Safety and efficacy of levofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin for the treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis in Chinese patients

Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin as Potential Drugs in Genitourinary Cancer Treatment-The Effect of Dose-Response on 2D and 3D Cell Cultures

Introduction: Introducing new drugs for clinical application is a very difficult, long, drawn-out, and costly process, which is why drug repositioning is increasingly gaining in importance. The aim of this study was to analyze the cytotoxic properties of ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin on bladder and prostate cell lines in vitro. Methods: Bladder and prostate cancer cell lines together with their non-malignant counterparts were used in this study. In order to evaluate the cytotoxic effect of both drugs on tested cell lines, MTT assay, real-time cell growth analysis, apoptosis detection, cell cycle changes, molecular analysis, and 3D cultures were examined. Results: Both fluoroquinolones exhibited a toxic effect on all of the tested cell lines. In the case of non-malignant cell lines, the cytotoxic effect was weaker, which was especially pronounced in the bladder cell line. A comparison of both fluoroquinolones showed the advantage of ciprofloxacin (lower doses of drug caused a stronger cytotoxic effect). Both fluoroquinolones led to an increase in late apoptotic cells and an inhibition of cell cycle mainly in the S phase. Molecular analysis showed changes in BAX, BCL2, TP53, and CDKN1 expression in tested cell lines following incubation with ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin. The downregulation of topoisomerase II genes (TOP2A and TOP2B) was noticed. Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture analysis confirmed the higher cytotoxic effect of tested fluoroquinolone against cancer cell lines. Conclusions: Our results suggest that both ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin may have great potential, especially in the supportive therapy of bladder cancer treatment. Taking into account the low costs of such therapy, fluoroquinolones seem to be ideal candidates for repositioning into bladder cancer therapeutics.

Levofloxacin Versus Ciprofloxacin in the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections: Evidence-Based Analysis

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common bacterial infections acquired both in community and hospital. Fluoroquinolones, represented by levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin, are widely used for treatment of UTIs. However, it remains controversial for the comparison between the 2 drugs, which propelled us to conduct the first evidence-based research on this topic. To establish their relative efficacy and safety, we searched Pubmed, embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for UTIs. A total of 5 RCTs were finally included, involving 2,352 patients and a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the end-of-therapy and posttherapy clinical success rate, microbial eradication rate and adverse event rate. Jadad score and Review Manager 5.3.0 version were applied respectively to evaluate the study quality and heterogeneity. There was no significant difference between levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin group in end-of-therapy or posttherapy clinical success rate and microbial eradication rate (p > 0.05). As for adverse event rate, the 2 drugs were comparable and both safe for clinical use. Based on one included trial and pharmacological research, we raised hypothesis that levofloxacin was superior to ciprofloxacin for treatment of E. coli-induced chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) and it required a further study to prove it.

Pharmacological Interventions for Bacterial Prostatitis

Prostatitis is a common urinary tract condition but bring innumerable trouble to clinicians in treatment, as well as great financial burden to patients and the society. Bacterial prostatitis (acute bacterial prostatitis plus chronic bacterial prostatitis) accounting for approximately 20% among all prostatitis have made the urological clinics complain about the genital and urinary systems all over the world. The international challenges of antibacterial treatment (emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria, bacterial biofilms production and the shift in bacterial etiology) and the transformation of therapeutic strategy for classic therapy have attracted worldwide attention. To the best of our knowledge currently, there is not a single comprehensive review, which can completely elaborate these important topics and the corresponding treatment strategy in an effective way. This review summarizes the general treatment choices for bacterial prostatitis also provides the alternative pharmacological therapies for those patients resistant or intolerant to general treatment.

Levofloxacin for NIH Category II Chronic Bacterial Prostatitis: A Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

Mounting worldwide resistance trends make the use of fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibacterial agents increasingly difficult. This is felt more acutely in the case of urogenital infections, which are mainly caused by Gram-negative pathogens. For years, levofloxacin and other FQs have been the first-line drugs for treating National Institutes of Health (NIH) category II chronic bacteria prostatitis (CBP). Eradication rates achieved by levofloxacin in the frame of randomized trials vary greatly, ranging between 71 and 86%.

OBJECTIVES

This was a retrospective observational study to investigate the efficacy of levofloxacin against CBP in a real-life setting (urological outpatient wards).

METHODS

A database including the clinical records of >2,500 CBP patients was reviewed. Patients were selected based on strict inclusion criteria. They were treated for 4 weeks with 500 mg levofloxacin per day, alone or combined with other antibacterials. Besides standard urological procedures including the 4-glass test for pathogen isolation, international symptom questionnaires (the NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index [NIH-CPSI] and International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) were administered.

RESULTS

Pathogen eradication was achieved in 79% of the cases treated with levofloxacin as a single agent and 87.8% of patients who received a combination of levofloxacin and azithromycin. The 11% increase in the eradication rate in the latter group is statistically significant. In addition, the levofloxacin-azithromycin combination caused a significant decrease in prostate volume and significantly increased the bladder-voided volume. IPSS and NIH-CPSI values and the urinary peak flow rate decreased to a similar extent in both treatment groups. No adverse effects were reported by patients belonging to either treatment group.

CONCLUSION

Levofloxacin retained its therapeutic efficacy in patients assessed in a real-life setting, and high eradication rates were attained when it was administered as a single agent. A combination of an FQ with azithromycin induced a significant improvement of eradication rates. This strategy may be an interesting option in both first-referral and relapsing cases, although caution should be exercised when patients are at risk of developing arrhythmias, tendinitis, or other adverse effects.

Conservative Nonhormonal Options for the Treatment of Male Infertility: Antibiotics, Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, and Antioxidants

The nonhormonal medical treatment can be divided into empirical, when the cause has not been identified, and nonempirical, if the pathogenic mechanism causing male infertility can be solved or ameliorated. The empirical nonhormonal medical treatment has been proposed for patients with idiopathic or noncurable oligoasthenoteratozoospermia and for normozoospermic infertile patients. Anti-inflammatory, fibrinolytic, and antioxidant compounds, oligo elements, and vitamin supplementation may be prescribed. Infection, inflammation, and/or increased oxidative stress often require a specific treatment with antibiotics, anti-inflammatory drugs, and/or antioxidants. Combined therapies can contribute to improve sperm quality.

Concentration of hepatic vitamins A and E in rats exposed to chlorpyrifos and/or enrofloxacin

The aim of the study was to determine the level of antioxidant vitamins A and E in the liver of rats exposed to chlorpyrifos and/or enrofloxacin. Chlorpyrifos (Group I) was administered at a dose of 0.04 LD50 (6 mg/kg b.w.) for 28 days, and enrofloxacin (Group II) at a dose of 5 mg/kg b.w. for 5 consecutive days. The animals of group III were given both of the mentioned above compounds at the same manner as groups I and II, but enrofloxacin was applied to rats for the last 5 days of chlorpyrifos exposure (i.e. on day 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28). Chlorpyrifos and enrofloxacin were administered to rats intragastrically via a gastric tube. The quantitative determination of vitamins was made by the HPLC method. The results of this study indicated a reduction in the hepatic concentrations of vitamins A and E, compared to the control, which sustained for the entire period of the experiment. The four-week administration of chlorpyrifos to rats resulted in a significant decrease of vitamins in the initial period of the experiment, i.e. up to 24 hours after exposure. For vitamin A the maximum drop was observed after 24 hours (19.24%) and for vitamin E after 6 hours (23.19%). Enrofloxacin caused a slight (3-9%) reduction in the level of the analysed vitamins. In the chlorpyrifos-enrofloxacin co-exposure group reduced vitamins A and E levels were also noted, but changes in this group were less pronounced in comparison to the animals intoxicated with chlorpyrifos only. The decrease in the antioxidant vitamin levels, particularly noticeable in the chlorpyrifos- and the chlorpyrifos combined with enrofloxacin-treated groups, may result not only from the increase in the concentration of free radicals, but also from the intensification of the secondary stages of lipid peroxidation.

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a consensus guideline

Objectives

To improve awareness and recognition of chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) among non‐specialists and patients. To provide guidance to healthcare professionals treating patients with CBP and CP/CPPS, in both non‐specialist and specialist settings. To promote efficient referral of care between non‐specialists and specialists and the involvement of the multidisciplinary team (MDT).

Patients and Methods

The guideline population were men with CBP or CP/CPPS (persistent or recurrent symptoms and no other urogenital pathology for ≥3 of the previous 6 months). Consensus recommendations for the guidelines were based on a search to identify literature on the diagnosis and management of CBP and CP/CPPS (published between 1999 and February 2014). A Delphi panel process was used where high‐quality, published evidence was lacking.

Results

CBP and CP/CPPS can present with a wide range of clinical manifestations. The four main symptom domains are urogenital pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS – voiding or storage symptoms), psychological issues and sexual dysfunction. Patients should be managed according to their individual symptom pattern. Options for first‐line treatment include antibiotics, α‐adrenergic antagonists (if voiding LUTS are present) and simple analgesics. Repeated use of antibiotics, such as quinolones, should be avoided if there is no obvious symptomatic benefit from infection control or cultures do not support an infectious cause. Early use of treatments targeting neuropathic pain and/or referral to specialist services should be considered for patients who do not respond to initial measures. An MDT approach (urologists, pain specialists, nurse specialists, specialist physiotherapists, general practitioners, cognitive behavioural therapists/psychologists, and sexual health specialists) is recommended. Patients should be fully informed about the possible underlying causes and treatment options, including an explanation of the chronic pain cycle.

Conclusion

Chronic prostatitis can present with a wide variety of signs and symptoms. Identification of individual symptom patterns and a symptom‐based treatment approach are recommended. Further research is required to evaluate management options for CBP and CP/CPPS.

Antimicrobial therapy for chronic bacterial prostatitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) is frequently diagnosed in men of fertile age, and is characterized by a disabling array of symptoms, including pain in the pelvic area (for example, perineum, testicles), voiding symptoms (increased frequency and urgency, also at night; pain or discomfort at micturition), and sexual dysfunction. Cure of CBP can be attempted by long-term therapy with antibacterial agents, but relapses are frequent. Few antibacterial agents are able to distribute to the prostatic tissue and achieve sufficient concentrations at the site of infection. These agents include fluoroquinolones, macrolides, tetracyclines and trimethoprim. After the introduction of fluoroquinolones into clinical practice, a number of studies have been performed to optimize the antimicrobial treatment of CBP, and to improve eradication rates and symptom relief.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the efficacy and harm of antimicrobial treatments for chronic bacterial prostatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, other national or international databases and abstracts from conference proceedings on 8 August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled comparisons of one antimicrobial agent versus placebo or one or more comparator antimicrobial agents, combined or not with non-antimicrobial drugs. We also included trials comparing different doses, treatment durations, dosing frequencies, or routes of administration of antimicrobial agents. We excluded studies in which patients were not diagnosed according to internationally recommended criteria, or were not subjected to lower urinary tract segmented tests.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study data were extracted independently by two review authors. Study outcomes were microbiological efficacy (pathogen eradication), clinical efficacy (symptom cure or improvement, or symptom scores) at test-of-cure visits or at follow-up, or both, and adverse effects of therapy. Secondary outcomes included microbiological recurrence rates.Statistical analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model for microbiological outcomes and a random-effects model for clinical outcomes and adverse effects. The results were expressed as risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes (with 95% confidence intervals) or as standardized mean differences for continuous or non-dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 studies, enrolling a total of 2196 randomized patients. The oral fluoroquinolones ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, lomefloxacin, ofloxacin and prulifloxacin were compared. There were no significant differences in clinical or microbiological efficacy or in the rate of adverse effects between these fluoroquinolones. In chlamydial prostatitis, (i) azithromycin showed improved eradication rates and clinical cure rates compared to ciprofloxacin, with no significant differences regarding adverse effects; (ii) azithromycin was equivalent to clarithromycin, both microbiologically and clinically; (iii) prulifloxacin appeared to improve clinical symptoms, but not eradication rates, compared to doxycycline. In ureaplasmal prostatitis, the comparisons ofloxacin versus minocycline and azithromycin versus doxycycline showed similar microbiological, clinical and toxicity profiles.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The microbiological and clinical efficacy, as well as the adverse effect profile, of different oral fluoroquinolones are comparable. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the optimal treatment duration of fluoroquinolones in the treatment of CBP caused by traditional pathogens.Alternative antimicrobial agents tested for the treatment of CBP caused by traditional pathogens are co-trimoxazole, beta-lactams and tetracyclines, but no conclusive evidence can be drawn regarding the role of non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics in the treatment of CBP caused by traditional pathogens.In patients with CBP caused by obligate intracellular pathogens, macrolides showed higher microbiological and clinical cure rates compared to fluoroquinolones.