Are moxifloxacin and levofloxacin equally effective to treat XDR tuberculosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Moxifloxacin retains partial activity against some fluoroquinolone-resistant mutants of Mycobacterium tuberculosis . Levofloxacin is presumed to be as active as moxifloxacin against drug-susceptible tuberculosis and to have a better safety profile. Objectives: To compare the in vivo activity of levofloxacin and moxifloxacin against M. tuberculosis strains with various levels of fluoroquinolone resistance. Methods: BALB/c mice were intravenously infected with 10 6 M. tuberculosis H37Rv and three isogenic mutants: GyrA A90V, GyrB E540A and GyrB A543V. Treatment with 50 or 100 mg/kg levofloxacin and 60 or 66 mg/kg moxifloxacin was given orally every 6 h, for 4 weeks. Results: Levofloxacin 50 and 100 mg/kg q6h and moxifloxacin 60 and 66 mg/kg q6h generated AUCs in mice equivalent to those of levofloxacin 750 and 1000 mg/day and moxifloxacin 400 and 800 mg/day, respectively, in humans. Moxifloxacin 60 and 66 mg/kg q6h had bactericidal activity against strain H37Rv (MIC ≤ 0.25 mg/L) and mutants GyrB E540A and GyrB A543V (MIC = 0.5 mg/L). Against mutant GyrA A90V (MIC = 2 mg/L), moxifloxacin 60 mg/kg q6h did not prevent bacillary growth, whereas 66 mg/kg q6h had bacteriostatic activity. Levofloxacin 50 mg/kg q6h had bactericidal activity against H37Rv (MIC ≤ 0.25 mg/L) but not against the mutant strains. Levofloxacin 100 mg/kg q6h had bactericidal activity against H37Rv and mutants GyrB E540A (MIC = 0.5 mg/L) and GyrB A543V (MIC= 1 mg/L) but not against mutant GyrA A90V (MIC = 4 mg/L). Conclusions: All mutations reduced fluoroquinolone activity, even those classified as susceptible according to phenotypic tests. High-dose levofloxacin is less effective than high-dose moxifloxacin against both fluoroquinolone-resistant and -susceptible M. tuberculosis strains in mice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".