Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review of third-and fourth-generation fluoroquinolones in ophthalmology: in-vitro and in-vivo efficacy

  • Review
  • Published:
Advances in Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Beginning with second-generation ciprofloxacin 0.3% and ofloxacin 0.3%, fluoroquinolones have been widely used in the treatment and prophylaxis of ocular infections. However, their in-vitro potencies have been decreasing steadily since their introduction. Third-generation levofloxacin 0.5% produces higher ocular tissue penetration, thereby reducing the risk of selecting for decreased fluoroquinolone potency. Fourth-generation gatifloxacin 0.3% and moxifloxacin 0.5% have structural modifications that both reduce risk of resistance and improve potency against Gram-positive bacteria. A new third-generation formulation, levofloxacin 1.5%, was recently introduced, demonstrating increased ocular penetration compared with gatifloxacin 0.3% but clinical equivalence to its second-generation parent, ofloxacin 0.3%, in two randomized trials.

Methods

We investigated the therapeutic potential of levofloxacin 1.5% and compared it to that of existing fourth-generation fluoroquinolones. A MEDLINE search was conducted using the following search terms: moxifloxacin or gatifloxacin; levofloxacin; minimum inhibitory concentration or prevention or prophylaxis; keratitis or endophthalmitis.

Results

Nine eligible studies published between 2002 and 2008 were identified, eight of which are presented. The five in-vitro studies demonstrated that moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin are statistically more potent than levofloxacin against Gram-positive organisms and similar in potency in most cases of Gram-negative bacteria. In-vivo animal models testing moxifloxacin or gatifloxacin against levofloxacin 0.5% (no clinical trials testing the efficacy of levofloxacin 1.5% have yet been published) demonstrated that fourth-generation agents were superior to third-generation levofloxacin 0.5% for prophylaxis of Gram-positive bacteria-induced infections and were equal to, or better than, levofloxacin 0.5% for the treatment of Gram-negative infections.

Conclusion

Fourth-generation agents have increased potency against Gram-positive bacteria compared with levofloxacin, while maintaining similar potency against Gram-negative bacteria. Although levofloxacin 1.5% has demonstrated superior ocular penetration relative to gatifloxacin, the limited available data do not suggest this translates into superior clinical activity compared with moxifloxacin, which has significantly greater ocular penetration and better Gram-positive potency than gatifloxacin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ciloxan® [package insert]. Fort Worth, TX: Alcon Laboratories, Inc.; 2006.

  2. Ocuflox® [package insert]. Irvine, CA: Allergan, Inc.; 2002.

  3. Olson RJ. Reducing the risk of postoperative endophthalmitis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49(suppl. 2):55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blondeau JM. Fluoroquinolones: mechanism of action, classification, and development of resistance. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49(suppl. 2):73–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Garcia-Rodriguez JA, Gomez Garcia AC. The microbiology of moxifloxacin. Drugs Today (Barc). 2000;36:215–227.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Just PM. Overview of the fluoroquinolone antibiotics. Pharmacotherapy. 1993;13:4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chaudhry NA, Flynn HW Jr., Murray TG, Tabandeh H, Mello MO Jr., Miller D. Emerging ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:509–510.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldstein MH, Kowalski RP, Gordon J. Emerging fluoroquinolones resistance in bacterial keratitis: a 5-year review. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1313–1318.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alexandrakis G, Alfonso EC, Miller D. Shifting trends in bacterial keratitis in South Florida and emerging resistance to fluoroquinolones. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1497–1502.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Watanabe K, Numata-Watanabe K, Hayasaka S. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci and ofloxacin-resistant bacteria from clinically healthy conjunctivas. Ophthalmic Res. 2001;33:136–139.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Quixin® [package insert]. Jacksonville, FL: Vistakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2006.

  12. Healy DP, Holland EJ, Nordlund ML, et al. Concentrations of levofloxacin, ofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin in human corneal stromal tissue and aqueous humor after topical administration. Cornea. 2004;23:255–263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koch HR, Kulus SC, Roessler M, Ropo A, Geldsetzer K. Corneal penetration of fluoroquinolones: aqueous humor concentrations after topical application of levofloxacin 0.5% and ofloxacin 0.3% eyedrops. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:1377–1385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Puustjärvi T, Teräsvirta M, Nurmenniemi P, Lokkila J, Uusitalo H. Penetration of topically applied levofloxacin 0.5% and ofloxacin 0.3% into the vitreous of the noninflamed human eye. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;244:1633–1637.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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;43(suppl. C):55–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bauernfeind A. Pharmacodynamics of levofloxacin and ofloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999;43(suppl. C):77–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller D, Alfonso EC. Comparative in vitro activity of levofloxacin, ofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin against ocular streptococcal isolates. Cornea. 2004;23:289–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher LM, Heaton VJ. Dual activity of fluoroquinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51:463–464.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sanders CC. Review of preclinical studies with ofloxacin. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;14: 526–538.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wiseman LR, Balfour JA. Ciprofloxacin. A review of its pharmacological profile and therapeutic use in the elderly. Drugs Aging. 1994;4:145–173.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Khodursky AB, Zechiedrich EL, Cozzarelli NR. Topoisomerase IV is a target of quinolones in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92:11801–11805.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Breines DM, Ouabdesselam S, Ng EY, et al. Quinolone resistance locus nfxD of Escherichia coli is a mutant allele of the parE gene encoding a subunit of topoisomerase IV. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:175–179.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Huelves L, Sevillano D, Martínez-Marín C, et al. Correlation between in vitro and in vivo activity of levofloxacin and moxifloxacin against pneumococcal strains with different susceptibilities to fluoroquinolones. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006;27:294–299.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pestova E, Millichap JJ, Noskin GA, Peterson LR. Intracellular targets of moxifloxacin: a comparison with other fluoroquinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;45:583–590.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ogawa GS, Weinstein AJ, Melendez RF, et al. Perioperative regimen in a large series of cataract surgeries with no cases of endophthalmitis. Proceedings of the ASCRS Symposium on Cataract, IOL and Refractive Surgery; April 27–May 2, 2007; San Diego, CA, USA.

  26. Iquix® [package insert]. Jacksonville, FL: Vistakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2007.

  27. Wagner RS, Abelson MB, Shapiro A, Torkildsen G. Evaluation of moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, ofloxacin, and levofloxacin concentrations in human conjunctival tissue. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1282–1283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Holland EJ, McCarthy M, Holland S. The ocular penetration of levofloxacin 1.5% and gatifloxacin 0.3% ophthalmic solutions in subjects undergoing corneal transplant surgery. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:2955–2960.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Nicolau DP. Predicting antibacterial response from pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles. Infection. 2001;29(suppl. 2):11–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Duggirala A, Joseph J, Sharma S, Nutheti R, Garg P, Das T. Activity of newer fluoroquinolones against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria isolated from ocular infections: an in vitro comparison. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2007;55:15–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mather R, Karenchak LM, Romanowski EG, Kowalski RP. Fourth generation fluoroquinolones: new weapons in the arsenal of ophthalmic antibiotics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:463–466.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kowalski RP, Dhaliwal DK, Karenchak LM, et al. Gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin: an in vitro susceptibility comparison to levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin using bacterial keratitis isolates. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:500–505.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Miller D, Flynn PM, Scott IU, Alfonso EC, Flynn HW Jr. In vitro fluoroquinolone resistance in staphylococcal endophthalmitis isolates. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124: 479–483.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Rhee MK, Kowalski RP, Romanowski EG, Mah FS, Ritterband DC, Gordon YJ. A laboratory evaluation of antibiotic therapy for ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:226–230.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Miller JJ, Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr., Smiddy WE, Corey RP, Miller D. Endophthalmitis caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:231–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kowalski RP, Romanowski EG, Mah FS, Sasaki H, Fukuda M, Gordon YJ. A comparison of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin topical prophylaxis in a fluoroquinolone-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rabbit model. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2008;52:211–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Thibodeaux BA, Dajcs JJ, Caballero AR, Marquart ME, Girgis DO, O’Callaghan RJ. Quantitative comparison of fluoroquinolone therapies of experimental gram-negative bacterial keratitis. Curr Eye Res. 2004;28:337–342.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Tungsiripat T, Sarayba MA, Kaufman MB, et al. Fluoroquinolone therapy in multipledrug resistant staphylococcal keratitis after lamellar keratectomy in a rabbit model. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:76–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Han DP, Wisniewski SR, Wilson LA, et al. Spectrum and susceptibilities of microbiologic isolates in the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:1–17. Erratum in: Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:920.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bourcier T, Thomas F, Borderie V, Chaumeil C, Laroche L. Bacterial keratitis: predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review of 300 cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:834–838.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wagoner MD, Al-Swailem SA, Sutphin JE, Zimmerman MB. Bacterial keratitis after penetrating keratoplasty: incidence, microbiological profile, graft survival, and visual outcome. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1073–1079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Vajpayee RB, Sharma N, Sinha R, Agarwal T, Singhvi A. Infectious keratitis following keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kim DH, Stark WJ, O’Brien TP, Dick JD. Aqueous penetration and biological activity of moxifloxacin 0.5% ophthalmic solution and gatifloxacin 0.3% solution in cataract surgery patients. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1992–1996.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Holland EJ, Lane SS, Kim T, Raizman M, Dunn S. Ocular penetration and pharmacokinetics of topical gatifloxacin 0.3% and moxifloxacin 0.5% ophthalmic solutions after keratoplasty. Cornea. 2008;27:314–319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chang D. Cataract clinical committee survey on antibiotic usage: TASS and endophthalmitis symposium. Proceedings of the ASCRS Symposium on Cataract, IOL and Refractive Surgery; April 27–May 2, 2007; San Diego, CA, USA.

  46. Aliprandis E, Ciralsky J, Lai H, Herling I, Katz HR. Comparative efficacy of topical moxifloxacin versus ciprofloxacin and vancomycin in the treatment of P. aeruginosa and ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA keratitis in rabbits. Cornea. 2005;24:201–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Caballero AR, Marquart ME, O’Callaghan RJ, Thibodeaux BA, Johnston KH, Dajcs JJ. Effectiveness of fluoroquinolones against Mycobacterium abscesses in vivo. Curr Eye Res. 2006;31:23–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Babayan Sosa A, Epstein SP, Asbell PA. Evaluation of toxicity of commercial ophthalmic fluoroquinolone antibiotics as assessed on immortalized corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells. Cornea. 2008;27:930–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Eye Consultants, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

    Stephen V. Scoper

Authors
  1. Stephen V. Scoper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen V. Scoper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scoper, S.V. Review of third-and fourth-generation fluoroquinolones in ophthalmology: in-vitro and in-vivo efficacy. Adv Therapy 25, 979–994 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-008-0107-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-008-0107-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation