Cargando…
Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Mycobacterium tuberculosis MIC Distributions for the Novel Fluoroquinolone Antofloxacin Compared with Those for Ofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin
Antofloxacin (AFX) is a novel fluoroquinolone that has been approved in China for the treatment of infections caused by a variety of bacterial species. We investigated whether it could be repurposed for the treatment of tuberculosis by studying its in vitro activity. We determined the wild-type and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Society for Microbiology
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27324769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00393-16 |
_version_ | 1782449846339239936 |
---|---|
author | Yu, Xia Wang, Guirong Chen, Suting Wei, Guomei Shang, Yuanyuan Dong, Lingling Schön, Thomas Moradigaravand, Danesh Parkhill, Julian Peacock, Sharon J. Köser, Claudio U. Huang, Hairong |
author_facet | Yu, Xia Wang, Guirong Chen, Suting Wei, Guomei Shang, Yuanyuan Dong, Lingling Schön, Thomas Moradigaravand, Danesh Parkhill, Julian Peacock, Sharon J. Köser, Claudio U. Huang, Hairong |
author_sort | Yu, Xia |
collection | PubMed |
description | Antofloxacin (AFX) is a novel fluoroquinolone that has been approved in China for the treatment of infections caused by a variety of bacterial species. We investigated whether it could be repurposed for the treatment of tuberculosis by studying its in vitro activity. We determined the wild-type and non-wild-type MIC ranges for AFX as well as ofloxacin (OFX), levofloxacin (LFX), and moxifloxacin (MFX), using the microplate alamarBlue assay, of 126 clinical Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains from Beijing, China, of which 48 were OFX resistant on the basis of drug susceptibility testing on Löwenstein-Jensen medium. The MIC distributions were correlated with mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining regions of gyrA (Rv0006) and gyrB (Rv0005). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) data for AFX were retrieved from the literature. AFX showed lower MIC levels than OFX but higher MIC levels than LFX and MFX on the basis of the tentative epidemiological cutoff values (ECOFFs) determined in this study. All strains with non-wild-type MICs for AFX harbored known resistance mutations that also resulted in non-wild-type MICs for LFX and MFX. Moreover, our data suggested that the current critical concentration of OFX for Löwenstein-Jensen medium that was recently revised by the World Health Organization might be too high, resulting in the misclassification of phenotypically non-wild-type strains with known resistance mutations as wild type. On the basis of our exploratory PK/PD calculations, the current dose of AFX is unlikely to be optimal for the treatment of tuberculosis, but higher doses could be effective. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4997829 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | American Society for Microbiology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49978292016-09-13 Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Mycobacterium tuberculosis MIC Distributions for the Novel Fluoroquinolone Antofloxacin Compared with Those for Ofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin Yu, Xia Wang, Guirong Chen, Suting Wei, Guomei Shang, Yuanyuan Dong, Lingling Schön, Thomas Moradigaravand, Danesh Parkhill, Julian Peacock, Sharon J. Köser, Claudio U. Huang, Hairong Antimicrob Agents Chemother Mechanisms of Resistance Antofloxacin (AFX) is a novel fluoroquinolone that has been approved in China for the treatment of infections caused by a variety of bacterial species. We investigated whether it could be repurposed for the treatment of tuberculosis by studying its in vitro activity. We determined the wild-type and non-wild-type MIC ranges for AFX as well as ofloxacin (OFX), levofloxacin (LFX), and moxifloxacin (MFX), using the microplate alamarBlue assay, of 126 clinical Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains from Beijing, China, of which 48 were OFX resistant on the basis of drug susceptibility testing on Löwenstein-Jensen medium. The MIC distributions were correlated with mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining regions of gyrA (Rv0006) and gyrB (Rv0005). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) data for AFX were retrieved from the literature. AFX showed lower MIC levels than OFX but higher MIC levels than LFX and MFX on the basis of the tentative epidemiological cutoff values (ECOFFs) determined in this study. All strains with non-wild-type MICs for AFX harbored known resistance mutations that also resulted in non-wild-type MICs for LFX and MFX. Moreover, our data suggested that the current critical concentration of OFX for Löwenstein-Jensen medium that was recently revised by the World Health Organization might be too high, resulting in the misclassification of phenotypically non-wild-type strains with known resistance mutations as wild type. On the basis of our exploratory PK/PD calculations, the current dose of AFX is unlikely to be optimal for the treatment of tuberculosis, but higher doses could be effective. American Society for Microbiology 2016-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4997829/ /pubmed/27324769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00393-16 Text en Copyright © 2016 Yu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Mechanisms of Resistance Yu, Xia Wang, Guirong Chen, Suting Wei, Guomei Shang, Yuanyuan Dong, Lingling Schön, Thomas Moradigaravand, Danesh Parkhill, Julian Peacock, Sharon J. Köser, Claudio U. Huang, Hairong Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Mycobacterium tuberculosis MIC Distributions for the Novel Fluoroquinolone Antofloxacin Compared with Those for Ofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin |
title | Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Mycobacterium tuberculosis MIC Distributions for the Novel Fluoroquinolone Antofloxacin Compared with Those for Ofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin |
title_full | Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Mycobacterium tuberculosis MIC Distributions for the Novel Fluoroquinolone Antofloxacin Compared with Those for Ofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin |
title_fullStr | Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Mycobacterium tuberculosis MIC Distributions for the Novel Fluoroquinolone Antofloxacin Compared with Those for Ofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin |
title_full_unstemmed | Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Mycobacterium tuberculosis MIC Distributions for the Novel Fluoroquinolone Antofloxacin Compared with Those for Ofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin |
title_short | Wild-Type and Non-Wild-Type Mycobacterium tuberculosis MIC Distributions for the Novel Fluoroquinolone Antofloxacin Compared with Those for Ofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin |
title_sort | wild-type and non-wild-type mycobacterium tuberculosis mic distributions for the novel fluoroquinolone antofloxacin compared with those for ofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin |
topic | Mechanisms of Resistance |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27324769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00393-16 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yuxia wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT wangguirong wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT chensuting wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT weiguomei wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT shangyuanyuan wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT donglingling wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT schonthomas wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT moradigaravanddanesh wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT parkhilljulian wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT peacocksharonj wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT koserclaudiou wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin AT huanghairong wildtypeandnonwildtypemycobacteriumtuberculosismicdistributionsforthenovelfluoroquinoloneantofloxacincomparedwiththoseforofloxacinlevofloxacinandmoxifloxacin |