ArticleClinical drug investigation2005
In vivo comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in human neutrophils.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sequential Intravenous-Oral Therapy for PediatricOpen forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Intracellular Pharmacokinetics of Antibacterials and Their Clinical Implications.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2018Review
- Contribution of moxifloxacin or levofloxacin in second-line regimens with or without continuation of pyrazinamide in murine tuberculosis.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2013Article
- Cumulative clinical experience from over a decade of use of levofloxacin in community-acquired pneumonia: critical appraisal and role in therapy.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2011Article
- Levofloxacin : a review of its use as a high-dose, short-course treatment for bacterial infection.Drugs · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMost of the newer fluoroquinolones are active against bacteria such as Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, which are able to multiply inside polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs). The aim of this study was to determine moxifloxacin and levofloxacin intracellular behaviour with their usual dosage regimen.
methodsWe determined the pharmacokinetics of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin at steady state in the PMNs of ten healthy volunteers receiving moxifloxacin 400mg and levofloxacin 500mg as a once-daily dosing regimen for 3 days.
resultsBoth antibacterials showed a high level of intracellular penetration exhibiting PMNs/plasma ratios of 17.34 +/- 8.29 for moxifloxacin versus 8.15 +/- 5.23 for levofloxacin for maximum concentrations (C(max)) and 14.72 +/- 8.29 for moxifloxacin versus 8.15 +/- 5.23 for levofloxacin for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve. Estimation of the most predictive pharmacodynamic surrogate markers for concentration-dependent bactericidal antibacterials in the intracellular milieu by taking into account the susceptibility of S. pneumoniae and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus demonstrated consistently higher values with moxifloxacin than with levofloxacin, even though with both drugs the levels obtained are well above the recommended targets values. Indeed, C(max)/MIC ratios calculated in PMNs for moxifloxacin were 287.3 and 718.2 for S. pneumoniae and S. aureus, respectively, and for levofloxacin were 25.6 and 205.1, respectively.
conclusionMoxifloxacin and levofloxacin seem to be well adapted for the treatment of infections due to susceptible intracellular bacteria, and moxifloxacin provides a greater margin of safety than levofloxacin.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.