Missouri: Mosby’s Inc. 2001: III533-540

  181. Mosby. Gatifloxacin. Rabbitt KE, editor. Mosby’s GenRx. 11 th ed. Missouri: Mosby’s Inc., 2001: III-1134-1137

  182. Zhanel GG, Ennis K, Vercaigne L, et al. A critical review of the fluoroquinolones: focus on respiratory tract infections. Drugs 2002; 62(1): 13–59

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Bartlett JG, Dowell SF, Mandell LA, et al. Practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2000 Aug; 31(2): 347–82

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Campbell Jr GD. The role of antimicrobial therapy in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Am J Med Sci 1999 Aug; 318(2): 84–8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  185. European Study on Community Acquired Pneumonia (ES-OCAP) Committee. Management of adult community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. Eur Resp Rev 1998 Sep; 8(61): 391–426

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Adis International Limited, 41 Centorian Drive, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, 10, New Zealand

    Miriam Hurst, Harriet M. Lamb, Lesley J. Scott & David P. Figgitt

Authors
  1. Miriam Hurst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harriet M. Lamb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lesley J. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David P. Figgitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lesley J. Scott.

Additional information

Various sections of the manuscript reviewed by: J.M. Blondeau, Saskatoon District Health (Royal University and Saskatoon City Hospitals) and St. Paul’s Hospital, Department of Clinical Microbiology, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; O.A. Cornely, University Hospital Cologne, Department of Internal Medicine 1, Cologne, Germany; M. Habib, Pulmonary Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Y. Kawada, Gifu University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Gifu-shi, Gifuken, Japan; G.G. Zhanel, University of Manitoba, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Microbiology, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Data Selection

Sources: Medical literature published in any language since July 1998 on levofloxacin, identified usingMedline and EMBASE, supplemented by AdisBase (a proprietary database of Adis International). Additional references were identified from the reference lists of published articles. Bibliographical information, including contributory unpublished data, was also requested from the company developing the drug.

Search strategy: Medline search terms were ‘levofloxacin’. EMBASE search terms were ‘levofloxacin’ or ‘DR 3355’. AdisBase search terms were ‘levofloxacin’ or ‘DR-3355’. Searches were last updated 25 Aug 2002.

Selection: Studies in patients with various infections who received levofloxacin. Inclusion of studies was based mainly on the methods section of the trials. When available, large, well controlled trials with appropriate statistical methodology were preferred. Relevant pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data are also included.

Index terms: levofloxacin, antibacterials, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, therapeutic use.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hurst, M., Lamb, H.M., Scott, L.J. et al. Levofloxacin. Drugs 62, 2127–2167 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200262140-00013

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200262140-00013

Keywords

  • Levofloxacin
  • Moxifloxacin
  • Gatifloxacin
  • Acute Sinusitis
  • Cefuroxime Axetil