Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparative in vitro activity of sitafloxacin against bacteria isolated from Thai patients with urinary tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections in 2016

  • Surapee Tiengrim
  • , Piroon Mootsikapun
  • , Lumyai Wonglakorn
  • , Dhitiwat Changpradub
  • , Sudaluck Thunyaharn
  • , Woraphot Tantisiriwat
  • , Somchai Santiwatanakul
  • , Aumnat Malithong
  • , Nathaporn U-Thainual
  • , Pattarachai Kiratisin
  • , Visanu Thamlikitkul
  • Mahidol University
  • Khon Kaen University
  • Phramongkutklao Hospital
  • Srinakharinwirot University
  • Bangkok Metropolitan Administration General Hospital
  • Siriraj Hospital

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine in vitro activity of sitafloxacin compared with other antibiotics against the bacteria isolated from Thai patients with urinary tract infections and those with lower respiratory tract infections. Material and Method: One thousand one hundred thirty six clinical isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus isolated from different Thai patients with urinary tract infections or lower respiratory tract infections in 2016 were included. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of sitafloxacin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, tigecycline, imipenem, meropenem, and colistin were determined by standard agar dilution method. Results: The MIC50 and MIC90 values of sitafloxacin against all tested bacteria were lowest when compared with those of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. Sitafloxacin was more active than levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, ceftriaxone, and ceftazidime, but it was less active than piperacillin-tazobactam, tigecycline, imipenem, meropenem, and colistin against extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli isolates. Sitafloxacin was more active than levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, ceftriaxone, and ceftazidime against ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae. The activity of sitafloxacin against ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae was comparable to piperacillin-tazobactam, but it was less active than tigecycline, imipenem, meropenem, and colistin. Sitafloxacin was more active than levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem, but it was less active than colistin against A. baumannii isolates. The activity of sitafloxacin against P. aeruginosa isolates was comparable to levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem, but it was less active than colistin. The in vitro activity of sitafloxacin against methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates was more than levofloxacin, but it was less than vancomycin. The activities of sitafloxacin against tested bacteria isolated from the patients in 2016 were not significantly different from those isolated in 2010. Conclusion: Sitafloxacin remains active against the common antibiotic-resistant bacteria causing urinary tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections in Thai patients isolated in 2016, including ESBL-producing E. coli, ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and S. aureus, after its use in Thailand for five years.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1061-1072
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of the Medical Association of Thailand
Volume100
Issue number10
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2017

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Fluoroquinolone
  • In vitro activity
  • Sitafloxacin

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative in vitro activity of sitafloxacin against bacteria isolated from Thai patients with urinary tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections in 2016'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this