Effectiveness of fluoroquinolones against Mycobacterium abscessus in vivo

Establishment and Validation of Galleria mellonella as a Novel Model Organism To Study Mycobacterium abscessus Infection, Pathogenesis, and Treatment

Treatment of Mycobacterium abscessus infections is extremely challenging due to its intrinsic resistance to most antibiotics, and research of pathogenesis is limited due to a lack of a practical in vivo model of infection. The objective of this study was to establish a simple in vivo model for M. abscessus infection, virulence, and drug testing in Galleria mellonella larvae. We inoculated larvae with M. abscessus bacteria and assessed histopathology, CFU count, and mortality with and without antibiotic treatment. We also constructed a luminescent, recombinant M. abscessus mutant, mDB158, and imaged infected larvae using the IVIS in vivo imaging system. M. abscessus proliferated and induced granuloma-like responses in infected larvae, leading to larval mortality. The G. mellonella model was further validated successfully by demonstration of the expected favorable antimicrobial effect of treatment with meropenem and the superiority of combination treatment (meropenem and tigecycline) over that with single agents. We then used IVIS imaging of larvae infected with luminescent M. abscessus, allowing live real-time assessment of bacterial load. We used this method to compare the antimicrobial effects of various antibiotics (meropenem, amikacin, linezolid, levofloxacin, etc.) on bacterial proliferation and larval survival. Meropenem and amikacin had the most favorable effects, correlating well with common clinical practice guidelines. These findings suggest G. mellonella to be an excellent in vivo model for research of M. abscessus infection, pathogenesis, and treatment. Luminescent M. abscessus and IVIS imaging further facilitates this model. Results obtained in this model clearly substantiated common clinical practice, thus validating the model as a predictor of treatment efficacy and outcome.

Antimicrobial Agents in Ophthalmology

Many types of antimicrobial agents have been introduced for the treatment of ocular infectious diseases. Some ocular infections have been eradicated such as smallpox, while others have been controlled by public health measures such as trachoma. The resilience of viruses and the tenacity of bacteria have led to the evolution of old diseases and the emergence of new infections. Continuous search for new antimicrobial agents for the treatment of infectious diseases is, therefore, highly desirable.

New infectious agents are discovering the human race, and the ecological changes are exposing mankind to new viruses and bacteria. In addition, air travel and disruption of geographic barriers are leading to new forms of infectious diseases.

In the twentieth century, there was a widespread false optimism that infectious diseases are eradicated by antimicrobial agents. It was soon discovered that many infections require new strategies for the treatment of ocular infections.

The new antimicrobial agents that have been introduced over the past century can be classified into four major categories including (1) antibiotics that inhibit cell wall synthesis and integrity, (2) antibiotics that inhibit and suppress cell membrane functions, (3) antibiotics that interfere the protein synthesis, and (4) antibiotics that modulate nucleic acid synthesis.

The selection of antimicrobial agents for the treatment of ocular infectious diseases is based on the most frequently encountered organisms, the pharmacokinetics of the antibiotics, the dosage required, the ocular penetration, and the cost of therapy. The stumbling blocks to safe and effective antimicrobial therapy in ocular infections include the resistance of the microorganisms, toxicity of the drug, and poor ocular penetration of antimicrobial agents.

Activities of moxifloxacin in combination with macrolides against clinical isolates of Mycobacterium abscessus and Mycobacterium massiliense

Infections caused by Mycobacterium abscessus and Mycobacterium massiliense are on the rise among humans. Although macrolides, including clarithromycin (CLR) and azithromycin (AZM), are key antibiotics for the treatment of M. abscessus and M. massiliense infections, treatment regimens for these infections are still largely undefined. In this study, we evaluated the in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo activities of moxifloxacin (MXF) in combination with macrolides against clinically isolated M. abscessus and M. massiliense strains. Overall, CLR, AZM, and MXF alone showed activity against both species in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo. When MXF was combined with a macrolide against M. abscessus isolates, antagonism was observed in 65.4% (17/26) of the strains with CLR and 46.2% (12/26) of the strains with AZM in vitro as well as in 66.7% (10/15) of the strains with CLR and 40.0% (6/15) of the strains with AZM in macrophages as determined by the fractional inhibitory concentration index. In contrast, either indifferent or synergistic effects of the MXF-macrolide combinations were observed against only M. massiliense strains. Moreover, a murine infection model showed similar results. Antagonism between the MXF and macrolide combinations was observed in five out of seven M. abscessus strains, while indifferent and synergistic effects for these combinations were observed for three of the six M. massiliense strains tested, respectively. In conclusion, the activity of MXF in combination with a macrolide differed for M. abscessus and M. massiliense infections and the addition of MXF to macrolide therapy had no benefit for the treatment of M. abscessus infections.

[Fluoroquinolones in ophthalmology: indications and current use]

Fluoroquinolones are commonly used in ophthalmology, either for conjunctival infections or endophthalmitis. Use of these antibiotics requires good knowledge of the pharmacokinetic profile and adverse effects, and contraindications must be respected. Fluoroquinolones are useful in 2008 given their antibacterial spectrum, good ocular penetration, and the potential benefit of intravitreal injection.

Review of third-and fourth-generation fluoroquinolones in ophthalmology: in-vitro and in-vivo efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Beginning with second-generation ciprofloxacin 0.3% and ofloxacin 0.3%, fluoroquinolones have been widely used in the treatment and prophylaxis of ocular infections. However, their in-vitro potencies have been decreasing steadily since their introduction. Third-generation levofloxacin 0.5% produces higher ocular tissue penetration, thereby reducing the risk of selecting for decreased fluoroquinolone potency. Fourth-generation gatifloxacin 0.3% and moxifloxacin 0.5% have structural modifications that both reduce risk of resistance and improve potency against Gram-positive bacteria. A new third-generation formulation, levofloxacin 1.5%, was recently introduced, demonstrating increased ocular penetration compared with gatifloxacin 0.3% but clinical equivalence to its second-generation parent, ofloxacin 0.3%, in two randomized trials.

METHODS

We investigated the therapeutic potential of levofloxacin 1.5% and compared it to that of existing fourth-generation fluoroquinolones. A MEDLINE search was conducted using the following search terms: moxifloxacin or gatifloxacin; levofloxacin; minimum inhibitory concentration or prevention or prophylaxis; keratitis or endophthalmitis.

RESULTS

Nine eligible studies published between 2002 and 2008 were identified, eight of which are presented. The five in-vitro studies demonstrated that moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin are statistically more potent than levofloxacin against Gram-positive organisms and similar in potency in most cases of Gram-negative bacteria. In-vivo animal models testing moxifloxacin or gatifloxacin against levofloxacin 0.5% (no clinical trials testing the efficacy of levofloxacin 1.5% have yet been published) demonstrated that fourth-generation agents were superior to third-generation levofloxacin 0.5% for prophylaxis of Gram-positive bacteria-induced infections and were equal to, or better than, levofloxacin 0.5% for the treatment of Gram-negative infections.

CONCLUSION

Fourth-generation agents have increased potency against Gram-positive bacteria compared with levofloxacin, while maintaining similar potency against Gram-negative bacteria. Although levofloxacin 1.5% has demonstrated superior ocular penetration relative to gatifloxacin, the limited available data do not suggest this translates into superior clinical activity compared with moxifloxacin, which has significantly greater ocular penetration and better Gram-positive potency than gatifloxacin.