Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2000, p. 1636-1637, Vol. 38, No. 4
Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and
Parasitology1 and Department of Anatomy,
Physiological Sciences, and Radiology,2 North
Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27606
Received 22 December 1999/Accepted 8 January 2000
Currently in veterinary medicine, ciprofloxacin is often used in
susceptibility testing to represent the entire class of fluoroquinolone antimicrobials. Using quality control organisms as well as clinical isolates, we compared the MIC of ciprofloxacin to those of three other
fluoroquinolones used in animals and found that ciprofloxacin is not an
adequate representative of other members of this class.
Fluoroquinolones are a widely used
class of antimicrobials that inhibit bacterial replication by their
action on DNA gyrase (1, 2). Many members of this class are
currently approved for use in humans; chief among these is
ciprofloxacin, one of the most-prescribed drugs in the United States.
Fluoroquinolones are also widely, and increasingly, used in veterinary
medicine, with enrofloxacin being the most common. Recently, two
additional members of this class have come into common use in companion
animals: marbofloxacin and orbifloxacin.
Clinical laboratories routinely perform in vitro dilution
susceptibility testing to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility of
bacteria isolated from clinical samples. Interpretation of these tests
requires that performance standards for antimicrobial MICs be set using
a number of quality control (QC) organisms. The National Committee for
Clinical Laboratory Standards sets such standards and has done so for
many of the fluoroquinolones used in human medicine (7).
Currently, however, no standard has been set for any fluoroquinolone
approved for use in companion animals (a standard for enrofloxacin has
been reviewed by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory
Standards and is currently considered provisional) (5, 8).
It is common, therefore, for veterinary laboratories to use the
standards for ciprofloxacin as representatives of those of
fluoroquinolones used in animals, although no data exist to assess the
reliability of this practice.
We sought to determine whether MICs determined by using
ciprofloxacin provide an acceptable alternative to those of three fluoroquinolones used in veterinary medicine: enrofloxacin,
marbofloxacin, and orbifloxacin. We chose for testing four
representative QC strains: Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 (6). Each strain was grown overnight on Columbia agar with
5% defibrinated sheep blood; then colonies were used to inoculate
brain heart infusion broth to match a 0.5 McFarland density standard
(4). Samples were diluted 1:100 in normal saline, and then
0.1 ml of the diluted sample was used to inoculate test tubes (for an
inoculum of ~1.5 × 105 bacteria/ml). Ciprofloxacin
was purchased from the U.S. Pharmacopeia, and enrofloxacin,
marbofloxacin, and orbifloxacin were generously provided by their
manufacturers (Bayer, Pfizer, and Schering-Plough, respectively) as
pure analytical reference standards. Each antimicrobial was diluted
twofold in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (8) in a
1-ml final volume to achieve concentration ranges of 0.0024 to 10 µg/ml for the first three and 0.024 to 100 µg/ml for orbifloxacin. Tubes were inoculated and incubated for 24 h at 35°C; bacterial growth was compared to that of a positive control, without
antimicrobial, and that control was judged by turbidity, by a single
pellet of
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Evaluation of Ciprofloxacin as a Representative of
Veterinary Fluoroquinolones in Susceptibility Testing
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
2 mm, or by several pellets of smaller diameter. All tests
were performed in triplicate, and control tubes without inoculum and without antimicrobial agent were included in each
experiment.
TABLE 1.
Susceptibility of quality control strains to
ciprofloxacin and three veterinary fluoroquinolones
As shown in Table 1, we found that the MICs of ciprofloxacin were within the accepted ranges for all tested organisms (7) (and those for enrofloxacin were within the provisional ranges under consideration by the NCCLS) (5). However, the MICs of all three veterinary fluoroquinolones failed to fall within the accepted ciprofloxacin ranges for at least one organism. The marbofloxacin MIC did not mirror that of ciprofloxacin for P. aeruginosa, while enrofloxacin MICs for the two gram-negative organisms, P. aeruginosa and E. coli, differed significantly from those of ciprofloxacin. Orbifloxacin showed the most generalized deficit; its MICs for all four organisms were different from those of ciprofloxacin. Although a representative antimicrobial need not necessarily match MICs of other drugs in the class, the failure of ciprofloxacin to do so means that, in the absence of pharmacokinetic data for the other antimicrobials tested here, there is no rationale to assign it the role of representative.
P. aeruginosa is an important veterinary pathogen against which fluoroquinolones are commonly used (3). Since all three of the drugs tested here failed to reproduce the ciprofloxacin MIC for a QC strain of this organism, we sought to further investigate the clinical significance of these findings. We chose 10 clinical isolates (obtained from the North Carolina State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital and the Rollins Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory) and tested the MIC of each for the four antimicrobials. Antimicrobials were tested in the following ranges: ciprofloxacin, 0.157 to 5.0 µg/ml; enrofloxacin, 1.25 to 5.0 µg/ml; marbofloxacin, 0.625 to 5.0 µg/ml; orbifloxacin, 0.625 to 5.0 µg/ml.
Four of the ten strains had a ciprofloxacin MIC of less than 1 µg/ml
and so were considered susceptible (7), while the remaining
six were resistant (Table 2). We
anticipated that for those strains for which MICs of ciprofloxacin were
low, MICs of the other three fluoroquinolones would be correspondingly
low, while higher ciprofloxacin MICs would correspond to higher
MICs of the others. We found, however, that there was no apparent
correlation between ciprofloxacin MIC and those of any of the other
fluoroquinolones. Most striking among these was orbifloxacin, for which
all MICs, regardless of those for ciprofloxacin, were the same; 5 µg/ml.
|
The results presented here show that ciprofloxacin does not provide an adequate representative for assessing the in vitro susceptibility of fluoroquinolones used in veterinary medicine. MICs of three of these antimicrobials failed, for some bacterial species, to mirror the ciprofloxacin MIC when we used QC strains. We also found no correlation between ciprofloxacin susceptibility and that of the other three fluoroquinolones when using clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa, suggesting that, at least for this organism, ciprofloxacin does not provide an acceptable alternative for susceptibility testing. It also appears that for these P. aeruginosa isolates, ciprofloxacin is more active than the veterinary fluoroquinolones in vitro. This work shows that fluoroquinolones used in veterinary medicine require their own standardized MIC ranges to ensure accurate interpretation of susceptibility tests.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: North Carolina State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, 4700 Hillsborough St., Raleigh, NC 27606. Phone: (919) 513-6274. Fax: (919) 513-6455. E-mail: craig_altier{at}ncsu.edu.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Crumplin, G. C., and J. T. Smith. 1976. Nalidixic acid and bacterial chromosome replication. Nature 260:643-645[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 2. |
Gellert, M.,
K. Mizuuchi,
M. H. O'Dea,
T. Itoh, and J.-I. Tomazawa.
1977.
Nalidixic acid resistance: a second genetic character involved in DNA gyrase activity.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
74:4772-4776 |
| 3. | Ihrke, P. J., M. G. Papich, and T. C. Demanuelle. 1999. The use of fluoroquinolones in veterinary dermatology. Vet. Dermatol. 10:193-204[CrossRef]. |
| 4. | Lauderdale, T.-L., K. C. Chapin, and P. R. Murray. 1999. Reagents, p. 1665-1673. In P. R. Murray, E. J. Baron, M. A. Pfaller, F. C. Tenover, and R. H. Yolken (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 7th ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 5. | Marshall, S. A., R. N. Jones, A. Wanger, J. A. Washington, G. V. Doern, A. L. Leber, and T. H. Haugen. 1996. Proposed MIC quality control guidelines for National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards susceptibility tests using seven veterinary antimicrobial agents: ceftiofur, enrofloxacin, florfenicol, penicillin G-novobiocin, pirlimycin, premafloxacin, and spectinomycin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34:2027-2029[Abstract]. |
| 6. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1997. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, 4th ed. Approved standard M7-A4. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 7. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1999. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Eighth informational supplement M1000-S9. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 8. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1999. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals. Approved standard M31-A. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»