Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-65mhm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-12T01:04:20.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review of the 4-Quinolones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Mark Eggleston  and
Soon-Young Park
Mark Eggleston
Affiliation:
Howard University, Washington, D.C.
Soon-Young Park
Affiliation:
Howard University, Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Improvements in antimicrobial activity and pharmacokinetics have moved the 4-quinolones into the forefront of antibiotic research. The 4-quinolones are analogues of nalidixic acid, and there are presently at least six agents in this group under investigation in the United States. It is difficult to generalize their clinical usefulness, since these agents exhibit different pharmacokinetic profiles, antimicrobial activity (with varied minimum inhibitory concentrations among similar organisms), and dosage regimens.

The 4-quinolones are potential therapeutic alternatives for infections caused by a variety of organisms. They include: Neisseria gonorrhoeae; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Haemophilus influenzae; Staphylococcus aureus; common enteric pathogens (salmonella, shigella, Campylobacter, etc); and intracellular bacteria (legionella, chlamydia, mycobacteria, etc).

Clinical efficacy has been demonstrated in urinary tract infections, respiratory tract infections, and sexually transmitted diseases. Future studies will undoubtedly demonstrate effectiveness in numerous additional infectious processes.

The purpose of this article is to compare the 4-quinolones in regards to pharmacokinetics and spectrum of activity and review the clinical studies involving these agents.

Information

Type
Special Section
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , March 1987 , pp. 119 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Newsom, SWB, Matthews, J, Amphlett, M, et al: Norfloxacin and the antibacterial gamma pyridone beta carboxylic acids. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10:25–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Crumplin, GC, Kenwright, M, Hirst, T: Investigations into the mechanism of the antibacterial agent norfloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 13(suppl B): 9–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Rubinstein, E, Segv, S, Lev, B: The 4-quinolones: A promising new class of antibiotics. Hospital Therapy August 1986; pp 39–66.Google Scholar
4.Aldridge, KE: The new fluorinated 4-quinolone antibiotics, in Andriole, VT (ed): Mediguide to infectious disease, New York, Lawrence Dellacorte Publications, Inc, 1986, pp 1–6.Google Scholar
5.Tenny, JH, Maack, RW, Chippendale, GR: Rapid selection of organisms with increasing resistance on subinhibitory concentrations of norfloxacin in agar. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 23:188–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Barry, AL, Jones, RN: Cross-resistance among Cinoxacin, ciprofloxacin, DJ-6783, enoxacin, nalidixic acid, norfloxacin, and oxolinic acid after in vitro selection of resistant populations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:775–777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Duckworth, GJ, Williams, JD: Frequency of appearance of resistant variants to norfloxacin and nalidixic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 13(suppl B): 33–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Smith, JT: Mutational resistance to 4-quinolone antibacterial agents. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1984; 3:347–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Sanders, CC, Sanders, WE Jr, Goering, RN, et al: Selection of multiple antibiotic resistance by quinolones, beta-lactams, and aminoglycosides with special references to cross-resistance between unrelated drug classes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:797–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Esko, E, Renkonen, O-V: Comparative in vitro activity of norfloxacin and seven other antimicrobial agents against clinical isolates from urinary tract infections. Scand J infect Dis 1985; 17:95–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Barry, AL, Jones, RN, Thornsberry, C, et al: Antibacterial activities of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, oxolinic acid, Cinoxacin, and nalidixic acid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:633–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Eliopoulos, GM, Gardella, A, Moellering, RC Jr: In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin, A new carboxyquinolone antimicrobial agent. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:333–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Goosens, H, Demoi, P, Coignall, H, et al: Comparative in vitro activities of aztreonam, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, ofloxacin, HR810 (a new cephalosporin), RU28965 (a new macrolide), and other agents against entero-pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27:388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Muytjens, HL, Van Der Ros-Van De Repe, J, Van Veldhuizen, G: Comparative activities of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, pipemidic acid and nalidixic acid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 24:302–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Aldridge, KE, Schiro, DD, Tsai, L, et al: Ciprofloxacin: An in vitro comparison with other broad spectrum antibiotics. Current Therapeutic Research 1985; 37:754–762.Google Scholar
16.Vancaekenberghe, DL, Patty, NSR: In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin compared with those of other new fluorinated piperazinyl-substituted quinolone derivatives. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:518–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Husson, MD, Izard, D, Bouillet, L, et al; Comparative in vitro activity of ciprofloxacin against nonfermenters. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15:457–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Chin, N-X, Neu, HC: Ciprofloxacin, a quinolone carboxylic acid compound active against aerobic and anerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Forsgren, A: Comparative in vitro activity of three new quinolone antibiotics against recent clinical isolates. Scand J Infect Dis 1985; 17:91–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Clarke, AM, Zemcov, SJV, Campbell, ME: In vitro activity of Pefloxacin, compared to enoxacin, norfloxacin, gentamicin and new beta-lactams. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15:39–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Teoh-Chan, CH, Cowlishaw, A, Eley, A, et al: Laboratory evaluation of enoxacin: Comparison with norfloxacin and nalidixic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15:45–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Chin, N-X, Neu, HC: In vitro activiity of enoxacin, a quinolone carboxylic acid, compared with those of norfloxacin, new betalactams, aminoglycosides, and trimethoprim. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 24:754–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Reeves, DS, Bywater, MJ, Holt, HA: The activity of enoxacin against clinical bacterial isolates in comparison with that of five other agents, and factors affecting that activity. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 14(suppl C): 7–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Bauernfeind, A, Ullman, U: In vitro activity of enoxacin, ofloxacin, norfloxacin, and nalidixic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 14(suppl C):33–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Siporin, C, Towse, G: Enoxacin: Worldwide in vitro activity against 22,451 clinical isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 14(suppl C):47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Van Der Auwera, P, De Moor, G, Lacroix, G, et al: In vitro activity of enoxacin compared with norfloxacin and amikacin. Eur J Clin Microbial 1985; 4:55–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Sata, K, Matsuura, Y, Inoue, M, et al: In vitro and in vivo activity of DL-8280, a new oxazine derivative. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 22:548–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.King, A, Shannon, K, Phillips, I: The in vitro activities of enoxacin and ofloxacin compared with that of ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15:551–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Gadebusch, HH, Shungu, DL, Weinberg, E, et al: Comparison of the antibacterial activity of norfloxacin (MK-0366, AM-715), a new organic acid, with that of other orally absorbed chemotherapeutic agents. Infection 1982; 10:41–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Norrby, SB, Jonsson, M: Antibacterial activity of norfloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 23:15–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Bassey, CM, Baltch, AL, Smith, RP: Comparative antimicrobial activity of enoxacin, ciprofloxacin, amifloxacin, norfloxacin, and of ofloxacin against 177 bacterial isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 17:623–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Goldstein, EJC, Citron, DM: Comparative activity of the quinolones against anaerobic bacteria isolated at community hospitals. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27:657–659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.King, A, Phillips, I: The comparative in-vitro activity of Pefloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 17(suppl B):1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Auckenthaler, R, Michéa-Hamzehpour, , Pechére, JC: In-vitro activity of newer quinolones against aerobic bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 17(suppl B):29–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Gombert, ME, Aulicino, TM: Susceptibility of multiply antibiotic-resistant pneumococci to the new quinolone antibiotics, nalidixic acid, coumermycin, and novobiocin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:933–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Gay, JDDeYoung, DR, Roberts, GD: In vitro activities of norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin against mycobacterium tuberculosis, M avium complex, M chelonei, M fortuitum and M kansasi. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:94–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Greenwood, D, Laverick, A: Activities of newer quinolones against Legionella group organisms. Lancet 1983; 2:279–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Hessen, FWA, Muytjens, HL: In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, pipemidic acid, Cinoxacin, and nalidixic acid against chlamydia trachomatis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:125–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.O'Hare, MD, Felmingham, D, Ridgway, GL, et al: The comparative in vitro activity of twelve 4-quinolone antimicrobials against enteric pathogens. Drugs in Experimental Clinical Research 1985; 11:253–257.Google ScholarPubMed
40.Watt, B, Brown, FV: Is ciprofloxacin active against clinically important anaerobes? J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 17:605–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Hughes, PJ, Webb, DB, Ascher, AW: Pharmacokinetics of norfloxacin (MK 366) in patients with impaired kidney function—Some preliminary results. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 13(suppl B):55–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Wise, R: Norfloxacin—A review of pharmacology and tissue penetration. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 13(suppl B):59–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Adhami, ZN, Wise, R, Weston, D, et al: The pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of norfloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 13:87–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.Hoffken, G, Lode, H, Prinzing, C, et al: Pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin after oral and parenteral adminstration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27:375–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.Hoogkamp-Korstanje, JAA, Van Oort, HJ, Schipper, JK, et al: Intraprostatic concentration of ciprofloxacin and its activity against urinary pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 14:641–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Crump, B, Wise, R, Dent, J: Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 24:784–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Wise, R, Lockley, RM, Webberly, M, et al; Pharmacokinetics of intravenously administered ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:208–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Gonzalez, MA, Uribe, F, Moisen, SD, et al: Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of ciprofloxacin in normal volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:741–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Boelaert, J, Vlacke, Y, Schurgers, M, et al: The pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin in patients with impaired renal function. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 16:87–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50.Tsuei, SD, Darragh, AS, Brick, I: Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of enoxacin in healthy volunteers administered at a dosage of 400 mg twice daily for 14 days. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 14(suppl C):71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Wise, R, Lockley, R, Dent, J, et al: Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of enoxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:17–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Tartaglione, TA, Raffalovich, AC, Poynor, WJ, et al: Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of ciprofloxacin after sequential increasing oral doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29:62–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Brittain, DC, Scully, BE, McElrath, MJ, et al: The pharmacology of orally administered ciprofloxacin. Drugs in Experimental Clinical Research 1985; 11:339–341.Google ScholarPubMed
54.Bergan, T, Thorsteinsson, SB, Kolstad, IM, et al: Pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin after intravenous and increasing oral doses. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:187–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55.Zeiler, HJ: Influence of pH and human urine on the antibacterial activity of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin and ofloxacin. Drugs in Experimental Clinical Research 1985; 11:335–338.Google ScholarPubMed
56.Swanson, BN, Boppana, VK, Vlasses, PH, et al: Norfloxacin disposition after sequentially increasing oral doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 23:284–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57.Bologna, M, Vaggi, L, Flammini, D, et al: Norfloxacin in prostatitis: Correlation between HPLC tissue concentrations and clinical results. Drugs in Experimental Clinical Research 1985:11-95–100.Google ScholarPubMed
58.Marble, DA, Bosso, JA: Norfloxacin: A quinolone antibiotic. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1986; 20:261–266.Google Scholar
59.Boerema, J, Boll, B, Muytjens, H, et al: Efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin (Bay o 9867) in the treatment of patients with complicated urinary tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 16:212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60.Shah, PM, Frech, K: Clinical experiences with quinolones—Overview. Quinolones Bulletin 1985; 1:19–20.Google Scholar
61.Lev, B, Schwartz, E, Rubinstein, E: Effect of quinolones on the bone marrow: Animal and human studies. Submitted for Publication.Google Scholar
62.Pecquet, S, Andremont, A, Tancrede, C: Selective antimicrobial modulation of the intestinal tract by norfloxacin in human volunteers and in gnotobiotic mice associated with a human fecal flora. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29:1047–1052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63.Holt, HA, Lewis, DA, White, LO, et al: Effect of oral ciprofloxacin on the fecal flora of healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:201–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64.Guerra, JG, Falconi, E, Palomino, JC, et al: Clinical evaluation of norfloxacin versus cotrimazole in urinary tract infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1983; 2:260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65.Giamorellou, H, Tsagarakis, J, Petrikkos, G, et al: Norfloxacin versus cotrimazole in the treatment of lower urinary tract infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1983; 2:226–229.Google Scholar
66.Leigh, DA, Emmanuel, FXS: The treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa urinary tract infections with norfloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 13(suppl B):85–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67.Vogel, R, Deaney, NB, Round, EM, et al: Norfloxacin, amoxycillin cotrimazole and nalidixic acid: A summary of 3-day and 7-day therapy studies in the treatment of urinary tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984:13 (suppl B):113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68.Goldstein, EJC, Alpert, ML, Ginsberg, BP: Norfloxacin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole in the therapy of uncomplicated, community-acquired urinary tract infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27:422–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69.Sabbaj, J, Horgland, VL, Sheb, WJ: Multiclinic comparative study of norfloxacin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for treatment of urinary tract infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27:422–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70.Ganguli, LA, Keaney, MG, Gould, LJ: Norfloxacin: A three-day course for the treatment of urinary tract infection. Drugs in Experimental Clinical Research 1985; 11:177–179.Google ScholarPubMed
71.Thomas, MG, Ellis-Pegler, RB : Enoxacin treatment of urinary tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15:759–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72.Shah, PM: Pharmacokinetic parameters of quinolones in respiratory tract infections. Quinolones Bulletin 1985; 1:17.Google Scholar
73.Bergogne-B'e'rezin, E, Berthelot, G, Even, P, et al: Penetration of ciprofloxacin into bronchial secretions. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74.Shah, PM: The new quinolones. Clinical experience in severe infections. Quinolones Bulletin. 1986: 2:1.Google Scholar
75.Winjand, WJA, Van Herwaarden, CLA, Van Griethuysen, AJA, et al: Enoxacin in lower respiratory tract infections, Abstract No. 5-88-7. 14th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Kyoto, Japan. June 23-28, 1985.Google Scholar
76.Veter, N, Feist, H. Orlice, KM, et al: RTI patients treated with ciprofloxacin and cephalexin—A randomized comparison, Abstract No. P-38-95. 14th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Kyoto, Japan, June 23-28, 1985.Google Scholar
77.Kosmidis, J, Paradelis, AG, Koratzanis, G: Randomized comparative studies of ofloxacin, and other standard treatments of urinary and respiratory infection, Abstract No. 2-45-3. 14th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Kyoto, Japan, June 23-28, 1985.Google Scholar
78.Davies, BI, Maesen, FP, Baur, C: Ciprofloxacin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:226–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
79.Fourrier, F, Chopin, C: Compared randomized trial of Pefloxacin vs. usual antibiotherapy for severe broncho-pneumonia in ICU patients, Abstract No. 874. 25th Intensive Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Minneapolis, September 29-October 2, 1985.Google Scholar
80.Wolff, M, Régnier, B, Duldoss, C, et al: Penetration of pefloxacin into the CSF of patients with meningitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:289–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
81.Shalmanesh, M, Shukla, SR, Phillips, I, et al: Ciprofloxacin for treating urethral gonorrhea in men. Genitourinary Medicine 1985; 62:86–87.Google Scholar
82.Crider, SR, Cobly, SD, Miller, LK, et al: Treatment of penicillin-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae with oral norfloxacin. N Engl J Med 1984; 311:137–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
83.Notowicz, A, Stolz, E, Van Klingeren, B. A double blind study comparing two dosages of enoxacin for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoae. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 14(suppl C):91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84.Falser, N, Dalhoff, A, Weuta, H: Ciprofloxacin concentrations in tonsils following a single intravenous infusion. Infection 1985; 12:355–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85.Federspil, PJ, Lind, A, Tiesler, E, et al: Enoxacin clinical and pharmacokinetic studies in ear, nose and throat infections. Recent Advances in Chemotherapy 1985; 2:1755–1756.Google Scholar
86.Rogerie, F, Ott, D, Vandepitte, J, et al: Comparison of norfloxacin and nalidixic acid for treatment of dysentery caused by Shigella dysenteriae type 1 in adults. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29:883–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87.Mascellino, MT, Lorenzi, A, Bonanni, M, et al: Anitmicrobial activity of norfloxacin in enteric and urinary tract infections: Combined effect of norfloxacin with aminoglycosides, tetracycine and chloramphenicol. Drugs in Experimental Clinical Research 1986; 12:319–323.Google Scholar
88.Pichler, H, Diridl, G, Wolf, D: Ciprofloxacin in the treatment of acute bacterial diarrhea: A double blind study. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:241–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89.Diridl, G, Pichler, H, Wolf, D: Treatment of chronic salmonella carriers with ciprofloxacin. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:260–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
90.DuPont, HL, Ericsson, CD, Johnson, PC, et al: Antimicrobial agents in the prevention of traveler's diarrhea. Rev Infect Dis 1986; 8(suppl 2):5167–5171.Google Scholar
91.Saito, M: Experimental and clinical studies of ofloxacin in acute infectious diarrhea, in: Ofloxacin—Broad spectrum Antibacterial agent. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, 1984.Google Scholar
92.Eron, LJ, Harvey, L, Hixon, DL, et al: Ciprofloxacin therapy of infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other resistant bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27:308–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93.Mehtar, S, Drabuy, Y, Blakemore, P: Ciprofloxacin in the treatment of infections caused by gentamicin-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:248–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94.Follath, F, Bindschedler, M, Wenk, M, et al: Use of ciprofloxacin in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:236–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
95.Giamareuou, H, Galanakis, N, Dendrinos, C, et al: Evaluation of ciprofloxacin in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:232–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
96.Nix, DE, Cumbo, TJ, Devito, JM, et al: Ciprofloxacin in the treatment of soft tissue infections and osteomyelitis, Abstract No. S-51-11. 14th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Kyoto, Japan, June 23-28, 1986.Google Scholar
97.Bayer, AS, Norman, D, Anderson, D: Efficacy of ciprofloxacin on experimental arthritis caused by Escherichia coli invitro/invivo correlations. J Infect Dis 1985; 152:811–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
98.Cho, N: Fundamental and clinical evaluation of ofloxacin in the obstetric and gynecological fields, in: Ofloxacin—Broad Spectrum Antibacterial Agent. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, 1984.Google Scholar
99.Segev, S, Rubinstein, E, Schick, J, et al: Penetration of ciprofloxacin into female pelvic tissues. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1985; 5:207–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
100.Saito, A, Sawatari, K, Fukuda, Y, et al: Susceptibility of Legionellapenumophila to ofloxacin in vitro and in experimental legionella pneumonia in guinea pigs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 218:15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar