Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1995 Aug;39(8):1842–1847. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.8.1842

Protein binding and serum bactericidal activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin.

R S Dykhuizen 1, G Harvey 1, N Stephenson 1, D Nathwani 1, I M Gould 1
PMCID: PMC162836  PMID: 7486929

Abstract

In a randomized crossover study, the protein binding and serum bactericidal activities (SBAs) of vancomycin and teicoplanin against Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes were investigated in six healthy volunteers. Total concentrations in serum 1 h postadministration of vancomycin and teicoplanin were 25.5 +/- 2.7 and 10.8 +/- 8.9 mg/liter, respectively; mean free concentrations were 14.6 +/- 2.0 and 0.6 +/- 0.9 mg/liter, respectively. Protein binding for vancomycin was 36.9% +/- 2.87%, and that for teicoplanin was 97.4% +/- 2.6%. SBA determined in pooled human serum at 1 h against S. aureus ranged from 1:8 to 1:32 for both vancomycin and teicoplanin. Against S. pyogenes SBA at 1 h ranged from 1:16 to 1:128 for vancomycin and 1:256 to 1:2,048 for teicoplanin. In vitro kill curve studies showed that vancomycin is slowly bactericidal and that teicoplanin is bacteriostatic. Despite having less in vitro cidal activity against the study isolates and having low or unrecordable levels of free drug in serum, teicoplanin demonstrated a similar or better SBA than vancomycin. SBA was more closely related to the total drug level (r = 0.77 for S. aureus and r = 0.79 for S. pyogenes) than the free level of teicoplanin (r = 0.59 for S. aureus and r = 0.56 for S. pyogenes). The high level of protein binding of teicoplanin did not seem to impair its antibacterial activity as measured by its SBA.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (282.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Assandri A., Bernareggi A. Binding of teicoplanin to human serum albumin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1987;33(2):191–195. doi: 10.1007/BF00544566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey E. M., Rybak M. J., Kaatz G. W. Comparative effect of protein binding on the killing activities of teicoplanin and vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jun;35(6):1089–1092. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.6.1089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bibler M. R., Frame P. T., Hagler D. N., Bode R. B., Staneck J. L., Thamlikitkul V., Harris J. E., Haregewoin A., Bullock W. E., Jr Clinical evaluation of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of teicoplanin for serious gram-positive infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Feb;31(2):207–212. doi: 10.1128/aac.31.2.207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brunet F., Vedel G., Dreyfus F., Vaxelaire J. F., Giraud T., Schremmer B., Monsallier J. F. Failure of teicoplanin therapy in two neutropenic patients with staphylococcal septicemia who recovered after administration of vancomycin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1990 Feb;9(2):145–147. doi: 10.1007/BF01963643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Calain P., Krause K. H., Vaudaux P., Auckenthaler R., Lew D., Waldvogel F., Hirschel B. Early termination of a prospective, randomized trial comparing teicoplanin and flucloxacillin for treating severe staphylococcal infections. J Infect Dis. 1987 Feb;155(2):187–191. doi: 10.1093/infdis/155.2.187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chambers H. F., Kennedy S. Effects of dosage, peak and trough concentrations in serum, protein binding, and bactericidal rate on efficacy of teicoplanin in a rabbit model of endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Apr;34(4):510–514. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.4.510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Deeter R. G., Weinstein M. P., Swanson K. A., Gross J. S., Bailey L. C. Crossover assessment of serum bactericidal activity and pharmacokinetics of five broad-spectrum cephalosporins in the elderly. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Jun;34(6):1007–1013. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.6.1007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Drusano G. L. Role of pharmacokinetics in the outcome of infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988 Mar;32(3):289–297. doi: 10.1128/aac.32.3.289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Glupczynski Y., Lagast H., Van der Auwera P., Thys J. P., Crokaert F., Yourassowsky E., Meunier-Carpentier F., Klastersky J., Kains J. P., Serruys-Schoutens E. Clinical evaluation of teicoplanin for therapy of severe infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Jan;29(1):52–57. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.1.52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gould I. M., Milne K., Harvey G., Jason C. Ionic binding, adaptive resistance and post-antibiotic effect of netilmicin and ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991 Jun;27(6):741–748. doi: 10.1093/jac/27.6.741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gould I. M., Wilson D., Milne K., Paterson A., Golder D., Russell D. Interaction of imipenem with erythromycin and tetracycline assessed by microdilution checkerboard techniques. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Nov;35(11):2407–2409. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.11.2407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Greenberg R. N., Benes C. A. Time-kill studies with oxacillin, vancomycin, and teicoplanin versus Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis. 1990 May;161(5):1036–1037. doi: 10.1093/infdis/161.5.1036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Greenwood D. Microbiological properties of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988 Jan;21 (Suppl A):1–13. doi: 10.1093/jac/21.suppl_a.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaatz G. W., Seo S. M., Reddy V. N., Bailey E. M., Rybak M. J. Daptomycin compared with teicoplanin and vancomycin for therapy of experimental Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Nov;34(11):2081–2085. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.11.2081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lam Y. W., Duroux M. H., Gambertoglio J. G., Barriere S. L., Guglielmo B. J. Effect of protein binding on serum bactericidal activities of ceftazidime and cefoperazone in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988 Mar;32(3):298–302. doi: 10.1128/aac.32.3.298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee B. L., Sachdeva M., Chambers H. F. Effect of protein binding of daptomycin on MIC and antibacterial activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Dec;35(12):2505–2508. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.12.2505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Leport C., Perronne C., Massip P., Canton P., Leclercq P., Bernard E., Lutun P., Garaud J. J., Vilde J. L. Evaluation of teicoplanin for treatment of endocarditis caused by gram-positive cocci in 20 patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Jun;33(6):871–876. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.6.871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Neu H. C., Labthavikul P. In vitro activity of teichomycin compared with those of other antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Sep;24(3):425–428. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.3.425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Parenti F. Glycopeptide antibiotics. J Clin Pharmacol. 1988 Feb;28(2):136–140. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1988.tb05737.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Pearson R. D., Steigbigel R. T., Davis H. T., Chapman S. W. Method of reliable determination of minimal lethal antibiotic concentrations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Nov;18(5):699–708. doi: 10.1128/aac.18.5.699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Peterson L. R., Gerding D. N. Prediction of cefazolin penetration in high- and low-protein-containing extravascular fluid: new method for performing simultaneous studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Oct;14(4):533–538. doi: 10.1128/aac.14.4.533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Peterson L. R., Moody J. A., Fasching C. E., Gerding D. N. Influence of protein binding on therapeutic efficacy of cefoperazone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Apr;33(4):566–568. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.4.566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Reller L. B., Stratton C. W. Serum dilution test for bactericidal activity. II. Standardization and correlation with antimicrobial assays and susceptibility tests. J Infect Dis. 1977 Aug;136(2):196–204. doi: 10.1093/infdis/136.2.196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Schwenzer K. S., Wang C. H., Anhalt J. P. Automated fluorescence polarization immunoassay for monitoring vancomycin. Ther Drug Monit. 1983;5(3):341–345. doi: 10.1097/00007691-198309000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Taylor R. B., Reid R. G., Gould I. M. Determination of teicoplanin in plasma using microbore high-performance liquid chromatography and injection-generated gradients. J Chromatogr. 1991 Feb 15;563(2):451–457. doi: 10.1016/0378-4347(91)80055-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Van der Auwera P., Klastersky J. Study of the influence of protein binding on serum bactericidal titres and killing rates in volunteers receiving ceftazidime, cefotaxime and ceftriaxone. J Hosp Infect. 1990 Apr;15 (Suppl A):23–34. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(90)90076-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Williams A. H., Grüneberg R. N., Webster A., Ridgway G. L. Teicoplanin in the treatment of infection caused by gram-positive organisms. J Hosp Infect. 1986 Mar;7 (Suppl A):101–103. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(86)90014-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wise R., Donovan I. A., McNulty C. A., Waldron R., Andrews J. M. Teicoplanin, its pharmacokinetics, blister and peritoneal fluid penetration. J Hosp Infect. 1986 Mar;7 (Suppl A):47–55. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(86)90007-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wise R. The clinical relevance of protein binding and tissue concentrations in antimicrobial therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1986 Nov-Dec;11(6):470–482. doi: 10.2165/00003088-198611060-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wise R. The relevance of pharmacokinetics to in-vitro models: protein binding--does it matter? J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985 Jan;15 (Suppl A):77–83. doi: 10.1093/jac/15.suppl_a.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES