Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1990 Dec;34(12):2392–2397. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.12.2392

Treatment of bone, joint, and vascular-access-associated gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplanin.

R N Greenberg 1
PMCID: PMC172067  PMID: 2150908

Abstract

Teicoplanin, a glycopeptide antibiotic, was evaluated for safety and efficacy in the treatment of vascular-access-associated bacteremias and of bone and joint infections due to susceptible gram-positive organisms. Of 35 patients enrolled, 26 had osteomyelitis, 8 had vascular-access-associated bacteremias, and 1 had a joint infection. A total of 38 gram-positive isolates were identified: 23 Staphylococcus aureus and 6 coagulase-negative staphylococcus and 9 streptococcus isolates. After at least 6 months of follow-up, 17 patients were evaluable for efficacy: 10 of 14 (71%) with osteomyelitis and 3 of 3 with vascular-access-associated bacteremias had full resolution of their infections. Inadequate debridement, the presence of metal, and inadequate dosing were likely causes of two failures and two relapses in patients with osteomyelitis. For all but two organisms, teicoplanin MICs were less than or equal to 2 micrograms/ml. Patients who responded had median peak and trough serum bactericidal levels at serum dilutions of 1:64 and 1:16; trough levels of teicoplanin in serum were greater than 30 micrograms/ml. Patients did not respond as expected to daily doses of 4 mg/kg of body weight, which consequently were increased to greater than or equal to 15 mg/kg. Audiology testing of 20 patients found 2 with a mild loss of high-frequency hearing; 1 patient complained of tinnitus. Patients tolerated peak levels in serum as high as 127 micrograms/ml and trough levels of 49 micrograms/ml. However, 5 of 18 patients (28%) whose daily dose was greater than or equal to 12 mg/kg developed drug fever and rash and had teicoplanin discontinued. Further study of the antibiotic at such higher doses is needed.

Full text

PDF
2392

Selected References

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

  1. Bauer A. W., Kirby W. M., Sherris J. C., Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966 Apr;45(4):493–496. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Cantoni L., Wenger A., Glauser M. P., Bille J. Comparative efficacy of amoxicillin-clavulanate, cloxacillin, and vancomycin against methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in rats. J Infect Dis. 1989 May;159(5):989–993. doi: 10.1093/infdis/159.5.989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cavenaghi L., Corti A., Cassani G. Comparison of the solid phase enzyme receptor assay (SPERA) and the microbiological assay for teicoplanin. J Hosp Infect. 1986 Mar;7 (Suppl A):85–89. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(86)90012-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cynamon M. H., Granato P. A. Comparison of the in vitro activities of teichomycin A2 and vancomycin against staphylococci and enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Mar;21(3):504–505. doi: 10.1128/aac.21.3.504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Gorzynski E. A., Amsterdam D., Beam T. R., Jr, Rotstein C. Comparative in vitro activities of teicoplanin, vancomycin, oxacillin, and other antimicrobial agents against bacteremic isolates of gram-positive cocci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Nov;33(11):2019–2022. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.11.2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. Martino P., Venditti M., Micozzi A., Brandimarte C., Gentile G., Santini C., Serra P. Teicoplanin in the treatment of gram-positive-bacterial endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Aug;33(8):1329–1334. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.8.1329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. Smith S. R., Cheesbrough J., Spearing R., Davies J. M. Randomized prospective study comparing vancomycin with teicoplanin in the treatment of infections associated with Hickman catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Aug;33(8):1193–1197. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.8.1193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Somma S., Gastaldo L., Corti A. Teicoplanin, a new antibiotic from Actinoplanes teichomyceticus nov. sp. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 Dec;26(6):917–923. doi: 10.1128/aac.26.6.917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Williams A. H., Grüneberg R. N. Teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1984 Nov;14(5):441–445. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES