Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Apr 23:18:1993-2004.
doi: 10.2147/IDR.S501783. eCollection 2025.

Establishing Sitafloxacin Epidemiological Cut-off Values (ECOFFs) for Clinical Bacterial Isolates

Jingjia Zhang #  1   2 , Xue Li #  1 , Xinmiao Jia #  3 , Yun Li  4 , Bo Zheng  4 , Yunsong Yu  5 , Fupin Hu  6 , Ziyong Sun  7 , Zhongju Chen  7 , Ge Zhang  1 , Wei Kang  1 , Tong Wang  1 , Jin Li  1 , Haotian Gao  1 , Qiaolian Yi  1 , Wei Yu  1   8 , Xiaobing Chu  1   8 , Yingchun Xu  1 , Qiwen Yang  1   9
Affiliations

Establishing Sitafloxacin Epidemiological Cut-off Values (ECOFFs) for Clinical Bacterial Isolates

Jingjia Zhang et al. Infect Drug Resist. .

Abstract

Objective: To establish the epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs) of sitafloxacin against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, and Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Methods: We collected 2264 clinical isolates from five different labs located in four cities in China. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and inhibition zone diameters of sitafloxacin for all isolates were determined by using the broth microdilution method (BMD) and the disk diffusion method according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) guidelines. MIC ECOFFs were determined using ECOFFinder software, with the 99% calculated ECOFF selected as the initial value. Zone diameter ECOFFs were determined via the visual estimation method. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on E. coli strains exhibiting overlapping MICs between wild-type (WT) and non-wild-type (NWT) groups to analyze resistance mechanisms.

Results: Sitafloxacin MICs ranged from 0.002 to 64 mg/L, while inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 45 mm across the nine species. MIC ECOFFs were determined as 0.032, 0.064, 0.125, 0.5, 0.064, 0.125, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125 mg/L for E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. mirabilis (tentative ECOFF), P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. aureus, E. faecalis, E. faecium, and S. pneumoniae, respectively. Except for S. pneumoniae, MICs of the other eight species showed a high correlation with zone diameters (|r| > 0.8, P < 0.0001). Consequently, the zone diameter ECOFFs were established as 26, 25, 24, 24, 25, 26, 21, and 22 for E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. mirabilis, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. aureus, E. faecalis, and E. faecium, respectively.

Conclusion: We established MIC and zone diameter ECOFFs for sitafloxacin against the nine species listed above. The MIC ECOFF for P. mirabilis was classified as tentative. For S. pneumoniae, the correlation between zone diameters and MICs was insufficient to establish a zone diameter ECOFF.

Keywords: BMD; ECOFF; MIC; disk diffusion; sitafloxacin; zone diameter.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

None
Graphical abstract
Figure 1
Figure 1
(A–I): The MIC distributions of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. mirabilis, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. aureus, E. faecalis, E. faecium, and S. pneumoniae, respectively. The dotted lines represent estimated ECOFFs of each species using ECOFFinder.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A–I): Distribution of inhibition zone diameters and MICs (mg/L) of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. mirabilis, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. aureus, E. faecalis, E. faecium, and S. pneumoniae, respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Distribution of resistance mechanisms of E. coli with MIC of 0.032 and 0.064 mg/L in 48 strains. (B) ECOFFinder calculated the ECOFF value of E. coli.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Hussen NH, Hamid SJ, Sabir MN. et al Novel penicillin derivatives against selected multiple-drug resistant bacterial strains: design, synthesis, structural analysis, in silico and in vitro studies. Curr Org Synth. 2024;21:684–703. doi:10.2174/1570179420666230510104319 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thiazole-pyrazoline hybrids as potential antimicrobial agent: synthesis, biological evaluation, molecular docking, DFT studies and POM analysis. J mol Struct. 2023;1282. doi:10.1016/j.molstruc.2023.135191 - DOI
    1. Chen CK, Cheng IL, Chen YH, Lai CC. Efficacy and safety of sitafloxacin in the treatment of acute bacterial infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Antibiotics. 2020;9:106. doi:10.3390/antibiotics9030106 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Okumura R, Hirata T, Onodera Y, et al. Dual-targeting properties of the 3-aminopyrrolidyl quinolones, DC-159a and sitafloxacin, against DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV: contribution to reducing in vitro emergence of quinolone-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62:98–104. doi:10.1093/jac/dkn136 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jolley A, Andrews JM, Brenwald N, Wise R. The in-vitro activity of a new highly active quinolone, DU-6859a. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;32:757–763. doi:10.1093/jac/32.5.757 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources