Kamagra gibt es auch als Kautabletten, die sich schneller auflösen als normale Pillen. Manche Patienten empfinden das als angenehmer. Wer sich informieren will, findet Hinweise unter kamagra kautabletten.
Raniyahramadan.com
Adv Ther (2009) 26(4):447-454.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Rate of Bacterial Eradication by Ophthalmic Solutions 
of Fourth-Generation Fluoroquinolones
Michelle C. Callegan ∙ Billy D. Novosad ∙ Raniyah T. Ramadan ∙ Brandt Wiskur ∙ Andrea L. Moyer
Received: February 25, 2009 / Published online: April 16, 2009 / Printed: May 8, 2009
 Springer Healthcare Communications 2009
Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) is pre-servative-free. Recent studies have demonstrated 
Introduction: Antibacterial activity of ophthal-
that the presence of BAK dramatically affects the 
mic fourth-generation fluoroquinolones has tra-
antibacterial activity of the ophthalmic formu-
ditionally been evaluated by comparing only 
lation of gatifloxacin. This study was designed 
their active ingredients, gatifloxacin and moxi-
to compare the kill rates of ophthalmic solu-
floxacin. However, ophthalmic formulations of 
tions of fourth-generation fluoroquinolones 
fourth-generation fluoroquinolones differ in 
against isolates of common ocular bacterial 
terms of the inclusion of preservatives. While 
pathogens. 
Methods: Approximately 5.6 log 
gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% (Zymar®; 
colony-forming units (CFU)/mL of 
Haemophilus 
Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) contains 0.005% 
influenzae (
n=1), 
Streptococcus pneumoniae (
n=1), 
benzalkonium chloride (BAK), moxifloxacin 
Staphylococcus aureus (
n=2), methicillin-resistant 
ophthalmic solution 0.5% (Vigamox®; Alcon 
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (
n=4), methicillin-resistant 
Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) (
n=4), and fluoroquinolone-resistant 
S. epidermidis (
n=1) 
Michelle C. Callegan ( ) 
Molecular Pathogenesis of Eye Infections Research 
were incubated with ophthalmic solutions of 
Center, Dean A. McGee Eye Institute, Oklahoma City, 
either gatifloxacin or moxifloxacin. Viable bac-
Department of Ophthalmology, Oklahoma Center 
teria were quantified at specific time points up 
for Neuroscience, and Department of Microbiology 
to 60 minutes. 
Results: Gatifloxacin 0.3% com-
and Immunology, University of Oklahoma Health 
Sciences Center, 608 Stanton L. Young Blvd. DMEI 418, 
pletely eradicated 
H. influenzae and 
Strep. pneu-
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104, USA. 
moniae in 5 minutes, one of two 
S. aureus isolates 
in 15 minutes, and the other 
S. aureus isolate in 
Billy D. Novosad ∙ Andrea L. Moyer 
60 minutes. Gatifloxacin 0.3% completely killed 
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, 
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 
all MRSA, MRSE, and fluoroquinolone-resistant 
S. 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
epidermidis isolates in 15 minutes. Moxifloxacin 
Raniyah T. Ramadan ∙ Brandt Wiskur 
0.5% completely eradicated 
Strep. pneumoniae 
Oklahoma Center for Neuroscience, University of 
and one of four MRSA isolates in 60 minutes. 
Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, 
All other isolates incubated with moxifloxacin 
Adv Ther (2009) 26(4):447-454.
0.5% retained viable bacteria ranging from 1.8 
isolated from suspected cases of bacterial kera-
to 4.4 log CFU/mL.
 Conclusions: The ophthal-
titis and endophthalmitis.8,10 However, there are 
mic solution of gatifloxacin 0.3% eradicated bac-
few studies that compare the rate of bacterial 
teria that frequently cause postoperative ocular 
eradication by fourth-generation fluoroquinolo-
infections substantially faster than did the oph-
nes as ophthalmic formulations.
thalmic solution of moxifloxacin 0.5%.
Ophthalmic formulations of fourth-gener-
ation fluoroquinolones differ in terms of the 
Keywords: gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 
inclusion of preservatives. While gatifloxacin 
0.3%; moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 
0.3% contains 0.005% benzalkonium chlo-
0.5%; ocular surgery prophylaxis; speed of 
ride (BAK), moxifloxacin 0.5% is preservative-
bactericidal activity
free.11,12 The presence of BAK, however, appears to dramatically affect the antibacterial activity of 
the ophthalmic formulation of gatifloxacin. An in-vitro study demonstrated that BAK lowered 
Bacterial keratitis and endophthalmitis are 
the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) 
serious vision-threatening complications of cat-
of gatifloxacin against methicillin-resistant 
aract and refractive surgery.1,2 The causative bac-
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) by approximately 
teria are commonly 
Staphylococcus, 
Streptococcus, 
2- to 500-fold compared with the MICs of gati-
and 
Haemophilus species, which usually origi-
floxacin alone.13 Gatifloxacin plus BAK was also 
nate from the patient's ocular surface and peri-
significantly more effective than gatifloxacin 
ocular skin.3,4 Perioperative topical antibiotics 
alone or BAK alone in eradicating gatifloxacin-
are generally used to reduce bacterial counts in 
resistant MRSA in vivo.14
the tear film until the epithelium is healed after 
The key to successful eradication of bacte-
surgery.5,6 Rapid and timely eradication of bacte-
ria and infection control is proper use of pro-
ria on the ocular surface before and after surgery 
phylactic agents that reduce bacterial numbers 
is crucial to a successful prophylaxis of postop-
rapidly. Therefore, this study was designed to 
erative ocular infections.
compare the kill rates of ophthalmic formula-
Gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% 
tions of fourth-generation fluoroquinolones 
(Zymar®; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) 
against bacteria that frequently cause postoper-
and moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% 
ative ocular infections.
(Vigamox®; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) are topical fourth-generation fluoro-
MATERIALS AND METHODS
quinolones that are often used to prevent and treat ocular infections.7 Several studies have 
Isolates of 
Haemophilus influenzae (
n=1), 
evaluated the antibacterial activity of ophthal-
Streptococcus pneumoniae (
n=1), 
Staphylococcus 
mic fourth-generation fluoroquinolones by com-
aureus (
n=2), MRSA (
n=4), methicillin-resistant 
paring only their active ingredients, gatifloxacin 
Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) (
n=4), and fluo-
and moxifloxacin. Both fluoroquinolones had a 
roquinolone-resistant 
S. epidermidis (
n=1) were 
broad spectrum of activity and penetrated well 
obtained from the collection of bacterial kerati-
into ocular tissues.8,9 In general, gatifloxacin and 
tis and endophthalmitis isolates maintained at 
moxifloxacin were also equally effective against 
the Dean A. McGee Eye Institute in Oklahoma 
Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms 
City, Oklahoma, USA. Gatifloxacin ophthalmic 
Adv Ther (2009) 26(4):447-454.
solution 0.3% and moxifloxacin ophthalmic 
Figure 1. Viability curves of ocular (A) 
H. influenzae and 
solution 0.5% were used as study drugs. As per 
(B) 
Strep. pneumoniae incubated with gatifloxacin 0.3% 
their commercial formulations, gatifloxacin 
or moxifloxacin 0.5%. Suspensions of 
H. influenzae 
(
n=1) or 
Strep. pneumoniae (
n=1) were incubated with 
0.3% contained BAK (0.005%) and moxifloxacin 
gatifloxacin 0.3% or moxifloxacin 0.5%, and viability was 
0.5% was preservative-free.
analyzed in triplicate at 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes. 
H. influenzae was grown from stock cultures 
on a chocolate agar while all other bacterial iso-
lates were grown on a blood agar (5% in brain heart infusion agar). Following overnight incu-
H. influenzae
bation at 37°C, bacteria were suspended in sterile 
saline to achieve an optical density of 0.13-0.15 
at 650 nm. Subsequently, 20 µL of each bacte-
rial suspension with a density of 5.65-5.72 log
colony-forming units (CFU)/mL was inoculated 
with 4 mL of study drugs and incubated at 37°C 
in a water bath.
To assess bacterial viability, aliquots were 
removed from the suspensions of 
H. influen-
zae and 
Strep. pneumoniae at 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes, and from the suspensions of 
S. 
aureus, MRSA, MRSE, and fluoroquinolone-resist-ant 
S. epidermidis at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes. 
Strep. pneumoniae
Aliquots were diluted 1:10 in Dey Engley neutral-
izing broth supplemented with 5% magnesium 
chloride and 3.5% Tween 80, and incubated for 
10 minutes at room temperature. Aliquots were 
then serially diluted, filtered through a 0.45 µm 
Supor® filter membrane (Pall Co., Ann Arbor, MI, 
USA), and washed with 300 mL of sterile saline 
supplemented with 3.5% Tween 80. The filters 
10 20 30 40 50 60
were transferred to chocolate or blood agar plates 
supplemented with 5% magnesium chloride and 3.5% Tween 80 and were incubated at 37°C in a 
by gatifloxacin 0.3% at 5 minutes while 
humidified CO chamber. Bacterial colonies were 
3.6 log CFU/mL of bacteria were recovered 
counted after a minimum of 72 hours. All exper-
from the suspensions incubated with moxi-
iments were carried out in triplicate.
floxacin 0.5% at 60 minutes (Figure 1A). Viable 
Strep. pneumoniae were reduced to 0 log CFU/mL 
by gatifloxacin 0.3% at 5 minutes and by moxi-floxacin 0.5% at 60 minutes (Figure 1B). Of the 
The initial average load of the bacterial suspen-
two 
S. aureus isolates tested, one was completely 
sions tested was 5.68±0.04 log CFU/mL. Viable 
eradicated by gatifloxacin 0.3% at 15 minutes 
H. influenzae were reduced to 0 log CFU/mL 
while the other 
S. aureus isolate was completely 
Adv Ther (2009) 26(4):447-454.
Figure 2. Viability curves of ocular 
S. aureus isolates incubated 
Figure 4. Viability curves of ocular (A) MRSE isolates and 
with gatifloxacin 0.3% or moxifloxacin 0.5%. Suspensions 
(B) fluoroquinolone-resistant 
S. epidermidis incubated 
of 
S. aureus (
n=2) were incubated with gatifloxacin 0.3% or 
with gatifloxacin 0.3% or moxifloxacin 0.5%. Suspensions 
moxifloxacin 0.5%, and viability was analyzed in triplicate at 
of MRSE (
n=4) or fluoroquinolone-resistant 
0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes. CFU=colony-forming units.
S. epidermidis (
n=1) were incubated with gatifloxacin 0.3% 
or moxifloxacin 0.5%, and viability was analyzed in triplicate 
at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes. The lines representing the 
viability of four MRSE isolates incubated with gatifloxacin 
0.3% are superimposed as the complete kill against all four 
isolates was achieved at 15 minutes. CFU=colony-forming 
units; MRSE=methicillin-resistant 
S. epidermidis.
10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 3. Viability curves of ocular MRSA isolates incubated 
with gatifloxacin 0.3% or moxifloxacin 0.5%. Suspensions 
of MRSA (
n=4) were incubated with gatifloxacin 0.3% or 
moxifloxacin 0.5%, and viability was analyzed in triplicate at 
0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes. The lines representing the viability 
of four MRSA isolates incubated with gatifloxacin 0.3% are 
10 20 30 40 50 60
superimposed as the complete kill against all four isolates 
was achieved at 15 minutes. CFU=colony-forming units; 
Fluoroquinolone-resistant 
S. epidermidis
10 20 30 40 50 60
10 20 30 40 50 60
eradicated at 60 minutes (Figure 2). None of the 
MRSA isolates was reduced to 0 log CFU/mL by 
S. aureus isolates were completely killed by moxi-
moxifloxacin 0.5% at 60 minutes (Figure 3). Viable 
floxacin 0.5%. At 60 minutes, viable bacteria 
bacteria ranging from 2.3 to 2.9 log CFU/mL 
ranging from 2.8 to 3.8 log CFU/mL were recov-
were recovered from the remaining three MRSA 
ered from 
S. aureus suspensions incubated with 
suspensions incubated with moxifloxacin 0.5%. 
moxifloxacin 0.5%.
Similar to MRSA, all viable MRSE and fluoroqui-
Bacterial counts of all MRSA isolates were 
nolone-resistant 
S. epidermidis were reduced to 
reduced to 0 log CFU/mL by gatifloxacin 0.3% at 
0 log CFU/mL by gatifloxacin 0.3% at 15 min-
15 minutes. The bacterial count of one of these 
utes. No MRSE or fluoroquinolone-resistant 
Adv Ther (2009) 26(4):447-454.
S. epidermidis isolates were completely killed by 
pneumoniae and one MRSA isolate, which were 
moxifloxacin 0.5% at 60 minutes (Figure 4). Viable 
eradicated by moxifloxacin 0.5% at 60 minutes. 
bacteria ranging from 1.8 to 4.4 log CFU/mL 
Although the time at which moxifloxacin 0.5% 
were recovered from suspensions of MRSE 
achieved a complete kill was not determined in 
and fluoroquinolone-resistant 
S. epidermidis 
this study, it has been reported that it may take 
after 60 minutes of incubation with moxiflox-
moxifloxacin as long as 4 hours to completely 
eradicate 
S. aureus.19
The underlying reason for the differential 
rate of bacterial eradication by ophthalmic formulations of gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin 
Endophthalmitis is a devastating complica-
is not known. Recent evidence demonstrat-
tion that may occur following intraocular sur-
ing that BAK enhances the antibacterial activ-
gery. It is known that clear cornea incisions 
ity of gatifloxacin against MRSA both in vitro 
may allow inflow of tear film into the ante-
and in vivo supports the notion that BAK may 
rior chamber and that wounds may leak on the 
have contributed to the faster rate of bacte-
first postoperative day.15 Several studies have 
rial eradication by gatifloxacin 0.3% in our 
shown that most postoperative infections are 
study.13,14 The contribution of BAK may also 
caused by pathogens originating from the ocu-
explain the in-vivo efficacy of gatifloxacin 
lar surface.4,16,17 The primary goal of prophylaxis 
ophthalmic solution against 
S. aureus isolates 
against postoperative infections is to reduce 
that were resistant to the gatifloxacin molecule 
the bacterial load on the ocular surface and, 
thereby, to minimize bacterial penetration into 
Bacterial resistance to second- and third-
the deeper ocular tissues and prevent infection. 
generation fluoroquinolones is of growing 
An ideal prophylactic antibiotic would have 
concern.22,23 Resistance to antibiotics may 
broad-spectrum antimicrobial coverage and a 
enhance the risk of persistent postopera-
rapid kill rate.18
tive infections and seriously jeopardize the 
Fourth-generation fluoroquinolones share 
outcome of a prophylactic therapy. Fourth-
a similar spectrum of coverage.8 Our findings, 
generation fluoroquinolones have a poten-
however, demonstrate that gatifloxacin 0.3% 
tially lower propensity to induce resistance 
eradicated bacteria that commonly cause ocu-
as two mutations are necessary to render bac-
lar infections considerably faster than moxi-
teria insusceptible to fourth-generation fluo-
floxacin 0.5%. Gatifloxacin 0.3% reduced the 
roquinolones, whereas only a single enzyme 
viable cell counts of almost all susceptible 
mutation may be sufficient for bacteria to 
and resistant isolates to 0 log CFU/mL at the 
become resistant to the older fluoroquinolo-
first study time point, 5 or 15 minutes, with 
nes.24-27 In general, use of the most effective 
the exception of one 
S. aureus isolate, which 
antibiotic with the least propensity to induce 
was eradicated after 60 minutes. These find-
resistance is recommended as the first-line 
ings suggest that the actual time necessary for 
prophylaxis in order to minimize the devel-
a complete kill may be even shorter than 5 or 
opment of resistance.28 In our study, among 
15 minutes. In contrast, bacterial eradication 
fourth-generation fluoroquinolones, gati-
with moxifloxacin 0.5% was incomplete for 
floxacin 0.3% eradicated MRSA and MRSE 
almost all isolates, with the exception of 
Strep. 
faster than moxifloxacin 0.5%, suggesting 
Adv Ther (2009) 26(4):447-454.
that the ophthalmic formulation of gati-
floxacin may be a more effective prophylac-tic option against postoperative infections 
The ophthalmic solution of gatifloxacin erad-
caused by resistant bacteria.
icated bacteria that frequently cause postopera-
Postoperative ocular infections are seri-
tive ocular infections substantially faster than 
ous complications that may result in the loss 
did the ophthalmic solution of moxifloxacin. 
of vision despite therapeutic interventions.29 
Further clinical studies are warranted to evaluate 
Effective prophylactic strategies are key to 
the implication of our findings in the prophy-
preventing ocular infections. Several clinical 
laxis against ocular infections in patients under-
studies suggest that gatifloxacin 0.3% may be 
going ocular surgery.
more efficacious than moxifloxacin 0.5% in eradicating bacteria in vivo. In patients under-
going cataract surgery, gatifloxacin 0.3% sig-nificantly eliminated conjunctival bacterial 
This study was supported by a research grant 
flora after both 1-hour and 1-day administra-
from Allergan, Inc. The authors have no finan-
tions whereas moxifloxacin 0.5% was effective 
cial or proprietary interest in any material or 
only after 1-day administration.30,31 Recent 
method mentioned in this study.
studies found that the incidence of endoph-thalmitis presenting during the prophylactic 
treatment was lower in patients who received gatifloxacin 0.3% than those who received 
1. Miller JJ, Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr., Smiddy WE, New-
ton J, Miller D. Acute-onset endophthalmitis after 
moxifloxacin 0.5%.32,33 Our findings suggest 
cataract surgery (2000-2004): incidence, clinical 
that the superior outcome of prophylaxis with 
settings, and visual acuity outcomes after treat-ment. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:983-987.
the ophthalmic formulation of gatifloxacin may be, at least in part, due to its faster rate 
2. Solomon R, Donnenfeld ED, Azar DT, et al. In-
of bacterial eradication.
fectious keratitis after laser in situ keratomileu-sis: results of an ASCRS survey. J Cataract Refract 
In-vitro kill studies are associated with a 
number of limitations. Under in-vitro condi-
3. Pushker N, Dada T, Sony P, Ray M, Agarwal T, Vaj-
tions, bacteria are exposed to a constant con-
payee RB. Microbial keratitis after laser in situ 
centration of an antibiotic only once, whereas 
keratomileusis. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:280-286.
under in-vivo conditions there are multiple 
4. Speaker MG, Milch FA, Shah MK, Eisner W, Kre-
daily exposures to a changing concentration 
iswirth BN. Role of external bacterial flora in the 
of an antibiotic. It remains to be determined 
pathogenesis of acute postoperative endophthalmi-tis. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:639-649.
whether the in-vitro kill studies appropriately model the multiple daily dosing of antibiot-
5. Liesegang TJ. Use of antimicrobials to prevent post-
ics. However, the changes in the tear levels 
operative infection in patients with cataracts. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001;12:68-74.
of ophthalmic solutions of fourth-generation fluoroquinolones are not expected to affect 
6. Donnenfeld ED, O'Brien TP, Solomon R, Perry 
HD, Speaker MG, Wittpenn J. Infectious keratitis 
the relative differences observed between the 
after photorefractive keratectomy. Ophthalmol-
ophthalmic formulations tested in this study, 
as the tear levels of both formulations are 
7. Schlech BA, Blondeau J. Future of ophthalmic 
subjected to similar changes.
anti-infective therapy and the role of moxifloxacin 
Adv Ther (2009) 26(4):447-454.
ophthalmic solution 0.5% (VIGAMOX). Surv Oph-
18. Tipperman R. Pharmacologic considerations for cat-
thalmol. 2005;50(suppl. 1):S64-S67.
aract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15:51-55.
8. Callegan MC, Ramirez R, Kane ST, Cochran DC, 
Jensen H. Antibacterial activity of the fourth-
19. Kowalski RP, Kowalski BR, Romanowski EG, Mah 
generation fluoroquinolones gatifloxacin and 
FS, Thompson PP, Gordon YJ. The in vitro impact 
moxifloxacin against ocular pathogens. Adv 
of moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin concentration 
(0.5% vs 0.3%) and the addition of benzalkonium chloride on antibacterial efficacy. Am J Ophthal-
9. Solomon R, Donnenfeld ED, Perry HD, et al. Pen-
etration of topically applied gatifloxacin 0.3%, moxifloxacin 0.5%, and ciprofloxacin 0.3% into the 
20. Romanowski EG, Mah FS, Yates KA, Kowalski 
aqueous humor. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:466-
RP, Gordon YJ. The successful treatment of gat-
ifloxacin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus kera-titis with Zymar (gatifloxacin 0.3%) in a NZW 
10. Kowalski RP, Dhaliwal DK, Karenchak LM, et al. 
rabbit model. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:867-
Gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin: an in vitro suscep-
tibility comparison to levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin using bacterial keratitis isolates. Am 
21. Tungsiripat T, Sarayba MA, Kaufman MB, et al. 
J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:500-505.
Fluoroquinolone therapy in multiple-drug resistant staphylococcal keratitis after lamellar keratectomy 
11. Zymar® [package insert]. Irvine, CA: Allergan, 
in a rabbit model. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:76-
12. Vigamox® [package insert]. Fort Worth, TX: Alcon 
22. Goldstein MH, Kowalski RP, Gordon YJ. Emerging 
Laboratories, Inc.; 2006.
fluoroquinolone resistance in bacterial keratitis: a 5-year review. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1313-
13. Blondeau JM, Borsos S, Hesje CK. Antimicrobial ef-
ficacy of gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin with and without benzalkonium chloride compared with 
23. Mather R, Karenchak LM, Romanowski EG, Kow-
ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin against methicil-
alski RP. Fourth generation fluoroquinolones: new 
lin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Chemoth-
weapons in the arsenal of ophthalmic antibiotics. 
Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:463-466.
14. Romanowski EG, Mah FS, Kowalski RP, Yates KA, 
24. Hooper DC. Mechanisms of action and resistance 
Gordon YJ. Benzalkonium chloride enhances the 
of older and newer fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect 
antibacterial efficacy of gatifloxacin in an experi-
Dis. 2000;31(suppl. 2):S24-S28.
mental rabbit model of intrastromal keratitis. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2008;24:380-384.
25. Huelves L, Sevillano D, Martinez-Marin C, et al. 
Correlation between in vitro and in vivo activity of 
15. Herretes S, Stark WJ, Pirouzmanesh A, Reyes JM, 
levofloxacin and moxifloxacin against pneumococ-
McDonnell PJ, Behrens A. Inflow of ocular surface 
cal strains with different susceptibilities to fluoro-
fluid into the anterior chamber after phacoemulsifi-
quinolones. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006;27:294-
cation through sutureless corneal cataract wounds. 
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:737-740.
26. Ng EY, Trucksis M, Hooper DC. Quinolone resist-
16. Bannerman TL, Rhoden DL, McAllister SK, Miller 
ance mutations in topoisomerase IV: relationship 
JM, Wilson LA. The source of coagulase-negative 
to the flqA locus and genetic evidence that topoi-
staphylococci in the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy 
somerase IV is the primary target and DNA gyrase 
Study. A comparison of eyelid and intraocular iso-
is the secondary target of fluoroquinolones in Sta-
lates using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Arch 
phylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemoth-
17. Kenchappa P, Duggirala A, Ahmed N, et al. Fluo-
27. Yague G, Morris JE, Pan XS, Gould KA, Fisher LM. 
rescent amplified fragment length polymorphism 
Cleavable-complex formation by wild-type and 
(FAFLP) genotyping demonstrates the role of bio-
quinolone-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae 
film-producing methicillin-resistant periocular Sta-
type II topoisomerases mediated by gemifloxacin 
phylococcus epidermidis strains in postoperative 
and other fluoroquinolones. Antimicrob Agents 
endophthalmitis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2006;6:1-5.
Adv Ther (2009) 26(4):447-454.
28. Hwang DG. Fluoroquinolone resistance in oph-
conjunctival bacterial flora following a one-
thalmology and the potential role for newer oph-
day or one-hour application. J Ocul Pharmacol 
thalmic fluoroquinolones. Surv Ophthalmol. 
32. Jensen MK, Fiscella RG, Moshirfar M, Mooney 
29. Callegan MC, Gilmore MS, Gregory M, et al. Bac-
B. Third- and fourth-generation fluoroqui-
terial endophthalmitis: therapeutic challenges 
nolones: retrospective comparison of endoph-
and host-pathogen interactions. Prog Retin Eye 
thalmitis after cataract surgery performed over 
10 years. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:1460-1467.
30. Moss JM, Nguyen D, Liu YI, et al. Comparison of 
one-day versus one-hour application of topical 
33. Moshirfar M, Feiz V, Vitale AT, Wegelin JA, Basa-
gatifloxacin in eliminating conjunctival bacterial 
vanthappa S, Wolsey DH. Endophthalmitis af-
flora. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:2013-2016.
ter uncomplicated cataract surgery with the use of fourth-generation fluoroquinolones: a retro-
31. Ta CN, Chan I, Dhatt HS, et al. Prospective com-
spective observational case series. Ophthalmol-
parison of topical moxifloxacin in eliminating 
Source: http://raniyahramadan.com/media/AdvTher2009.pdf
   Contents lists available at  Artificial Intelligence in Medicine A semantic graph-based approach to biomedical summarisation Laura Plaza , Alberto Díaz, Pablo Gervás Departamento de Ingeniería del Software e Inteligencia Artificial, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C/Profesor José García Santesmases, s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain Objective: Access to the vast body of research literature that is available in biomedicine and related
    Rule-Based Policy Representation andReasoning for the Semantic Web Piero A. Bonatti and Daniel Olmedilla a di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy L3S Research Center and University of [email protected] Summary. The Semantic Web aims at enabling sophisticated and autonomic ma-chine to machine interactions without human intervention, by providing machinesnot only with data but also with its meaning (semantics). In this setting, traditionalsecurity mechanisms are not suitable anymore. For example, identity-based accesscontrol assumes that parties are known in advance. Then, a machine first determinesthe identity of the requester in order to either grant or deny access, depending on itsassociated information (e.g., by looking up its set of permissions). In the SemanticWeb, any two strangers can interact with each other automatically and thereforethis assumption does not hold. Hence, a semantically enriched process is requiredin order to regulate an automatic access to sensitive information. Policy-based ac-cess control provides sophisticated means in order to support protecting sensitiveresources and information disclosure.