Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1996 May;40(5):1242–1247. doi: 10.1128/aac.40.5.1242

Population pharmacokinetic study of teicoplanin in severely neutropenic patients.

O Lortholary 1, M Tod 1, N Rizzo 1, C Padoin 1, O Biard 1, P Casassus 1, L Guillevin 1, O Petitjean 1
PMCID: PMC163299  PMID: 8723474

Abstract

The teicoplanin pharmacokinetics (PK) of 30 febrile and severely neutropenic patients (polymorphonuclear count, < 500/mm3) with hematologic malignancies were compared with those determined for five healthy volunteers (HV). Neutropenic patients were given piperacillin combined with amikacin, and teicoplanin was added to the regimen the day fever developed in patients suspected of having a staphylococcal infection or 48 h later. Teicoplanin was given intravenously at a dosage of 6 mg/kg of body weight at 0, 12, and 24 h and once a day thereafter. Five to eleven blood samples per patient were collected. Teicoplanin concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography. A bicompartmental model was fitted to the data by a nonlinear mixed-effect-model approach. Multiple-linear regression analysis was applied in an attempt to correlate PK parameters to nine covariates. The mean trough concentrations of teicoplanin 48 h after the onset of treatment and 24 h after the last injection (last trough) +/- standard deviations were 8.8 +/- 4.1 and 17.5 +/- 13.5 mg/liter, respectively. A significant increase was noted in the mean rate of elimination clearance of teicoplanin in neutropenic patients compared with that of HV (0.86 versus 0.73 liter/h, P = 0.002), as was the case with rates of distribution clearance (5.89 versus 4.94 liter/h, P = 0.002); the mean half-life of distribution was significantly shorter in patients than in HV (0.43 versus 0.61 h, P = 0.002). In contrast, the volumes of the central compartment (ca. 5.8 liters for both groups), the volumes of distribution at steady state (HV, 37.6 liters; patients, 55.9 liters), and the elimination half-lives (HV, 39.6 h; patients, 52.7 h) were not significantly different between HV and neutropenic patients. Interindividual variabilities of rates of clearance (coefficient of variation [CV], 43%) and elimination half-lives (CV, 56%) were mainly explained by the variabilities among rates of creatinine clearance. Interindividual variabilities of the volumes of the central compartment (CV, 33%) and the volumes of distribution at steady state (CV = 51%) were correlated to interindividual variabilities among numbers of leukocytes and the ages of patients, respectively. On the basis of the population PK model of teicoplanin, simulations were made to optimize the dosing schedule. A supplemental 6 mg/kg dose of teicoplanin at 36 h resulted in a trough concentration at 48 h of 16.0 +/- 4.5 mg/liter, with only 7% of patients having a trough concentration of less than 10 mg/liter, compared with 46% of patients on the usual schedule.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (212.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Brogden R. N., Peters D. H. Teicoplanin. A reappraisal of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs. 1994 May;47(5):823–854. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199447050-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown A. E. Neutropenia, fever, and infection. Am J Med. 1984 Mar;76(3):421–428. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90661-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Carver P. L., Nightingale C. H., Quintiliani R., Sweeney K., Stevens R. C., Maderazo E. Pharmacokinetics of single- and multiple-dose teicoplanin in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Jan;33(1):82–86. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.1.82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Chang D., Liem L., Malogolowkin M. A prospective study of vancomycin pharmacokinetics and dosage requirements in pediatric cancer patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1994 Nov;13(11):969–974. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199411000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cockcroft D. W., Gault M. H. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16(1):31–41. doi: 10.1159/000180580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cremieux A. C., Maziere B., Vallois J. M., Ottaviani M., Azancot A., Raffoul H., Bouvet A., Pocidalo J. J., Carbon C. Evaluation of antibiotic diffusion into cardiac vegetations by quantitative autoradiography. J Infect Dis. 1989 May;159(5):938–944. doi: 10.1093/infdis/159.5.938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gomeni R., Pineau G., Mentré F. Population kinetics and conditional assessment of the optimal dosage regimen using the P-PHARM software package. Anticancer Res. 1994 Nov-Dec;14(6A):2321–2326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jehl F., Monteil H., Tarral A. HPLC quantitation of the six main components of teicoplanin in biological fluids. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988 Jan;21 (Suppl A):53–59. doi: 10.1093/jac/21.suppl_a.53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kureishi A., Jewesson P. J., Bartlett K. H., Cole C. D., Chow A. W. Application of a modified bioassay for monitoring serum teicoplanin and vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Sep;34(9):1642–1647. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.9.1642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kureishi A., Jewesson P. J., Rubinger M., Cole C. D., Reece D. E., Phillips G. L., Smith J. A., Chow A. W. Double-blind comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving concomitant tobramycin and piperacillin: effect on cyclosporin A-associated nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Nov;35(11):2246–2252. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.11.2246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Ludden T. M., Beal S. L., Sheiner L. B. Comparison of the Akaike Information Criterion, the Schwarz criterion and the F test as guides to model selection. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1994 Oct;22(5):431–445. doi: 10.1007/BF02353864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Menichetti F., Martino P., Bucaneve G., Gentile G., D'Antonio D., Liso V., Ricci P., Nosari A. M., Buelli M., Carotenuto M. Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Gimema Infection Program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994 Sep;38(9):2041–2046. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.9.2041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mentré F., Gomeni R. A two-step iterative algorithm for estimation in nonlinear mixed-effect models with an evaluation in population pharmacokinetics. J Biopharm Stat. 1995 Jul;5(2):141–158. doi: 10.1080/10543409508835104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rowland M. Clinical pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1990 Mar;18(3):184–209. doi: 10.2165/00003088-199018030-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Rubin M., Hathorn J. W., Marshall D., Gress J., Steinberg S. M., Pizzo P. A. Gram-positive infections and the use of vancomycin in 550 episodes of fever and neutropenia. Ann Intern Med. 1988 Jan;108(1):30–35. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-108-1-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Smithers J. A., Kulmala H. K., Thompson G. A., Antony K. K., Lewis E. W., Ruberg S. J., Kenny M. T., Dulworth J. K., Brackman M. A. 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. 1992 Jan;36(1):115–120. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.1.115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Torney H. L., Balistreri F. J., Kenny M. T., Cheng W. D. Comparative therapeutic efficacy of teicoplanin and vancomycin in normal and in neutropenic mice infected with Staphylococcus haemolyticus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991 Aug;28(2):261–269. doi: 10.1093/jac/28.2.261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Verbist L., Tjandramaga B., Hendrickx B., Van Hecken A., Van Melle P., Verbesselt R., Verhaegen J., De Schepper P. J. In vitro activity and human pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 Dec;26(6):881–886. doi: 10.1128/aac.26.6.881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Zeitany R. G., El Saghir N. S., Santhosh-Kumar C. R., Sigmon M. A. Increased aminoglycoside dosage requirements in hematologic malignancy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 May;34(5):702–708. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.5.702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES