Comparative Activity of Ciprofloxacin, Levofloxacin and Moxifloxacin against Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Assessed by Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations and Time-Kill Studies
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this study was to compare the in vitro susceptibility of Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia to three fluoroquinolones. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin were examined by E-test® for a total of 40 K. pneumoniae strains, 40 S. maltophilia strains and 40 P. aeruginosa strains. Then, the bactericidal activity of these fluoroquinolones was investigated on five strains of each bacterial species by means of time-kill curves. For K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa, the distance of the measured MIC from the clinical break-point is a good indicator of the bactericidal activity for ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin as obtained in our experiments. The lower the MIC, the better the bactericidal activity in term of CFU Log decreases. If MIC of ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin against the considered bacteria are far from clinical breakpoint, these two antibiotics are equivalent. According to our MIC50 and modal MIC, the breakpoints of both ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin seem to be somewhat high and data suggest reducing them. On S. maltophilia, none of the tested antibiotics showed a satisfactory activity.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When a bacterium is inhibited or killed at ciprofloxacin MICs greater than 1 μg/mL, this indicates that this bacterium is resistant to ciprofloxacin MICs less than 1 μg/mL.
“When a bacteria is inhibited or killed at ciprofloxacin MICs greater than 1 µg/mL, this indicates that this bacteria is resistant to ciprofloxacin MICs less than 1 µg/mL (Grillon et al. 2016).”
From Ethnomedicine, improved traditional medicine from Cocos nucifera water and evaluation of antibacterial activity on four bacterial strains in Center, Cameroon (2024) · cites this paper as Grillon et al. 2016
Table 1 in Materials and Methods (MICs measurements; page unavailable) gives species-specific ciprofloxacin breakpoints: 0.5–1 mg/L for K. pneumoniae and 1–2 mg/L for P. aeruginosa and S. maltophilia (1 mg/L equals 1 μg/mL). The Discussion reports that bactericidal activity generally decreases as MIC rises, but the paper does not say that every isolate with an MIC above 1 μg/mL is categorically resistant, or describe resistance as being ‘to MICs less than 1 μg/mL.’ (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Wisplinghoff, H., Bischoff, T., Tallent, S. M., Seifert, H., Wenzel, R. P., & Edmond, M. B. (2004) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/421946 · Cited by 4,496 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- [1]Podschun R, Ullmann U. Klebsiella spp. as nosocomial pathogens: epidemiology, taxonomy, typing methods, and pathogenicity factors. Clinical microbiology reviews. 1998 10; 11(4): 589– 603. 9767057 PMC88898
- [2]Lye WC, Chan RK, Lee EJ, Kumarasinghe G. Urinary tract infections in patients with diabetes mellitus. The Journal of infection. 1992 3; 24(2): 169– 74. 1569307
- [3]Silby MW, Winstanley C, Godfrey SA, Levy SB, Jackson RW. Pseudomonas genomes: diverse and adaptable. FEMS microbiology reviews. 2011 7; 35(4): 652– 80. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2011.00269.x 21361996 · DOI
- [5]Sousa AM, Pereira MO. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Diversification during Infection Development in Cystic Fibrosis Lungs-A Review. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland). 2014; 3(3): 680– 703. PMC4243435 25438018
- [6]Brooke JS. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: an emerging global opportunistic pathogen. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2012 1; 25(1): 2– 41. 10.1128/CMR.00019-11 22232370 PMC3255966 · DOI
- [7]Nseir S, Di Pompeo C, Brisson H, Dewavrin F, Tissier S, Diarra M, et al Intensive care unit-acquired Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: incidence, risk factors, and outcome. Critical care (London, England). 2006; 10(5): R143. PMC1751051 17026755
- [8]Ballestero S, Virseda I, Escobar H, Suarez L, Baquero F. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in cystic fibrosis patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995 8; 14(8): 728– 9. 8565998
- [9]Steinkamp G, Wiedemann B, Rietschel E, Krahl A, Gielen J, Barmeier H, et al Prospective evaluation of emerging bacteria in cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2005 3; 4(1): 41– 8. 15752680
- [10]Falagas ME, Kastoris AC, Vouloumanou EK, Rafailidis PI, Kapaskelis AM, Dimopoulos G. Attributable mortality of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: a systematic review of the literature. Future microbiology. 2009 11; 4(9): 1103– 9. 10.2217/fmb.09.84 19895214 · DOI
- [11]Hooper DC. Mechanisms of action and resistance of older and newer fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect Dis. 2000 8; 31 Suppl 2: S24– 8. 10984324
- [12]North DS, Fish DN, Redington JJ. Levofloxacin, a second-generation fluoroquinolone. Pharmacotherapy. 1998 Sep-Oct; 18(5): 915– 35. 9758306
- [13]Balfour JA, Wiseman LR. Moxifloxacin. Drugs. 1999 3; 57(3): 363– 73; discussion 74. 10193688
- [14]O'Donnell JA, Gelone SP. Fluoroquinolones. Infectious disease clinics of North America. 2000 6; 14(2): 489– 513, xi 10829268
- [15]Schentag JJ. Clinical pharmacology of the fluoroquinolones: studies in human dynamic/kinetic models. Clin Infect Dis. 2000 8; 31 Suppl 2: S40– 4. 10984327
- [16]Lode H, Borner K, Koeppe P. Pharmacodynamics of fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect Dis. 1998 7; 27(1): 33– 9. 9675446
- [18]Gillespie T, Masterton RG. Investigation into the selection frequency of resistant mutants and the bacterial kill rate by levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in non-mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2002 5; 19(5): 377– 82. 12007845
- [19]Hodson ME, Roberts CM, Butland RJ, Smith MJ, Batten JC. Oral ciprofloxacin compared with conventional intravenous treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in adults with cystic fibrosis. Lancet (London, England). 1987 1 31; 1(8527): 235– 7. 2880066
- [20]Hoiby N, Pedersen SS, Jensen T, Valerius NH, Koch C. Fluoroquinolones in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Drugs. 1993; 45 Suppl 3: 98– 101. 7689459
- [21]Valerius NH, Koch C, Hoiby N. Prevention of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonisation in cystic fibrosis by early treatment. Lancet (London, England). 1991 9 21; 338(8769): 725– 6. 1679870
- [22]Torres E, Delgado M, Valiente A, Pascual A, Rodriguez-Bano J. Impact of borderline minimum inhibitory concentration on the outcome of invasive infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae treated with beta-lactams: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015 9; 34(9): 1751– 8. 10.1007/s10096-015-2408-8 26032669 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tamma, P. D., Aitken, S. L., Bonomo, R. A., Mathers, A. J., van Duin, D., & Clancy, C. J. (2023) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciad428 · Cited by 740 · see citing works
Nair, V. G., Unnikrishnan, V. K., Muralidharan, N., Venkatathri, B. N. S., Lowrence, R. C., YBRD, R., Narbhavi, D., A, A., N, P., & Nagarajan, S. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-17404-4 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
LAMY, G. M. L., LIKENG, J. L. N., NDJIB, R. C., NDOUNGA, S. E. N., ELOMO, L. B., MBUH, S. M., NNANGA, L. S., MAHAMA, M., BIYON, J. B. N., HARMSEN, K., et al. (2024) · Asian Journal of Natural Product Biochemistry · doi:10.13057/biofar/f220104
- Authors
- Grillon, A., Schramm, F., Kleinberg, M., & Jehl, F.
- Affiliations
- Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Grillon, Antoine
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-06-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e0156690
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4892626
- OpenAlex
- W2409709769
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 4.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Endocrinology › Infections and bacterial resistance
- Keywords
- ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, fluoroquinolones, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, minimum inhibitory concentration, time-kill kinetics, bactericidal activity, antimicrobial susceptibility breakpoints, clinical breakpoints
- MeSH terms
- Moxifloxacin, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Ciprofloxacin, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Inhibitory Concentration 50, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Fluoroquinolones, Levofloxacin
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
