Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8): 543-557

REVIEW ARTICLE 1173-2563/11/0008-0543/$49.95/0

ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.

The Role of Topical Moxifloxacin, a New

Antibacterial in Europe, in the Treatment
of Bacterial Conjunctivitis
Jose Benitez-del-Castillo,1 Yves Verboven,2 David Stroman3 and Laurent Kodjikian4,5
1 Ocular Surface and Inflammation Department, Ophthalmology, Hospital Clinico de San Carlos, Madrid,
Spain and Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
2 Alcon Research Ltd, Puurs, Belgium
3 Alcon Research Ltd, Fort Worth, TX, USA
4 Department of Ophthalmology, Croix-Rousse University Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon and
University of Lyon, Lyon, France
5 Laboratory of Biomaterials, Medical Devices and Matrix Remodelling, Claude Bernard Lyon I University,
Lyon, France

Contents
Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
1.1 Burden on Patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
1.2 Burden on Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
2. Management of the Health Issue: A Clinical and Healthcare Utilization Perspective in European
Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
2.1 Treatment by a General Practitioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
2.2 Treatment by a Specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
3. Use of Topical Moxifloxacin for Bacterial Conjunctivitis in Clinical Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
3.1 Dosage and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
3.2 Antibacterial Resistance and Topical Moxifloxacin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
3.3 Adverse Effect Profile and Acceptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
4. Cost to the Healthcare System of Treatment with Topical Moxifloxacin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
4.1 Reduction in Treatment Failures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
4.2 Healthcare Resources and Cost of Treatment Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
4.3 Healthcare Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552
4.4 Impact on the Healthcare Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554

Abstract This article discusses current practice in the treatment of conjunctivitis and
how the use of topical moxifloxacin can increase therapeutic effectiveness,
reduce treatment failures and, consequently, be cost effective and reduce the
societal burden of the disorder. Current practice and effectiveness data were
derived from the literature. Data on healthcare utilization as a result of treat-
ment failure were collected by survey and the cost of treatment was defined
using national costings. A decision-analytic model to assess cost effectiveness
544 Benitez-del-Castillo et al.

was developed and the impact on the healthcare budget was calculated to
define the health economic impact.
Bacterial conjunctivitis represents a significant health problem and ac-
counts for an estimated 1–1.5% of primary-care consultations. The disorder is
highly contagious and causes a substantial healthcare and societal burden.
Bacterial conjunctivitis is generally self-limiting, resolving within 1–2 weeks.
However, the use of antibacterials significantly improves clinical and micro-
biological remission, shortens symptom duration, and enables more effective
use of healthcare resources, compared with placebo. From a health economic
perspective this benefits the healthcare system and society, since fewer
healthcare resources are needed and the adult affected, or the parent/care-
giver of the child affected, can return to full work capacity sooner, reducing
loss of productivity.
Treatment strategies vary significantly between countries. Most patients
are first seen in primary care, where ‘wait-and-see’, lubrification and anti-
septic or antibacterial treatment is provided. In Europe, when antibacterials
are prescribed most general practitioners (GPs) prescribe a broad-spectrum
topical antibacterial. The most commonly used drugs are chloramphenicol
and fusidic acid, with fluoroquinolones rarely reported as first-line treatment
by GPs. At the specialist (ophthalmologist) level, or for second-line treatment
at the GP level, topical antibacterials are frequently used. However, in most
countries, topical fluoroquinolones, particularly those recently approved by
the European Medicines Agency, such as topical levofloxacin and topical
moxifloxacin, are rarely used and instead are reserved for use as a last resort.
In other parts of the world topical lomefloxacin, gatifloxacin and/or besi-
floxacin are also available. The strategy of using novel topical fluoroquino-
lones as a last resort reflects a belief that the use of topical fluoroquinolones
may enhance the development of resistance, jeopardizing future availability
of antibacterial treatment for ocular infections. In fact, most cases of bac-
terial resistance arise as a result of systemic treatment. Thus, this concern
should not be extrapolated to topical use of fluoroquinolones, which results
in antibacterial concentrations at the ocular surface that can significantly
exceed mutant prevention concentrations. In addition, with products such as
topical moxifloxacin, a dual-step mutation is required for resistance to
emerge. Moxifloxacin restricts the selection of resistant mutants, meaning
that emergence of resistance is unlikely.
The strategy of not using the most effective fluoroquinolones such as topical
moxifloxacin may lead to more patients with no improvement or worsening
of symptoms, requiring re-intervention, additional examination and new treat-
ment; these outcomes are defined as ‘treatment failures’. Treatment failures
cause an extra societal burden and increased costs due to the extra healthcare
resources required (additional GP/specialist visits, laboratory tests, additional
treatment, etc.).
Compared with non-fluoroquinolones, topical moxifloxacin has a higher
potency and faster in vitro ‘speed-to-kill’. It has also been shown that, within
the fluoroquinolone class, topical moxifloxacin and besifloxacin achieve the
highest mean concentrations in conjunctival tissue, have the longest residence
times and display favourable area under the concentration-time curve from
time zero to 24 hours (AUC24)/minimum inhibitory concentration ratio required
to inhibit the growth of 90% of organisms (MIC90) and thus favourable

ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis 545

pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics. This can result in reduced

time-to-cure and a lower number of treatment failures, leading to better dis-
ease management and a healthcare-economic benefit arising from the asso-
ciated reduction in utilization of healthcare resources.
The high potency and mean concentration in conjunctival tissue combined
with the long residence time of topical moxifloxacin enables a dosing strategy
of three times daily for 5 days. Topical moxifloxacin is also the first ophthalmic
antibacterial in Europe provided as a multidose, self-preserved, topical
solution, thus avoiding the risk of benzalkonium chloride preservative-
related allergic reactions and swelling. In addition, topical moxifloxacin has a
near neutral pH (6.8) and is well tolerated by patients.
Given the characteristics of the novel topical fluoroquinolones, a change
in the healthcare treatment strategy for acute infectious conjunctivitis is to be
recommended. Topical application of fluoroquinolones, such as moxiflox-
acin multidose self-preserved solution, should be considered earlier in the
treatment path for conjunctivitis. Notwithstanding the premium price at-
tached to this novel topical antibacterial, use of topical moxifloxacin for
bacterial conjunctivitis can be cost effective and even generate total health-
care budget savings by reducing both the costs of managing treatment failures
and the use of clinicians’ time to manage such failures.

1. Introduction In adults, the most common microbial patho-

Conjunctivitis is used to describe any inflamma-
tion of the conjunctiva. It is generally characterized
by irritation, itching, foreign body sensation, and
tearing or discharge.[1,2] Severe symptoms may
also include burning and swelling, and the condi-
tion is commonly referred to as ‘red eye’ or ‘pink
eye’. Conjunctivitis may be infectious (caused by
bacteria or viruses) or allergic.[3]
1.1 Burden on Patients
Conjunctivitis occurs worldwide and affects all
age groups, but is especially prevalent in children.
In Western countries the estimated prevalence of
conjunctivitis is 13–15 cases per 1000 persons per
year.[4-6] In children incidences of up to 80 per
1000 children up to 1 year of age have been re-
ported.[7] Estimates of the proportion of infective
conjunctivitis that is bacterial vary widely among
studies. Recent studies in primary care estimate
that between 33% and 78% of cases are bacterial
in origin.[8] Bacterial conjunctivitis is estimated to
be one of the most common ophthalmic conditions
in the developed world, accounting for 1–1.5% of
annual consultations in primary care.[9-11]
gens associated with bacterial conjunctivitis are
Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae,
followed by Haemophilus influenzae.[1,12-14] In
children, bacterial conjunctivitis is more common
than viral. Approximately 80% of cases of
conjunctivitis in children are bacterial in origin,
being caused mainly by H. influenzae and
S. pneumoniae.[15,16] Bacterial conjunctivitis may
also result from a systemic infection with Neisseria
gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis in sexually
active individuals and in neonates.[17] These causes
of extremely severe conjunctival disease, however,
have a low incidence in European countries.[17]
Although mostly bacterial conjunctivitis is self-
limiting,[18,19] resolving within 1–2 weeks of
onset,[15,20] in rare cases, serious, permanent damage
to the eye can occur.[21] Bacterial conjunctivitis
that is not rapidly diagnosed represents an ocular
problem, which, unless managed appropriately,
may progress to infectious keratitis and endo-
phthalmitis.[2,22-25] Other more common complica-
tions include otitis media, which may develop in
25% of children with H. influenzae conjunctivitis.[26]
The symptoms of bacterial conjunctivitis cause
both pain and irritation for sufferers. Due to its
highly contagious nature,[27] it may be recommended

ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
546
that sufferers are kept in isolation, i.e. stay away
from daycare facilities, school or the workplace.[28]
While epidemics or outbreaks of conjunctivitis
are usually caused by viruses, recent studies have
implicated bacteria, especially S. pneumoniae, in
such cases.[29,30]
1.2 Burden on Society
As mentioned in section 1.1, conjunctivitis is
highly contagious,[27] particularly among children
and the elderly.[31-33] In a recent study, over 40%
of the conjunctival bacteria collected in a clinical
setting were obtained from patients aged <5 years.[34]
Due to its highly contagious nature, children with
the condition are usually recommended not to
attend school or daycare. A survey of ophthal-
mologists found that 40–80% of children were
advised to stay away from school and up to 100%
of adults had sick leave certified by some oph-
thalmologists in some countries, with the average
duration of absence or leave being 5 days.[28] These
measures have a health economic impact on society,
since the adult affected, or the parent/caregiver of
the affected child, will then not be able to attend
work, resulting in a loss of productivity.
2. Management of the Health Issue:
A Clinical and Healthcare Utilization
Perspective in European Countries
2.1 Treatment by a General Practitioner
The majority of conjunctivitis patients are first
seen in primary care. It is estimated that between
2% and 5% of all general practice consultations
concern eye problems.[9,31,35,36] Acute bacterial
conjunctivitis is the eye disease most commonly
seen by general practitioners (GPs).[9,10,35]
Management of conjunctivitis, however, varies
between countries, and in some countries patients
may directly consult an ophthalmologist or be
referred via an optician/optometrist. Differences
in the management strategies in different coun-
tries may also be due to the availability of oph-
thalmologists in different countries. For example,
in the Netherlands there are a limited number of
registered ophthalmologists (593) for a popula-
tion of 16 584 127.[37] In addition, these ophthal-
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Benitez-del-Castillo et al.
mologists are always located at hospitals, which
makes them less accessible to the general public
compared with other European countries, such as
Belgium or Spain. In the latter country, there
were an estimated 4466 ophthalmologists for
a population of 45 989 016 in 2009.[38]
The treatment approach following a ‘treatment
failure’ (defined as no improvement or a worsen-
ing of symptoms during the treatment period re-
quiring re-intervention and possible additional
examination) also varies between different coun-
tries, with the patient either being referred to an
ophthalmologist or continuing to be managed
and treated by the GP.[39]
Clinicians often face a high degree of difficulty
in differentiating between viral and bacterial
conjunctivitis based solely on signs and symp-
toms.[40] No clear criteria to differentiate these
aetiologies have been developed to date. In fact,
a recent survey found that only 36% of GPs felt
able to discriminate between acute bacterial and
viral conjunctivitis.[11]
In order to diagnose the viral or bacterial cause,
and to determine the specific pathogen, eye swabs
(requiring up to 7 days for culture growth) and
microbiological examination may be performed.
However, in practice, eye swabs are rarely taken
as treatment is usually started immediately. Also,
most cases of bacterial conjunctivitis are self-
limiting and benign and begin to resolve with use
of a broad-spectrum antibacterial before the re-
sults of any laboratory tests are available.[20]
Spontaneous cure of bacterial conjunctivitis
has been reported to be likely to occur within
1–2 weeks in around 65% of cases,[15,20] so there is
the potential option to ‘wait-and-see’ or delay the
use of antibacterials.[41] However, this strategy
leads to concerns relating to the contagious
character of the disease, the risk of complica-
tions[19] and the increased healthcare professional
resources associated with this approach.[42] This
is due to the higher number of treatment failures,
which is the major cost driver in the management
of bacterial conjunctivitis.[43]
A Cochrane systematic review of the use of
antibacterials for bacterial conjunctivitis found
that, compared with placebo treatment, anti-
bacterials significantly improved clinical and
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis
microbiological remission[19] and could be used
to shorten the duration of symptoms and reduce
the chance of sequelae.[20] Use of antibacterials is
also thought to limit the spread of contagious
bacterial strains and thus may prevent epidemics
of bacterial conjunctivitis.[18,44]
Given the difficulty in determining whether
conjunctivitis has a viral or bacterial cause, most
GPs (as many as 95%) usually prescribe a broad-
spectrum topical antibacterial in most cases of
acute infectious conjunctivitis, whether viral or
bacterial.[7,10,11,45]
In the UK and the Netherlands, up to 64% of
GPs used chloramphenicol as their drug of choice,
while up to 27% primarily used fusidic acid, with
use of fluoroquinolones being rarely reported as a
first line of treatment at the GP level.[7,8,10,11,28]
However, marked differences in the treatment
administered were observed between different
countries with, for example, Spanish GPs using
aminoglycosides as first-line treatment in 30% of
cases.[28] Recent studies evaluating use of chlor-
amphenicol[15] and fusidic acid[4] in clinical prac-
tice were not able to demonstrate improvements
with treatment, and such findings have led to dif-
ferent recommendations in different countries.[46]
Referral by the GP to a specialist at the time of
a treatment failure is country specific. The action
taken by the GP can range from immediate
referral (e.g. in Spain) to further examination
and the trial of a new antibacterial (e.g. in
Scotland).[28] The choice of therapy by a GP after
a treatment failure in countries where the patient
is not referred to a specialist (ophthalmologist) is
similar to that by a specialist.
2.2 Treatment by a Specialist
Strategies for the management of conjunctivitis
by specialists (ophthalmologists) also differ among
countries. The generally accepted strategy is a step-
wise approach to antibacterial use, reserving the
most potent for last. Therefore in many countries
topical fluoroquinolones, especially those approved
recently, are not used early in management by
specialists,[28] but are rather reserved for later use.
This strategy, however, still results in a relatively
high number of treatment failures at the specialist
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
547
level and, as a consequence, to extra costs asso-
ciated with these failures.[28] Treatment failures
may occur because the antibacterial used does
not cover the pathogen causing the conjunctivitis
and/or because of emergence of resistance in some
pathogens to certain antibacterials.[47,48] In most
cases, the latter involves the emergence of plasmid-
mediated resistance genes or single-step chromo-
somal mutations in a setting of insufficient
antibacterial concentrations.[47,48]
Treatment failures accompanied by no improve-
ment or worsening of the patient’s symptoms are
associated with a substantial increase in costs due
to the additional healthcare resources required
(additional GP/specialist visits, laboratory tests,
etc.)[43] [figure 1]. Therefore, a need for an effec-
tive antibacterial agent that reduces the incidence
of treatment failures and negates the requirement
for additional healthcare resources is apparent.
Use of potent, broad-spectrum antibacterials
ensures rapid and effective resolution of acute
bacterial conjunctivitis.[49] Using a novel topical
fluoroquinolone as a first choice rather than as
a last resort whenever the patient is seen by a
Receptrule1
Chlamydia test
Swab ± culture
Switch drug
Ophthalmology visits
133 108 215
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Scotland Spain Netherlands
Fig. 1. Average overall cost (year of costing 2009) and distribution
of costs when initial treatment fails to improve symptoms of in-
fectious conjunctivitis based upon a survey of ophthalmologists in
different countries. For individual ophthalmologists, treatment failure
costs ranged from h94 to h279.[28] 1 The receptrule is specific to the
Netherlands and refers to the extra payment that the pharmacist
receives from the Government when he/she provides the medication
that is on the prescription.
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
548
specialist would result in faster symptom relief
and a lower rate of treatment failures.[50] This
would then lower the consumption of healthcare
resources, thereby reducing costs.[43] Further-
more, use of, for example, topical moxifloxacin
as a preferred choice of treatment at the specialist
level would not be expected to lead to a signif-
icant increase in bacterial fluoroquinolone
resistance (see section 3.2).[51,52]
3. Use of Topical Moxifloxacin for
Bacterial Conjunctivitis in Clinical
Practice
The data on topical moxifloxacin for the
treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis discussed in
this section were derived from a PubMed search
using the terms ‘moxifloxacin and conjunctivitis’
and from all trials reported to the European
Medicines Agency to obtain market authoriza-
tion for the approved indication of bacterial con-
junctivitis. Publications evaluating use outside the
approved indication or not considering moxi-
floxacin as therapy were excluded. Healthcare
utilization data at the time of treatment failure
were collected by survey and the cost of treatment
was defined using national costings. A decision-
analytic model to assess cost effectiveness was
developed and the impact on the healthcare budget
was calculated to define the health economic impact.
When evaluating the potential effectiveness of
topical antibacterials, not only the potency but also
the mean concentration in conjunctival tissue,
residence, ‘speed-to-kill’ and bactericidal ability,
along with the compliance with prescribed dosing,
need to be considered. All of these factors con-
tribute to rapid eradication of bacteria, decrease the
risk of disease transmission, and shorten symp-
tom and disease duration.
Moxifloxacin achieves concentrations in the
conjunctiva well above the minimum inhibitory
concentration (MIC) for S. aureus, S. pneumoniae
and H. influenzae,[53-56] which are some of the most
common causes of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.
The MIC for moxifloxacin for most pathogens
is lower than that of other commonly used anti-
bacterials, such as gentamicin, tobramycin, poly-
myxin B, trimethoprim, chloramphenicol, fusidic
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Benitez-del-Castillo et al.
acid, erythromycin and azithromycin.[50,57] At a
1 : 1000 dilution, which simulates concentrations
in the eye a few minutes after topical moxifloxacin
has been instilled, moxifloxacin demonstrated a
more effective kill rate compared with other com-
monly used non-fluoroquinolones[52,58] (figure 2)
and fluoroquinolones[59] (figure 3) available in
Europe. Moxifloxacin demonstrated a 99.9% kill
rate within 3 hours for S. aureus (figure 2a and
figure 3), 2 hours for S. pneumoniae (figure 2b)
and 30 minutes for H. influenzae (figure 2c)[52,58]
and susceptible and fluoroquinolone-resistant
Gram-positive conjunctival pathogens.[60] In clin-
ical practice we observed complete resolution of
ocular signs and symptoms at 48 hours in 81% of
patients treated with moxifloxacin.[49]
Beyond trial-based clinical efficacy data or
real-life effectiveness data, pharmacodynamic/
pharmacokinetic parameters can predict the effi-
cacy of antibacterials. For fluoroquinolones, the
maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax)/
MIC required to inhibit the growth of 90% of
organisms (MIC90) ratio and/or the area under
the concentration-time curve from time zero to
24 hours (AUC24)/MIC90 ratio have been used
for this purpose. For S. aureus, S. pneumoniae
and H. influenzae, the conjunctival AUC24 :
MIC90 ratios ranged from 625 to 1355 for topical
moxifloxacin,[49] which is well above the con-
centrations required to eradicate bacteria.
After administration of a single drop of each
medication, the mean concentrations of moxiflox-
acin in conjunctival tissue (18.0 mg/g) were higher
than for ciprofloxacin (2.65 mg/g), gatifloxacin
(2.54 mg/g), ofloxacin (1.23 mg/g) and levofloxacin
(2.34 mg/g) in healthy subjects 20 minutes after
receiving a single dose of these ophthalmic solu-
tions.[61] Compared with besifloxacin,[62,63] a mean
peak concentration for moxifloxacin of 10.7 mg/g
was reported versus 2.3 mg/g for besifloxacin, al-
though besifloxacin had a higher mean residence
time of 4.7 h versus 3.0 h and a lower concentra-
tion decrease over time than moxifloxacin in
conjunctival tissue, resulting in a higher AUC.[64]
On the other hand, moxifloxacin penetrated
better into corneal epithelium, stroma and endo-
thelium and achieved significantly higher levels in
the aqueous and vitreous humour of infected eyes
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis 549

Control
Azithromycin 10 µg/mL
Gentamicin 3 µg/mL
Trimethoprim 1 µg/mL
and polymyxin B 10 U/mL
Tobramycin 3 µg/mL
Moxifloxacin 5 µg/mL
a b
1000 10 000

Surviving S. pneumoniae CFUs

Surviving S. aureus CFUs (%)

100 1000

100
10
10
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001 0.001

0.0001 0.0001
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (min) Time (min)
c
1000
Surviving H. influenzae CFUs (%)

100

10

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.00001
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (min)

Fig. 2. Pharmacokinetics of bacterial kill by moxifloxacin compared with other non-fluoroquinolone antibacterials for (a) Staphylococcus
aureus, (b) Streptococcus pneumoniae and (c) Haemophilus influenzae, based on a 1 : 1000 dilution.[52] Reproduced with permission.
CFU = colony forming unit.

than ofloxacin (p < 0.01), ciprofloxacin (p < 0.05), ensuring even better bactericidal characteristics.
lomefloxacin (p < 0.01) and levofloxacin (p < 0.05); In a recent study, microbial eradication at day
furthermore, the levels reached exceeded the MIC90 5 occurred in 93.3% of patients receiving besi-
values of clinically relevant pathogens in these floxacin and in 91.1% receiving moxifloxacin
tissues and fluids.[65-72] (p = 0.1238).[75-77] This further confirms previous
Increased residence time through use of a deliv- findings on the efficacy of moxifloxacin.[50,78,79]
ery system[73] such as that used with besifloxacin[64]
or addition of a retention-enhancing agent as in the 3.1 Dosage and Administration
case of a recently US FDA-approved formula-
tion of moxifloxacin[74] will further improve these Because of its potency and pharmacodynamic
pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic parameters, and pharmacokinetic properties, use of topical

ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
550
1000
Surviving S. aureus CFUs (%)
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0 20 40
Fig. 3. Pharmacokinetics of bacterial kill by moxifloxacin compared
with other fluoroquinolone antibacterials for Staphylococcus aureus,
based on a 1 : 1000 dilution.[59] Reproduced with permission.
CFU = colony forming unit.
moxifloxacin ensures that the required drug
concentrations are achieved in the conjunctiva
with fewer drops, thereby avoiding the need for
frequent dosing, even in the first days of treat-
ment. This means that only three times daily
installation of moxifloxacin topical solution is
required, less than the usual treatment regimen
for other fluoroquinolones of up to eight appli-
cations per day (i.e. every 2 hours) on days 1 and
2 followed by three to four treatments per day
from day 3 onwards. Further developments in the
formulation of topical moxifloxacin designed
to allow twice-daily treatment instillation are
ongoing.[74]
Standard topical antibacterial treatments are
multidose products, allowing the same bottle to
be used throughout the treatment. However, in
order to maintain sterility and avoid contamina-
tion of the ophthalmic solution, a preservative is
normally used. Since preservatives such as ben-
zalkonium chloride (BAK) have known cyto-
toxicity[80] and adverse effects, including allergic
reactions, swelling and effects on the tear film,[81]
BAK-free or preservative-free products are de-
sirable.[81] Until recently the only preservative-
free antibacterial products available in Europe
for the treatment of conjunctivitis were in a uni-
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Benitez-del-Castillo et al.
Ofloxacin dose formulation (available for ofloxacin, levo-
Levofloxacin
Moxifloxacin
floxacin, azithromycin, chloramphenicol and
Control gentamicin). Moxifloxacin, because of its potency,
is the first, and currently the only, self-preserved
topical antibacterial supplied in a multidose
bottle to be approved by most European coun-
tries, having met European Pharmacopoeia re-
quirements for preservative effectiveness.
Topical moxifloxacin is provided as a 5 mL
bottle for multidose self-preserved application, with
a dropper that dispenses, on average, 38.9 – 3 mL
per drop. Once opened, the product can be used
for up to 4 weeks. For a patient adhering to a
regimen of three times daily installation in both
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 eyes, a single bottle is sufficient for a 14-day treat-
Time (min) ment period. Since ophthalmologists often pre-
scribe a minimum treatment period of 5–7 days,[28]
the product provides full coverage of the treat-
ment period. This is important in economic terms,
since the multidose bottles are less expensive than
the unidose vials for health authorities, patients
in most countries and manufacturers.
3.2 Antibacterial Resistance and Topical
Moxifloxacin
The emergence of bacterial resistance during
the use of antibacterial treatment in general is a
concern because, over time, this can lead to pro-
ducts no longer being effective for treatment.[82]
Bacterial resistance is mainly caused by the use
of antibacterials in animal food and their systemic
use by humans.[83] Bacterial resistance has been
reported, not only to fusidic acid[4] and chlor-
amphenicol,[84] which are two of the most com-
monly used treatments for conjunctivitis,[10,28] but
also to other antibacterials[85] and fluoroquino-
lones (e.g. ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin).[14,86] How-
ever, emergence of resistance to moxifloxacin (in
contrast to ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin) depends
on the development of two mutations in the DNA
gyrase and topoisomerase genes, which means
resistance to moxifloxacin develops at a slower
rate.[51,62,87]
Nevertheless, due to the systemic use of
fluoroquinolones (and the selective pressure they
exert on species colonizing the respiratory tract),
increases in fluoroquinolone-resistant, methicillin
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis
(meticillin)-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates
have been reported, particularly in patients with
nosocomial infections.[88] Increased recovery
of MRSA isolates from conjunctival infections
has been reported in the elderly population
(aged >65 years),[34,89] although not in younger
patients.[90] Continued development of anti-
bacterials is therefore needed.
Following topical application, development of
resistance to moxifloxacin is not a major concern,
due to the fact that local application of moxi-
floxacin 5000 mg/mL results in high ocular surface
concentrations.[51,52] These concentrations ex-
ceed the MIC and bactericidal concentration for
bacterial pathogens, including those isolates with
an acquired resistance to fluoroquinolones,[51,52]
and are well above the mutant prevention con-
centrations (MPCs).[54] The MPC, which represents
a threshold above which the selective proliferation
of resistant mutants is expected to occur only rare-
ly, has been shown to be very low for moxifloxacin
compared with other fluoroquinolones and non-
fluoroquinolones.[91-93] This means that moxiflox-
acin restricts the selection of resistant mutants,
meaning emergence of resistance is unlikely.
A recent clinical study supported by Alcon
Research Ltd (Fort Worth, TX, USA) assessed
fluoroquinolone-resistance development at the
ocular and distal sites (e.g. the nose and throat).[87,94]
The study showed that a course of moxifloxacin
treatment for bacterial conjunctivitis consisting
of instillations three times daily over 7 days did
not cause or select for any changes in the moxi-
floxacin susceptibility of isolates of the primary
ocular pathogens S. pneumoniae, S. aureus or
H. influenzae. This was true irrespective of wheth-
er the pathogenic isolates were recovered from
the eye or from body sites distal to the site of the
moxifloxacin instillation.[87,94]
3.3 Adverse Effect Profile and Acceptability
Topical treatments for acute conjunctivitis can
be associated with adverse reactions.[95-98] In a
clinical study environment, topical moxifloxacin
has been shown to be safe and well tolerated by
both children and adults. A review of studies
by Silver et al.[48] that included a total of 918
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
551
paediatric and 1060 adult patients found that the
most frequent adverse event in the overall popu-
lation was transient ocular discomfort with
an incidence of 2.8%, which was similar to the
incidence observed in the placebo group. No
treatment-related changes in ocular signs or vis-
ual acuity were observed.
Moxifloxacin topical solution also has a near
neutral pH (6.8), is well tolerated by patients[48,61]
and is generally well accepted.[99]
4. Cost to the Healthcare System of
Treatment with Topical Moxifloxacin
4.1 Reduction in Treatment Failures
Differences in treatment failure rates amongst
different products compared with moxifloxacin
have been reported in a meta-analysis.[50] The
meta-analysis included results from five clinical
trials involving 2099 patients. In this meta-anal-
ysis the number of patients with no improved or
worsened symptoms (treatment failure) who were
applying topical moxifloxacin 0.5% was con-
sistently low within the different trials (mean
2.9% [95% CI 1.4, 4.3]) and was 3.61 times lower
than with placebo treatment. In a comparative
trial, ofloxacin had a 7.6% treatment failure rate
and a relative risk of treatment failure 1.75 times
higher than moxifloxacin.[50]
4.2 Healthcare Resources and Cost
of Treatment Failure
A recent survey captured the treatment pat-
terns and healthcare resources associated with
treatment failure rates for conjunctivitis.[28] The
survey was conducted in the Netherlands,
Scotland and Spain by way of a questionnaire and
interviews with GPs and ophthalmologists. Local
health economists estimated the unit costs that
were necessary for the valuation of the resources
used, as declared by the physicians. The costs con-
sidered were the direct costs for health authorities.
The costs associated with productivity losses are
provided for information purposes only.[28]
During the survey, data were collected on:
 The management of conjunctivitis in clinical
practice by GPs and ophthalmologists.
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
552 Benitez-del-Castillo et al.

 The antibacterial treatment prescribed.
 Whether a swab (with or without culture
examination) was taken to identify the patho-
gen and whether tests for Chlamydia were
requested.
 How treatment failures were handled.
The healthcare resources required to manage
patients with a treatment failure were hypothe-
sized to be independent of any previous treatment
provided.[28]
A total of 39 GPs (21, 5 and 13 in Scotland,
Spain and the Netherlands, respectively) and
14 ophthalmologists (4, 5 and 5 in Scotland,
Spain and the Netherlands, respectively) were in-
terviewed. Table I provides details of the survey
results relating to the healthcare resources re-
quired when treatment failures occurred.[28]
Treatment failures seen by GPs resulted in an
immediate switch in treatment. Additional ex-
aminations varied between countries, occurring
in 12–50% of cases. In approximately 30% of cases
an extra follow-up visit was scheduled. Treatment
failures seen by an ophthalmologist also resulted
in a switch or repeat treatment. Additional ex-
aminations were performed and additional fol-
low-up visits were scheduled in more than 75% of
cases (table I).[28]
The costs of treating a treatment failure varied
between GPs and ophthalmologists due to the
differences in healthcare resources associated
with a treatment failure (table II). The average
costs of a treatment failure when the patient was
being treated by an ophthalmologist were h133,
h108 and h215 (year of costing 2009) in Scotland,
Spain and the Netherlands, respectively (table II,
figure 1). The most conservative and most
healthcare-resource demanding approaches de-
scribed by individual ophthalmologists fell within
a range of –30%.[28]
The low occurrence of treatment failures with
moxifloxacin minimized the cost of the health-
care resources required to treat conjunctivitis.
Compared with ofloxacin, a cost of h6.3, h5.1 and
h10.13 could have been avoided per patient trea-
ted by an ophthalmologist in Scotland, Spain and
the Netherlands, respectively, when using moxi-
floxacin at the same price. To test the robustness
of the calculation, evaluation of different scenar-
ios, all within the 95% confidence interval (CI),
representing different reductions in treatment
failures with moxifloxacin and ofloxacin showed
that the cost avoided per patient for treatment
failure was within 30% of the average cost avoi-
ded. When only patients with a bacterial cause
were considered, an additional cost of 11–38%,
depending on the country, could have been
avoided.[28]
4.3 Healthcare Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
To determine if treatment with topical moxi-
floxacin could be cost effective for the healthcare

Table I. Healthcare resources utilized in association with bacterial conjunctivitis treatment failuresa[28]
Healthcare resource GP Ophthalmologist
Netherlands Scotland Spain Netherlands Scotland Spain
GP visit 100.0 100.0 100.0 NA NA NA
GP referral NA NA NA NA 44.0 76.0
Ophthalmologist visit NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0
Switch to another antibacterial 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Swab 0.8 4.4 0.2 12.2 1.0 40.0
Swab + culture 12.3 39.1 0.8 60.8 79.0 27.0
Chlamydia test 1.2 6.8 NA 30.0 17.4 67.0
Additional FU GP visit 33.1 32.9 27.0 NA NA NA
Additional FU ophthalmologist visit 2.4 0.9 15.4 86.3 76.5 105.0
a Data are percentage of patients.
FU = follow-up; GP = general practitioner; NA = not available.

ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis
Table II. Cost of treatment failures when patients with bacterial conjunctivitis are treated by a general practitioner (GP) or ophthalmologist[28]
Use of healthcare resources GP
Netherlands (h) Scotland (ha)
Average use 53.47 72.30
Lowest user 32.42 40.90
Highest user 119.53 124.19
a Exchange rate used £1 = h1.13907 (25 May 2009).
b Health Care System costs (covers nearly all costs of treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis in Spain).
system a decision-analytic model was developed
using the TreeAge software.[100] The model con-
sidered a treatment path where (i) a fluoroquin-
olone is offered by a GP and the healthcare use
upon failure of the treatment is evaluated;
(ii) where the fluoroquinolone is offered by the oph-
thalmologist and the healthcare use upon failure
of the treatment is evaluated. Both paths resulted
in a treatment cost. Comparisons were then made
between the different types of fluoroquinolones
that can be offered and the total cost (which
varies with the different cost for each product and
for dealing with treatment failures). The model
was populated with data taken from previously
described findings (see sections 4.1 and 4.2) and
available market data. Cost data were obtained
from publicly available price information.[100]
A comparison of moxifloxacin multidose and
ofloxacin unidose, both of which are preservative-
free fluoroquinolones, showed that treating the
patient with moxifloxacin would result in avoidance
of a mean 4.7 treatment failures per 100 patients
treated.[100] In the Netherlands, treatment with
fluoroquinolones is primarily prescribed by oph-
thalmologists, with only 9.8% being prescribed
by GPs. Since the price of preservative-free
ofloxacin in the Netherlands at the time of the
analysis (2009) was h9.78 and that for moxiflox-
acin h17.55, this would have resulted in an aver-
age cost per patient treated with ofloxacin of
h25.47 (taking into account the average costs of
both treatment and of treatment failure), com-
pared with h23.54 for treatment with moxiflox-
acin. A saving of h1.93 per patient treated with
moxifloxacin could therefore be made compared
with patients treated with preservative-free
ofloxacin because of the reduction in treatment
failures with moxifloxacin.[100]
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
553
Ophthalmologist
Spain (h)b Netherlands (h) Scotland (ha) Spain (h)b
38.53 215.56 133.81 108.46
26.15 169.55 103.38 94.45
40.83 279.42 160.30 135.83
To test the robustness of the results, the un-
certainty around the differences in treatment fail-
ure, i.e. the 95% CI and the range of healthcare
resources used by different GPs and ophthalmol-
ogists to correct a treatment failure, were con-
sidered. Different scenarios using a random value
for each of the parameters, within the indicated
CIs, were evaluated and the outcomes calculated.
This process was repeated 50 000 times (a Monte
Carlo simulation offered within the TreeAge
modelling software) and showed that 86% of the
simulations with moxifloxacin at the premium
price of h17.55 were cost saving for the healthcare
system in the Netherlands. As it is to be expected
that not only the preservative-free ofloxacin, but
also the preserved ofloxacin, will be replaced,
these simulations considered not only h17.55 but
also a price of h14.04 for topical moxifloxacin
compared with a weighted average price of h3.74
for ofloxacin (based on yearly sales of 110 953 units
of preserved and 15 554 units of preservative-free
ofloxacin). This analysis showed that topical
moxifloxacin was cost effective, i.e. it provided
the best value-for-money, in 87% of simulations.[100]
An assumption made was that the public con-
siders the value of avoiding a treatment failure to
be the same as the value considered acceptable to
avoid allergic reactions during topical treatment
with BAK-preserved products.[81] This value was
derived from the price difference between pre-
servative-free and preserved products.[81]
4.4 Impact on the Healthcare Budget
Self-preserved topical moxifloxacin multidose,
even at a higher price, can be expected to be cost
saving for the healthcare system, given the health-
care costs avoided because of less frequent treatment
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
554
failures and the smaller amount of healthcare
resources required.
Unidose applications of ofloxacin and levo-
floxacin require 16 treatments in the first 2 days
and four treatments each day over the following
3 days, i.e. a total of 28 vials. Therefore the cur-
rent pack size of 30 vials limits treatment to 5 days,
requiring a second pack if the conjunctivitis is not
yet resolved and adding extra costs to the treatment.
For example in Spain, treatment with fluoro-
quinolones is primarily prescribed by ophthal-
mologists. Given the public price (which is partly
paid by the health authorities, partly paid by the
patient) in Spain of h3.53 for Exocin (ofloxacin)
and h9.02 for Vigamox (moxifloxacin), and as-
suming 52 000 prescriptions of moxifloxacin
(16% of the 318 217 expected Exocin sales), this
would have resulted in a budget for the strategy in
2010 of h4 240 131 versus h4 457 015 if moxiflox-
acin was not used, yielding savings of 4.9%.
To test the robustness of the outcome, differ-
ent reductions in treatment failures seen in clin-
ical trials were tested (3.3% and 5.4%). When the
whole population with confirmed bacterial con-
junctivitis was considered, these scenarios re-
sulted in cost savings ranging from 0.79% to
6.13%. Converting 25% of the prescriptions to
moxifloxacin resulted in savings of 2–10% for the
healthcare system in Spain. For the same health-
care system, use of moxifloxacin would save be-
tween h0.72 and h6.92 per patient being treated
for conjunctivitis. Where the price for moxiflox-
acin was lower than h9.02, further savings would
occur.
5. Conclusions
The use of moxifloxacin reduces the time to
symptom resolution and the number of treatment
failures in the treatment of acute infectious con-
junctivitis compared with both placebo and other
antibacterial treatments available in the majority
of European countries. This leads to a reduction
in the amount of healthcare resources required
and thus to a reduction in healthcare costs.
Topical moxifloxacin can be offered as a multi-
dose, self-preserved, topical product, at near
neutral pH (6.8), instilled three times daily for
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Benitez-del-Castillo et al.
7–8 days. This formulation avoids the potential
adverse effects associated with the use of BAK-
preserved products and reduces the costs asso-
ciated with treatment with unidose formulations.
The risk of emergence of antibacterial resis-
tance due to use of topical moxifloxacin has been
demonstrated to be minimal at both the eye and
distal sites because of the high local concentra-
tions achieved and the fact that a dual-step mu-
tation is required for the emergence of bacterial
resistance. Risk of resistance is therefore not a
reason to withhold topical moxifloxacin early in
the treatment path of bacterial conjunctivitis.
Therefore, in order to both improve outcomes
and reduce the number of healthcare resources
required to treat acute infectious conjunctivitis, a
change in the healthcare treatment strategy in
Europe for this condition is recommended. Multi-
dose, self-preserved, topical moxifloxacin or other
fluoroquinolones with proven comparable effec-
tiveness should be considered earlier in the treat-
ment path for conjunctivitis. Even if a premium price
is requested for this novel topical antibacterial,
management of conjunctivitis with topical moxi-
floxacin can be cost effective. Furthermore, this
strategy can also deliver total healthcare budget
savings by avoiding multiple tests and treatments
and saving time for those clinicians who initiate
treatment with the most effective topical anti-
bacterial, i.e. moxifloxacin, early in the treatment
path for bacterial conjunctivitis.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Antoine Lafuma and
Julien Robert of Cemka, Max Brosa of Oblique Consulting,
Mark Nuijten of Ars Accessus Medical, Elizabeth Gylee of
Abucus Int. and Ana Vieta of IMS Health Spain for the
healthcare resources and costing data collection.
The authors would also like to thank Michelle Derbyshire
of MD Writing Services for providing assistance with the
preparation of the manuscript.
Yves Verboven and David Stroman are employed by
Alcon. The other authors have no conflicts of interest that are
relevant to the content of this review.
References
1. Chung C, Cohen E, Smith J. Bacterial conjunctivitis. Clin
Evid 2002; 7: 574-9
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis
2. Limberg MB. A review of bacterial keratitis and bacterial
conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol 1991; 112 Suppl. 4: S2-9
3. Chung CW, Cohen EJ. Eye disorders: bacterial con-
junctivitis. West J Med 2000; 173 (3): 202-5
4. Rietveld RP, ter Riet G, Bindels PJ, et al. The treatment of
acute infectious conjunctivitis with fusidic acid: a random-
ized controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 2005; 55 (521): 924-30
5. Ganley JP, Roberts J. Eye conditions and related need for
medical care among persons 1-74 years of age, United
States 1971-72. Vital and health statistics, series 11, no. 228,
DHHS publication no. (PHS) 83-1678. Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office, 1983 Mar
6. Royal College of General Practitioners and Royal College
of Ophthalmologists. Ophthalmology for general practice
trainees. London: Medical Protection Society, 2001
7. Rietveld RP, ter Riet G, Bindels PJ, et al. Do general
practitioners adhere to the guideline on infectious con-
junctivitis? Results of the Second Dutch National Survey
of General Practice. BMC Fam Pract 2007; 8: 54
8. Rose P. Management strategies for acute infective con-
junctivitis in primary care: a systematic review. Expert
Opin Pharmacother 2007; 8 (12): 1903-21
9. Dart JK. Eye disease at a community health centre. Br Med
J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293 (6560): 1477-80
10. McDonnell PJ. How do general practitioners manage eye
disease in the community? Br J Ophthalmol 1988; 72 (10):
733-6
11. Everitt H, Little P. How do GPs diagnose and manage
acute infective conjunctivitis? A GP survey. Fam Pract
2002; 19 (6): 658-60
12. Mannis MJ, Plotnick RD. Bacterial conjunctivitis. In:
Tasman W, Jaeger EA, editors. Duane’s clinical ophthal-
mology. Vol. 4. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven,
2004: 1-7
13. Patel PB, Diaz MC, Bennett JE, et al. Clinical features of
bacterial conjunctivitis in children. Acad Emerg Med
2007; 14 (1): 1-5
14. Cavuoto K, Zutshi D, Karp CL, et al. Update on bacterial
conjunctivitis in South Florida. Ophthalmology 2008;
115 (1): 51-6
15. Rose PW, Harnden A, Brueggemann AB, et al. Chlor-
amphenicol treatment for acute infective conjunctivitis in
children in primary care: a randomised double-blind pla-
cebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366 (9479): 37-43
16. Arrfa RC. Grayson’s diseases of the cornea, 4th ed. St
Louis (MI): Mosby-Year Book, 1997: 138
17. Matsumoto T. Trends of sexually transmitted diseases and
antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Int
J Antimicrob Agents 2008; 31 Suppl. 1: S35-9
18. Jacobson J, Branson N, Kasworm E, et al. Safety and
efficacy of topical norfloxacin versus tobramicin in the
treatment of external ocular infections. Antimicrobial
Agents Chemother 1988; 32 (12): 1820-4
19. Sheikh A, Hurwitz B. Antibiotics versus placebo for acute
bacterial conjunctivitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2006 (2): CD001211. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001211.
pub2
20. Sheikh A, Hurwitz B. Topical antibiotics for acute bacterial
conjunctivitis: a systematic review. Br J General Prac
2001; 51 (467): 473-7
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
555
21. Feldman RB, Stern GA, Hood CI. Chromobacterium
violaceum infection of the eye: a report of two cases. Arch
Ophthalmol 1984; 102 (5): 711-3
22. Feduckowicz HB. External infections of the eye. 3rd ed.
Norwalk (CT): Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1985: 369
23. Ostler HB. Diseases of the external eye and adnexa. Balti-
more (MD): Williams & Wilkins, 1993
24. Donahue SP, Khoury JM, Kowalski RP. Common ocular
infections: a prescriber’s guide. Drugs 1996; 52 (4): 526-40
25. American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice
Patterns: Committee Cornea/External Disease Panel. Pre-
ferred practice pattern bacterial keratitis. September 2000
26. Bodor FF. Systemic antibiotics for treatment of the con-
junctivitis-otitis media syndrome. Pediatr Infect Dis
J 1989; 8 (5): 287-90
27. Boustcha E, Nicolle LE. Conjunctivitis in a long-term care
facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995; 16 (4): 210-6
28. LaFuma A, Robert J. Cost of treatment failure in acute
infectious conjunctivitis in Scotland, Spain and the
Netherlands according to physician’s specialty and po-
tential economic benefit of topical moxifloxacin 0.5%:
Alcon report 2008-034. Puurs: Alcon-Couvreur N.V.,
2009 May 26
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Out-
break of bacterial conjunctivitis at a college – New
Hampshire. MMWR 2002; 51 (10): 205-7
30. Ortqvist A, Hedlund J, Kalin M. Streptococcus pneumo-
niae: epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical features.
Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 26 (6): 563-74
31. Høvding G. Acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Acta Ophthal-
mol 2008; 86 (1): 5-17
32. McMinn PC, Stewart J, Burrell CJ. A community outbreak
of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis in central Australia due
to adenovirus type 8. J Infect Dis 1991; 164 (6): 1113-8
33. Scott C, Dhillon B. Conjunctivitis. Practitioner 1998;
242 (1585): 305
34. Hautala N, Koskela M, Hautala T. Major age group-
specific differences in conjunctival bacteria and evolution
of antimicrobial resistance revealed by laboratory data
surveillance. Curr Eye Res 2008; 33 (11): 907-11
35. Sheldrick JH, Wilson AD, Vernon SA, et al. Management
of ophthalmic disease in general practice. Br J Gen Pract
1993; 43 (376): 459-62
36. Manners T. Managing eye conditions in general practice.
BMJ 1997; 315 (7111): 816-7
37. National Bureau of Statistics [online]. Available from
URL: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/cijfers/default.htm
[Accessed 2011 Apr 1]
38. Istituto Nacional de Estadistica [online] Available from
URL: http://www.ine.es [Accessed 2011 Apr 1]
39. Van der Weele. Conjunctivitis – infective. UK: NHS Clin-
ical Knowledge Summaries; 2009 [online]. Available from
URL: http://www.cks.nhs.uk/conjunctivitis_infective/view_
whole_topic [Accessed 2010 Apr 20]
40. Rietveld RP, van Weert CP, Ter Riet G, et al. Diagnostic
impact of signs and symptoms in acute infectious con-
junctivitis: systematic literature search. BMJ 2003;
327 (7418): 789
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
556
41. Everitt HA, Little PS, Smith PW. A randomised controlled
trial of management strategies for acute infective con-
junctivitis in general practice. BMJ 2006; 333 (7563): 321.
Epub 2006 Jul 17
42. Coban S, Ceydilek B, Ekiz F, et al. Levofloxacin-induced
acute fulminant hepatic failure in a patient with chronic
hepatitis B infection. Ann Pharmacother 2005; 39 (10):
1737-40
43. Robert J, Lafuma A, Verboven Y, et al. Cost of treatment
failure in acute infectious conjunctivitis in Scotland, Spain
and the Netherlands and the potential economic benefit of
topical moxifloxacin 0.5%. Poster at the 12th Annual
European Meeting of the International Society for
Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2010 Oct
24-27: Paris
44. Lichtenstein SJ, Dorfman M, Kennedy R, et al. Control-
ling contagious bacterial conjunctivitis. J Pediatr Oph-
thalmol Strabismus 2006; 43 (1): 19-26
45. Baum J, Barza M. The evolution of antibiotic therapy for
bacterial conjunctivitis and keratitis: 1970-2000. Cornea
2000; 19 (5): 659-72
46. Rietveld RP, Cleveringa JP, Blom GH, et al. The Netherlands:
NHG standard het rode oog M57; February 2006 [online].
Available from URL: http://nhg.artsennet.nl/kenniscen-
trum/k_richtlijnen/k_nhgstandaarden/Samenvattingskaar
tje-NHGStandaard/M57_svk.htm [Accessed 2010 Apr
20]
47. Low DE. The era of antimicrobial resistance: implications
for the clinical laboratory. Clin Microbiol Infect 2002; 8
Suppl. 3: 9-20; discussion 33-5
48. Silver LH, Woodside AM, Montgomery DB. Clinical safety
of moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% (VIGAMOX)
in pediatric and nonpediatric patients with bacterial con-
junctivitis. Surv Ophthalmol 2005; 50 Suppl. 1: S55-63
49. Granet DB, Dorfman M, Stroman D. A multicenter com-
parison of polymyxin B sulfate/trimethoprim ophthalmic
solution and moxifloxacin in the speed of clinical efficacy
for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. J Pediatr
Ophthalmol Strabismus 2008; 45 (6): 340-9
50. Kodjikian L, Lafuma A, Khoshnood B, et al. Efficacy of
moxifloxacin in treating bacterial conjunctivitis: a meta-
analysis [in French]. J Fr Ophthalmol 2010; 33 (4): 227-33
51. Hwang DG. Fluoroquinolone resistance in ophthalmology
and the potential role for newer ophthalmic fluoroquin-
olones. Surv Ophthalmol 2004; 49 Suppl. 2: S79-83
52. Lichtenstein SJ, Wagner RS, Jamison T, et al. Speed of
bacterial kill with a fluoroquinolone compared with
nonfluoroquinolones: clinical implications and a review
of kinetics of kill studies. Adv Ther 2007; 24 (5): 1098-111
53. Lichtenstein J, Granet DB. Fluoroquinolones compared to
1% azithromycin in DuraSite for bacterial conjunctivitis.
Clin Ophthalmol 2008; 2 (1): 241-3
54. Kowalski RP, Yates KA, Romanowski EG, et al. An
ophthalmologist’s guide to understanding antibiotic sus-
ceptibility and minimum inhibitory concentration data.
Ophthalmology 2005; 112 (11): 1987-91
55. Scoper SV. Review of third- and fourth-generation fluor-
oquinolones in ophthalmology: in-vitro and in-vivo effi-
cacy. Adv Ther 2008; 25 (10): 979-94
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Benitez-del-Castillo et al.
56. Stroman DW, Dajcs JJ, Cupp GA, et al. In vitro and
in vivo potency of moxifloxacin and moxifloxacin oph-
thalmic solution 0.5%, a new topical fluoroquinolone.
Surv Ophthalmol 2005; 50 Suppl. 1: S16-31
57. Oliveira AD, D’Azevedo PA, Francisco W. In vitro activity
of fluoroquinolones against ocular bacterial isolates in
São Paulo, Brazil. Cornea 2007; 26 (2): 194-8
58. Wagner RS, Granet DB, Lichtenstein SJ, et al. Kinetics of
kill of bacterial conjunctivitis isolates with moxifloxacin, a
fluoroquinolone, compared with the aminoglycosides to-
bramycin and gentamicin. Clin Ophthalmol 2010; 4: 41-5
59. Calaghan R. Protection from methicillin-resistant Staphylo-
coccus aureus infection in rabbit model. Presented at IVth
Ocular Conference on Ocular Infections, Sapporo, Sep-
tember 2005
60. D’Arienzo PA, Wagner RS, Jamison T, et al. Comparison
of fluoroquinolone kinetics of kill in susceptible and re-
sistant Gram positive conjunctival pathogens. Adv Ther
2010; 27 (1): 39-47
61. Wagner RS, Abelson M, Shapiro A, et al. Evaluation of
moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, ofloxacin, and
levofloxacin concentrations in human conjunctival tissue.
Arch Ophthal 2005; 123 (9): 1282-3
62. Bertino JS, Zhang JZ. Besifloxacin, a new ophthalmic
fluoroquinolone for the treatment of bacterial con-
junctivitis. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2009 Oct; 10 (15):
2545-54
63. Proksch JW, Ward KW. Ocular pharmacokinetics/
pharmacodynamics of besifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and
gatifloxacin following topical administration to pigmented
rabbits. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2010; 26 (5): 449-58
64. Torkildsen G, Proksch JW, Shapiro A, et al. Concentration
of besifloxacin, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin in human
conjunctiva after topical ocular administration. Clin
Ophthalmol 2010; 4: 331-41
65. Kim DH, Stark WJ, O’Brien TP, et al. Aqueous penetration
and biological activity of moxifloxacin 0.5% ophthalmic
solution and gatifloxacin 0.3% solution in cataract surgery
patients. Ophthalmology 2005; 112 (11): 1992-6
66. McCulley JP, Caudle D, Aronowicz JD, et al. Fourth
generation fluoroquinolone penetration into the aqueous
humor in humans. Ophthalmology 2006; 113 (6): 955-9
67. Holland EJ, Lane SS, Kim T, et al. Ocular penetration and
pharmacokinetics of topical gatifloxacin 0.3% and moxi-
floxacin 0.5% ophthalmic solutions after keratoplasty.
Cornea 2008; 27 (3): 314-9
68. Lai WW, Chu KO, Chan KP, et al. Differential aqueous
and vitreous concentrations of moxifloxacin and ofloxa-
cin after topical administration one hour before vi-
trectomy. Am J Ophthalmology 2007; 144 (2): 315-8
69. Hariprasas SM, Blinider KJ, Shah GK, et al. Penetration
pharmacokinetics of topically administered 0.5% moxi-
floxacin ophthalmic solution in human aqueous and
vitreous humor. Arch Opthalmol 2005; 123 (1): 39-44
70. Yoshida J, Kim A, Pratzer KA, et al. Aqueous penetration
of moxifloxacin 0.5% ophthalmic solution and besi-
floxacin 0.6% ophthalmic suspension in cataract surgery
patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36 (9): 1499-502
71. Sugioka K, Fukuda M, Komoto S, et al. Intraocular pe-
netration of sequentially instilled topical moxifloxacin,
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
Moxifloxacin in the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis
gatifloxacin, and levofloxacin. Clin Ophthalmol 2009; 3:
553-7
72. Yağci R, Oflu Y, Dinc¸el A, et al. Penetration of second-,
third-, and fourth-generation topical fluoroquinolone
into aqueous and vitreous humour in a rabbit endo-
phthalmitis model. Eye (Lond) 2007; 21 (7): 990-4
73. Protzko E, Bownam L, Abelson M, et al., Azasite Clinical
Study Group. Phase 3 safety comparisons for 1.0% azi-
thromycin in polymeric mucoadhesive eye drops versus
0.3% tobramycin eye drops for bacterial conjunctivitis.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48: 3425-9
74. Lindstrom R, Lane S, Cottingham A, et al. Conjunctival
concentrations of a new ophthalmic solution formulation
of moxifloxacin 0.5% in cataract surgery patients. J Ocul
Pharmacol Ther 2010; 26 (6): 591-5. Epub 2010 Oct 6
75. Haas W, Pillar CM, Hesje CK, et al. Bactericidal activity
of besifloxacin against staphylococci, streptococcus
pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenza. J Antimicrob
Chemother 2010; 65 (7): 1441-7
76. McDonald MB, Protzko EE, Brunner LS, et al. Efficacy
and safety of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6%
compared with moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%
for treating bacterial conjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 2009;
116: 1615-23
77. Chang MH, Fung HB. Besifloxacin: a topical fluoroquin-
olone for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. Clin
Ther 2010; 32 (3): 454-71
78. Bharathi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Shivakumar C, et al.
Etiology and antibacterial susceptibility pattern of com-
munity-acquired bacterial ocular infections in a tertiary
eye care hospital in south India. Indian J Ophthalmol
2010; 58 (6): 497-507
79. Schlech BA, Alfonso E. Overview of the potency of moxi-
floxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% (VIGAMOX). Surv
Ophthalmol 2005; 50 Suppl. 1: S7-15
80. Tripathi BJ, Tripathi RC, Kolli SP. Cytotoxicity of oph-
thalmic preservatives on human corneal epithelium. Lens
Eye Toxic Res 1992; 9 (3-4): 361-75
81. van Luijn JCF. Niet geconserveerde oogdruppels: part 3.
The Netherlands: CFH rapport 02/09 [online]. Available
from URL: www.cvz.nl [Accessed 201 Apr 20]
82. Alfonso E, Crider J. Ophthalmic infections and their anti-
infective challenges. Surv Ophthalmol 2005; 50 Suppl. 1:
S1-6
83. McDermott PF, Zhao S, Wagner DD, et al. The food safety
perspective of antibiotic resistance. Anim Biotechnol
2002; 13 (1): 71-84
84. Fukuda M, Ohashi H, Matsumoto C, et al. Methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant
coagulase-negative Staphylococcus ocular surface infec-
tion efficacy of chloramphenicol eye drops. Cornea 2002;
21 Suppl. 7: S86-9
85. Comstock TL, Paterno MR, Decory HH, et al. Safety and
tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in
the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis: data from six
clinical and phase I safety studies. Clin Drug Investig
2010; 30 (10): 675-85
86. Goldstein MH, Kowalski RP, Gordon YJ. Emerging
fluoroquinolone resistance in bacterial keratitis: a 5-year
review. Ophthalmology 1999; 106 (7): 1313-8
ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
557
87. Cupp GA, Stroman DW. Clinical microbiology report for
CMS-05-11: the effect of VIGAMOX on the microbial
flora of conjunctivitis patients. Technical report CMS-05-
11. Fort Worth (TX): Alcon Research Ltd, 2009 Mar 5
88. Cornaglia G, Concan R, Arrigucci S, et al. Antibacterial
activity and pharmacological features of fluoroquino-
lones and considerations on their use in a nosocomial
setting [in Italian]. Infez Med 2007 Dec; 15 (4): 211-36
89. Kim SJ, Toma HS, Midha NK, et al. Antibiotic resistance
of conjunctiva and nasopharynx evaluation study: a pro-
spective study of patients undergoing intravitreal injec-
tions. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 2372-8
90. McDonald M, Blondeau JM. Emerging antibiotic resis-
tance in ocular infections and the role of fluoroquino-
lones. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36 (9): 1588-98
91. Blondeau JM, Zhao X, Hansen G, et al. Mutant prevention
concentrations of fluoroquinolones for clinical isolates of
Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemo-
ther 2001; 45 (2): 433-8
92. Ohnsman C, Ritterband D, O’Brien T, et al. Comparison
of azithromycin and moxifloxacin against bacterial iso-
lates causing conjunctivitis. Curr Med Res Opinion 2007;
23 (9): 2241-9
93. Koss MJ, Eder M, Blumenkranz MS, et al. The effective-
ness of the new fluoroquinolones against the normal
bacterial flora of the conjunctiva. Ophthalmol 2007; 104
(1): 21-7
94. Stroman DW, Levy S, Lichtenstein S, et al. Moxifloxacin
treatment of conjunctivitis: microbial effects beyond the
eye. 49th Annual ICAAC Meeting; 2009 September 12-15.
San Francisco (CA): Paper C2-103, session 007
95. Fraunfelder FT, Bagby Jr GC, Kelly DJ. Fatal aplastic
anemia following topical administration of ophthalmic
chloramphenicol. Am J Ophthalmol 1982; 93 (3): 356-60
96. Fraunfelder FT, Bagby Jr GC. Ocular chloramphenicol
and aplastic anemia. N Engl J Med 1983; 308 (25): 1536
97. González Carro P, Huidobro ML, Zabala AP, et al. Fatal
subfulminant hepatic failure with ofloxacin. Am J Gas-
troenterol 2000; 95 (6): 1606
98. Bourcier T, Thomas F, Borderie V, et al. Bacterial keratitis:
predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review
of 300 cases. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87 (7): 834-8
99. Wagner RS, D’Arienzo PA, Hallas SJ, et al. A comparative
study in a normal paediatric population of the relative
comfort of moxifloxacin 0.5% ophthalmic solution versus
a tear substitute. Poster. ARVO (Association for Re-
search and Vision in Ophthalmology) Apr 29, 2004
100. Verboven Y, Robert J, Lafuma A, et al. Cost-effectiveness
of a new topical self-preserved ophthalmic antibiotic
treatment with moxifloxacin in the Netherlands. Poster at
the 12th Annual European meeting of the international
Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research;
2010 October 24-27: Paris
Correspondence: Prof. Laurent Kodjikian, Hôpital de la
Croix-Rousse, Service d’Ophtalmologie, 103, Grande Rue
de la Croix-Rousse, Lyon 69004, France.
E-mail: kodjikian.laurent@wanadoo.fr
Clin Drug Investig 2011; 31 (8)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.