Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection

Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi; Gonçalves, Anderson; Almeida, Claudia S; Bugano, Diogo Diniz Gomes; Silva, Eliezer

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007022.pub2

Cited by 53 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some use it as the drug of choice for initial therapy of MRSA bacteremia, although good evidence to support this practice is lacking, while others favor its use for patients with intolerance to vancomycin [5]. Much debate has surrounded this antibiotic, however due to data showing inferior efficacy compared with vancomycin.…”

Section: Teicoplaninmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a significant cause of health care-associated infections. Vancomycin remains an acceptable treatment option. There has been a welcome increase in the number of agents available for the treatment of MRSA infection. These drugs have certain differentiating attributes and may offer some advantages over vancomycin, but they also have significant limitations. These agents provide some alternative when no other options are available.

show abstract

Section: Teicoplaninmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent data and meta-analysis suggest that teicoplanin may not be inferior to vancomycin [6]. One meta-analysis noted a lower risk of nephrotoxicity with teicoplanin than with vancomycin [5]. …”

Section: Teicoplaninmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These two antibiotics have similar efficacy and antibacterial spectrum against gram-positive pathogenic bacteria, except for the VanB class vancomycin-resistant enterococci, which are susceptible to teicoplanin treatment [1-2]. Compared to vancomycin, teicoplanin is significantly less toxic, particularly in terms of nephrotoxicity [1,2,3,4]. Besides being associated with lower incidence of adverse events, teicoplanin treatment has other advantages over vancomycin, such as once-daily bolus administration regimen and the use of the intramuscular route for injection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides being associated with lower incidence of adverse events, teicoplanin treatment has other advantages over vancomycin, such as once-daily bolus administration regimen and the use of the intramuscular route for injection. Red man syndrome, associated with histamine release after vancomycin administration, is also very rare in teicoplanin treatment [2]. Because teicoplanin requires considerable time to reach steady-state concentrations, the recommended dosing regimen includes a loading dose administered 3 times at 12 hour intervals, followed by a once-daily dose of at least 6 mg/L thereafter.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic Drug Concentrations of Teicoplanin in Clinical Settings

Nah

Yeo

et al. 2014

Infect Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTeicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic that is widely used in clinical practice for the treatment of infections caused by drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. The aim of this study was to analyze plasma teicoplanin concentrations to determine the percentage of patients in whom therapeutic concentrations of teicoplanin were achieved in clinical practice.Materials and MethodsThe plasma teicoplanin concentrations of hospitalized patients receiving treatment at a teaching hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The target level was defined as a plasma teicoplanin concentration of 10 mg/L or greater, since this was generally regarded as the lower limit of the optimal concentration range required for the effective treatment of a majority of infections.ResultsPatients with sub-optimal (< 10 mg/L) plasma teicoplanin concentrations constituted nearly half of the total study population. The majority of these patients received the recommended loading dose, which were three 400 mg doses administered every 12 hours. Sub-group analysis showed a trend that the group receiving loading dose was more likely to reach the optimal teicoplanin concentration.ConclusionsThe data revealed that a significant proportion of patients in clinical practice achieved only sub-optimal teicoplanin concentrations, which emphasizes the importance of the mandatory use of loading dose and routine therapeutic drug monitoring. Treatment reassessment and simulation of individual dose regimens may also be necessary to achieve optimal drug concentrations.

show abstract

“…In this study, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of drug-related adverse events between the VAN and TEC treatment groups. In meta-analysis studies, the incidence of total drug-related adverse events, including nephrotoxicity and red man syndrome, was lower with TEC (10,30,31). This discrepancy might have resulted from the closed TDM of VAN in our study, carried out according to recent clinical practice guidelines (34).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Multicenter Prospective Observational Study of the Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin versus Teicoplanin in Patients with Health Care-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

Yoon

Park²,

Kim

et al. 2014

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

pThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of vancomycin to those of teicoplanin for the treatment of adult patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (HA-MRSA) bacteremia. A multicenter observational study was prospectively conducted in 15 teaching hospitals in Korea between February 2010 and July 2011. Adult patients (>18 years old) with HA-MRSA bacteremia who were initially treated with vancomycin (VAN) (n ‫؍‬ 134) or teicoplanin (TEC) (n ‫؍‬ 56) were enrolled. Clinical and microbiological responses and drug-related adverse events were compared between the two treatment groups using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The vancomycin and teicoplanin MICs were determined by Etest. The MRSA-related mortality, duration of fever, and duration of MRSA bacteremia in the treatment groups were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of drug-related adverse events. Among the 190 MRSA isolates, the VAN MICs ranged from 0.5 to 2 g/ml (MIC 50 and MIC 90 , 1.5 g/ml), and the TEC MIC ranged from 0.5 to 8 g/ml (MIC 50 , 3 g/ml; MIC 90 , 6 g/ml). In multivariate analyses, the antibiotic type (vancomycin or teicoplanin) was not associated with treatment outcomes. This study indicates that teicoplanin is an effective and safe alternative to vancomycin for the treatment of HA-MRSA bacteremia.

show abstract

Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection

Cited by 53 publications

References 110 publications

Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

Therapeutic Drug Concentrations of Teicoplanin in Clinical Settings

Multicenter Prospective Observational Study of the Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin versus Teicoplanin in Patients with Health Care-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About