Evaluating the optimal dose of teicoplanin with therapeutic drug monitoring: not too high for adverse event, not too low for treatment efficacy
- 198 Downloads
Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of teicoplanin is aimed at minimizing the clinical impact of pharmacokinetic variability; however, its benefits are still being defined. We performed a retrospective study of teicoplanin TDM focusing on the dose-serum concentration relationship and clinical outcomes in a clinical setting. From January 2017 to December 2018, patients receiving teicoplanin ≥ 72 h with TDM were enrolled. Patients were divided into three groups: non-loading (NL) group, low-dose loading (LD) group (loading dose < 9 mg/kg), and high-dose loading (HD) group (≥ 9 mg/kg). Serum teicoplanin trough concentration (Cmin) and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated in each regimen. A subgroup of patients with bacteremia was analyzed to evaluate clinical efficacy. Among 65 patients, 12, 18, and 35 were grouped in NL, LD, and HD, respectively. Achievement rates of Cmin > 20 mg/L within 10 days were significantly different among the groups (25.0%, 38.9%, and 68.6% in the NL, LD, and HD groups, respectively; P = 0.014). Fourteen patients (21.5%) had AEs, and higher Cmin over 10 days (adjusted odds ratio 2.08 per every 20 mg/L increases, 95% CI 1.13–3.84, P = 0.019) and age ≥ 65 years (P = 0.009) were identified as independent risk factors. In the subgroup analysis, HD regimen (P = 0.050) and high mean Cmin over 10 days (P = 0.025) were significantly associated with treatment success. Although HL regimen could achieve Cmin targets and improve clinical outcome during teicoplanin treatment, high Cmin was associated with AEs during treatment. Routine TDM can be helpful to optimize teicoplanin administration.
KeywordsTeicoplanin Therapeutic drug monitoring Loading dose Bacteremia Adverse event
The authors thank Junsang Yoo who helped with the graphs and Hyo Jung Park, MS, who provided advice for TDM analysis.
This material is based upon work supported by the Ministry of Trade, Industry, & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) under the Industrial Technology Innovation Program (No. 10080648: Antibiotics monitoring point-for-care test).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was approved by the local ethical research committee (IRB number 2018-07-162-003).
- 2.Outman WR, Nightingale CH, Sweeney KR, Quintiliani R (1990) Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers after administration of intravenous loading and maintenance doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 34(11):2114–2117. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.34.11.2114 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.Smithers JA, Kulmala HK, Thompson GA, Antony KK, Lewis EW, Ruberg SJ, Kenny MT, Dulworth JK, Brackman MA (1992) Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin upon multiple-dose intravenous administration of 3, 12, and 30 milligrams per kilogram of body weight to healthy male volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 36(1):115–120. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.36.1.115 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 6.Byrne CJ, Roberts JA, McWhinney B, Fennell JP, O’Byrne P, Deasy E, Egan S, Desmond R, Enright H, Ryder SA, D’Arcy DM, McHugh J (2017) Variability in trough total and unbound teicoplanin concentrations and achievement of therapeutic drug monitoring targets in adult patients with hematological malignancy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61(6):e02466. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02466-16 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Byrne CJ, Egan S, Fennell JP, O’Byrne P, Enright H, Deasy E, Ryder SA, D’Arcy DM, McHugh J (2015) Teicoplanin use in adult patients with haematological malignancy: exploring relationships between dose, trough concentrations, efficacy and nephrotoxicity. Int J Antimicrob Agents 46(4):406–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.05.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Nakamura A, Takasu O, Sakai Y, Sakamoto T, Yamashita N, Mori S, Morita T, Nabeta M, Hirayu N, Yoshiyama N, Moroki M, Tashiro K, Kannae M (2015) Development of a teicoplanin loading regimen that rapidly achieves target serum concentrations in critically ill patients with severe infections. J Infect Chemother 21(6):449–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2015.02.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Ueda T, Takesue Y, Nakajima K, Ichki K, Wada Y, Komatsu M, Tsuchida T, Takahashi Y, Ishihara M, Kimura T, Uchino M, Ikeuchi H (2014) High-dose regimen to achieve novel target trough concentration in teicoplanin. J Infect Chemother 20(1):43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2013.08.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf [accessed 1 November 2018]
- 19.Seifert H (2009) The clinical importance of microbiological findings in the diagnosis and management of bloodstream infections. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 48(Suppl 4):S238–S245. https://doi.org/10.1086/598188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Jung J, Lee K, Oh J, Choi R, Woo HI, Park HD, Kang CI, Kim YJ, Lee SY (2019) Therapeutic drug monitoring of teicoplanin using an LC-MS/MS method: analysis of 421 measurements in a naturalistic clinical setting. J Pharm Biomed Anal 167:161–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2019.02.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Sato M, Chida K, Suda T, Muramatsu H, Suzuki Y, Hashimoto H, Gemma H, Nakamura H (2006) Recommended initial loading dose of teicoplanin, established by therapeutic drug monitoring, and outcome in terms of optimal trough level. J Infect Chemother 12(4):185–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10156-006-0446-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Zhou L, Gao Y, Cao W, Liu J, Guan H, Zhang H, Shi Y, Lv W, Cheng L (2018) Retrospective analysis of relationships among the dose regimen, trough concentration, efficacy, and safety of teicoplanin in Chinese patients with moderate-severe Gram-positive infections. Infect Drug Resist 11:29–36. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S146961 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Matthews PC, Chue AL, Wyllie D, Barnett A, Isinkaye T, Jefferies L, Lovering A, Scarborough M (2014) Increased teicoplanin doses are associated with improved serum levels but not drug toxicity. The Journal of infection 68(1):43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2013.08.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Davey PG, Williams AH (1991) A review of the safety profile of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 27 Suppl_B:69–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/27.suppl_b.69
- 27.Byrne CJ, Egan S, D’Arcy DM, O’Byrne P, Deasy E, Fennell JP, Enright H, McHugh J, Ryder SA (2014) Teicoplanin usage in adult patients with haematological malignancy in the UK and Ireland: is there scope for improvement? Eur J Hosp Pharm 21(5):301–305. https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2013-000412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar