Skip to main content
PMC home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1997 Sep;41(9):1910–1915. doi: 10.1128/aac.41.9.1910

Activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin against penicillin-resistant pneumococci in vitro and in vivo and correlation to pharmacokinetic parameters in the mouse peritonitis model.

J D Knudsen 1, K Fuursted 1, F Espersen 1, N Frimodt-Møller 1
PMCID: PMC164034  PMID: 9303383

Abstract

The activities of glycopeptides against pneumococci were studied in vitro and in vivo. The MICs of two glycopeptides, vancomycin and teicoplanin, in different media against 10 strains of pneumococci with different susceptibilities to penicillin were determined. The MICs of teicoplanin were four times lower than those of vancomycin in Mueller-Hinton media supplemented with 5% blood, but the MICs were similar in mouse and human sera supplemented with 5% blood. The serum protein binding levels in mouse and human sera were 90% for teicoplanin in both and 25 and 35%, respectively, for vancomycin. The MICs for vancomycin and teicoplanin were only correlated in human serum (P < 0.001). The single doses giving protection to 50% of the animals in the mouse peritonitis model after a lethal challenge of pneumococci, the ED50s, were similar for vancomycin and teicoplanin, between 0.1 and 1 mg/kg of body weight for all 10 strains. The log ED50s were significantly correlated only to the log MICs of teicoplanin determined for mouse serum with 5% blood (P = 0.01) and to the log MICs of vancomycin determined by the E test (P = 0.03). Among the pharmacokinetic parameters analyzed at the ED50s, the most constant parameter was the time for which the drug concentration exceeded the MIC (T(>MIC)) when each drug was considered separately; however, when both drugs were considered together, the maximum concentration of drug in serum (Cmax) varied the least. This indicates that both these parameters are of importance for predicting the effect of the drugs. We conclude that the effect of glycopeptides was not influenced by the penicillin resistance of the pneumococci, either in vitro or in vivo, and that the superior activity of teicoplanin over that of vancomycin in vitro was abolished in vivo, an effect which probably was due to the high serum protein binding of teicoplanin. Both the pharmacokinetic parameters T(>MIC) and Cmax are important predicting the effect of glycopeptides, but the pharmacodynamics of glycopeptides are still not completely elucidated.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (183.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  2. Cantú T. G., Yamanaka-Yuen N. A., Lietman P. S. Serum vancomycin concentrations: reappraisal of their clinical value. Clin Infect Dis. 1994 Apr;18(4):533–543. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Caputo G. M., Appelbaum P. C., Liu H. H. Infections due to penicillin-resistant pneumococci. Clinical, epidemiologic, and microbiologic features. Arch Intern Med. 1993 Jun 14;153(11):1301–1310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Carper H. T., Sullivan G. W., Mandell G. L. Teicoplanin, vancomycin, rifampicin: in-vivo and in-vitro studies with Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987 May;19(5):659–662. doi: 10.1093/jac/19.5.659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Duffull S. B., Begg E. J., Chambers S. T., Barclay M. L. Efficacies of different vancomycin dosing regimens against Staphylococcus aureus determined with a dynamic in vitro model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994 Oct;38(10):2480–2482. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.10.2480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dykhuizen R. S., Harvey G., Stephenson N., Nathwani D., Gould I. M. Protein binding and serum bactericidal activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Aug;39(8):1842–1847. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.8.1842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldstein F. W., Geslin P., Acar J. F. Comparative activity of teicoplanin and vancomycin against 400 penicillin susceptible and resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. The French Study Group. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;13(1):33–34. doi: 10.1007/BF02026121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hyatt J. M., McKinnon P. S., Zimmer G. S., Schentag J. J. The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome. Focus on antibacterial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1995 Feb;28(2):143–160. doi: 10.2165/00003088-199528020-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. James J. K., Palmer S. M., Levine D. P., Rybak M. J. Comparison of conventional dosing versus continuous-infusion vancomycin therapy for patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996 Mar;40(3):696–700. doi: 10.1128/aac.40.3.696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Klugman K. P. Pneumococcal resistance to antibiotics. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1990 Apr;3(2):171–196. doi: 10.1128/cmr.3.2.171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Knudsen J. D., Frimodt-Møller N., Espersen F. Experimental Streptococcus pneumoniae infection in mice for studying correlation of in vitro and in vivo activities of penicillin against pneumococci with various susceptibilities to penicillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Jun;39(6):1253–1258. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.6.1253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Marrie T. J. Community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 1994 Apr;18(4):501–515. doi: 10.1093/clinids/18.4.501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Martínez F., Martín-Luengo F., García A., Valdés M. Treatment of experimental endocarditis caused by penicillin-resistant Streptococcus sanguis with different doses of teicoplanin. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol. 1994 May;16(4):247–251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pallanza R., Berti M., Goldstein B. P., Mapelli E., Randisi E., Scotti R., Arioli V. Teichomycin: in-vitro and in-vivo evaluation in comparison with other antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 May;11(5):419–425. doi: 10.1093/jac/11.5.419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Peetermans W. E., Hoogeterp J. J., Hazekamp-van Dokkum A. M., van den Broek P., Mattie H. Antistaphylococcal activities of teicoplanin and vancomycin in vitro and in an experimental infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Oct;34(10):1869–1874. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.10.1869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Watanakunakorn C., Greifenstein A., Stroh K., Jarjoura D. G., Blend D., Cugino A., Ognibene A. J. Pneumococcal bacteremia in three community teaching hospitals from 1980 to 1989. Chest. 1993 Apr;103(4):1152–1156. doi: 10.1378/chest.103.4.1152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES