Advertisement

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 153–160 | Cite as

Teicoplanin in perspective

A critical comparison with vancomycin
  • R. Janknegt
Reviews

Abstract

Teicoplanin is a new glycopeptide antibiotic with a chemical structure related to vancomycin. The proposed advantages of teicoplanin over vancomycin are discussed. These include lower incidence of side-effects, lower toxicity (especially in combination with aminoglycosides), lower dosage frequency and the possibility of intramuscular administration. There is only a limited number of studies comparing both agents; more studies are still needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. Therapeutic drug monitoring is not usually necessary for teicoplanin; the situation is not clear for vancomycin. There is some doubt whether the incidence of resistance is as infrequent for teicoplanin as it is for vancomycin. Teicoplanin appears to be a promising alternative to vancomycin, but more data are needed on the relative clinical efficacy and the development of resistance to both drugs.

Keywords

Bacteriology Clinical trials Cost and cost analysis Drug administration Drug resistance Side-effects Teicoplanin Therapeutic drug monitoring Vancomycin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Calain P, Waldvogel F. Clinical efficacy of teicoplanin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990;9:127–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campoli-Richards DM, Brogden RN, Foulds D. Teicoplanin: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1990;40:449–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lewis P, Garaud JJ, Parenti F. A multicentre open clinical trial of teicoplanin in infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;21(Suppl A):61–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lang E, Schäfer V, Schaaf B, Dennhardt R. Comparison of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in different Gram-positive infections, a multicentre study. Scand J Infect Dis (in press).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amaducci S, Rosina R, Pugnetti P, et al. Efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in lower respiratory tract infections bacteriologically diagnosed by fibreoptic aspirate cultures. In: Grüneberg RN, ed. Teicoplanin: further European experience. London: Royal Society of Medicine, 1990:9–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stille W, Sietzen W, Dieterich HA, Fell JJ. Clinical efficacy and safety of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;21(Suppl A):69–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calain P, Krause KH, Vandaux P, et al. Early termination of a prospective, randomized trial comparing teicoplanin and flucloxacillin for treating severe staphylococcal infections. J Infect Dis 1987;155:187–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glupczynski Y, Lagast H, Van der Auwera P, et al. Clinical evaluation of teicoplanin for therapy of severe infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986;29:52–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galanakis N, Giamarellou H, Viachogiannis N, Dendrinos C, Daikos GK. Poor efficacy of teicoplanin in treatment of deep-seated staphylococcal infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1988;7:130–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leport C, Perronne C, Massip P, et al. Evaluation of teicoplanin for treatment of endocarditis caused by Gram-positive micro-organisms in 20 patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33:871–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martino P, Vendetti M, Micozzi A, et al. Teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33:1329–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kureishi A, Jewasson PJ, Phillips GL, et al. Teicoplanin versus vancomycin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Abstracts of the 30th interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, Atlanta, 1990. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 256.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cony-Makhoul P, Brossard G, Marit G, et al. A prospective study comparing vancomycin and teicoplanin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients. Br J Haematol 1990;76(Suppl 2):35–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rolston K, Nguyen T, Bodey GP. Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for Gram-positive bacteremia in cancer patients. Abstracts of the 30th interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, Atlanta, 1990. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1990:abstract 257.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van der Auwera P, Aoun M, Menier F. Randomized study of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections in immunocompromised hosts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:451–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith SR, Cheesbrough J, Spearing R, Davies JM. Randomized, prospective study comparing vancomycin with teicoplanin in the treatment of infections associated with Hickman-catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33:1193–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Laethem Y, Hermans P, De Wit S, Goosens H, Clumeck N. Teicoplanin compared with vancomycin in methicillin-resistantStaph. aureus infections: preliminary results. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;21(Suppl A):81–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gilbert DN, Wood CA, Kimbrough RC. Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 mg/kg/day in patients withStaph. aureus intravascular infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:79–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Al-Wali WI, Hamilton-Miller JM, Foo J, Baillod R, Brumfilt W. Specific treatment for peritonitis in patients undergoing CAPD: a comparative study of teicoplanin and vancomycin. In: Phillips I, ed. Focus on coagulase-negative staphylococci. London: Royal Society of Medicine, 1989:119–27. (International congress and symposium series nr. 151).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Williams AH. Comparitive safety of teicoplanin and other Gram-positive agents. In: Grüneberg RN, ed. Teicoplanin, further European experience. London: Royal Society of Medicine, 1990:75–9. (International congress and symposium series nr. 156).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rios J. Discussion. In: Grüneberg RN, ed. Teicoplanin, further European experience. London: Royal Society of Medicine, 1990:80–1. (International congress and symposium series nr. 156).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greenberg RN. Teicoplanin treatment of bone, joint and vascular-access associated Gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:2392–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anonymous. New preparations of vancomycin. Med Lett 1986;28:121–2.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brummett RE, Fox KE. Vancomycin- and erythromycin-induced hearing loss in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989;33:791–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lau T, Barriere SL. Is vancomycin nephrotoxic? Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1985;19:907–8.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rybak MJ, Albrecht LM, Chandrasekar PB. Analysis of vancomycin nephrotoxicity. Abstracts of the 27th Interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, New York 1987. Washington: American Society for Microbiology, 1987:abstract 114.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Appel GB, Given DB, Levine LR, Cooper GL. Vancomycin and the kidney. Am J Kidney Dis 1986;8:75–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sahai J, Healy DP, Shelton MJ, et al. Comparison of vancomycin- and teicoplanin-induced histamine release and ‘red man syndrome’. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:765–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davis RL, Smith AL, Koup JR. The ‘red man syndrome’ and slow infusion of vancomycin. Ann Intern Med 1986;104:285–6.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schleminer B, Falkman H, Boudjadja A, Jacob L, LeGall JR. Teicoplanin for patients allergic to vancomycin. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1127–8.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith SR, Cheesbrough JS, Makris M, Davies JM. Teicoplanin administration in patients experiencing reactions to vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;23:810–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Crossley KB. Vancomycin and teicoplanin. In: Peterson PK, Verhoef J, eds. The antimicrobial agents annual 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1988:238–45.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kreter B. Less frequent dosing of vancomycin: a false economy? Hosp Pharm 1989;24:227.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Healy DP, Sahai JV, Fuller SH, Polk RE. Vancomycin-induced histamine-release and ‘red men syndrome’; comparison of 1- and 2-hour infusions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:549–54.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Verbist L, Tjandramaga B, Hendrickx B, et al.In vitro activity and human pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984;26:881–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rybak MJ, Boike SC. Monitoring vancomycin therapy. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1986;20:757–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Edwards DJ, Pancorbo S. Routine monitoring of serum vancomycin concentrations: waiting for proof of its value. Clin Pharm 1987;6:652–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rodvold KA, Zokufa H, Rotschaefer JC. Routine monitoring of serum vancomycin concentrations: can waiting be justified? Clin Pharm 1987;6:655–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sayers JF, Shimasaki R. Routine monitoring of serum vancomycin concentrations. The answer lies in the middle. Clin Pharm 1988;7:18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fitzsimmons WE, Postelnick MJ, Tortorice PV. Survey of vancomycin monitoring guidelines in Illinois hospitals. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1988;22:598–600.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ackerman BH. Evaluation of three methods for determining initial vancomycin doses. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1989;23:123–8.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moellering RC, Krogstaat DJ, Greenblatt DJ. Pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in normal subjects and in patients with reduced renal function. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:(Suppl):S230–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Matzke GR, Kovarik JM, Rybak MJ, Boike SC. Evaluation of the vancomycin clearance: creatinine clearance relationship for predicting vancomycin dosage. Clin Pharm 1985;4:311–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lake KD, Peterson CD. Comparison of vancomycin serum concentrations obtained with standard vs individualized dosing regimens. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1985;19:459.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steenhoek A. Prophylactic antibiotics and the hospital budget: controversy for patient and hospital financial strategies. Pharm Weekbl [Sci] 1990;12:300–2.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Parenti F. Structure and mechanism of action of teicoplanin. J Hosp Infect 1986;7(Suppl A):79–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Greenwood D. Microbiological properties of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;21(Suppl A):1–13.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Al-Obeid S, Collatz E, Gutmann L. Mechanism of resistance to vancomycin inE. faecium D 366 andE. faecalis A 256. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:252–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Watanakunakorn C.In-vitro selection of resistance ofStaph. aureus to teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;225:69–72.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brunet F, Vedel G, Dreyfus F, et al. Failure of teicoplanin therapy in two neutropenic patients with staphylococcal septicemia who recovered after administration of vancomycin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990;9:145–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Aubert G, Passet S, Lucht F, Douche G. Selection of vancomycin and teicoplanin-resistantStaphylococcus haemolyticus during teicoplanin treatment ofS. epidermidis infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25:491–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wilson AP, O'Hare MD, Felmingham D, Grüneberg RN. Teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci. Lancet 1986;2:973.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Courvalin P. Resistance of enterococci to glycopeptides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:2291–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pryka RD, Rodvold KA, Rotschaefer JC. Teicoplanin: an investigational glycopeptide antibiotic. Clin Pharm 1988;7:647–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bartoloni A, Colao MG, Orsi A, et al.In vitro activity of vancomycin, teicoplanin, daptomycin, ramoplanin, MDL 62873 and other agents against staphylococci, enterococci andC. difficile. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26:627–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cooper MA, Jin YF, Ashby JP, Andrews JM, Wise R.In-vitro comparison of the postantibiotic effect of vancomycin and teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;26:203–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Janknegt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PharmacyMaasland HospitalMB SittardThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations