Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1987 Feb;31(2):207–212. doi: 10.1128/aac.31.2.207

Clinical evaluation of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of teicoplanin for serious gram-positive infections.

M R Bibler, P T Frame, D N Hagler, R B Bode, J L Staneck, V Thamlikitkul, J E Harris, A Haregewoin, W E Bullock Jr
PMCID: PMC174693  PMID: 2952062

Abstract

Nineteen patients hospitalized for serious gram-positive infections were treated with teicoplanin, a new glycopeptide antibiotic. A variety of infections were treated, including endocarditis, septic thrombophlebitis, osteomyelitis, pyogenic arthritis, and soft tissue infection. Of 13 infections that could be evaluated in 12 patients, there were 8 clinical cures, 2 improvements, 1 recurrence, and 2 failures. Of the eight patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, seven were clinically cured or improved with teicoplanin therapy. Of the nine patients in whom the bacteriological response to treatment could be fully evaluated, six were cured; there was recurrence of infection in one, and treatment failed in two patients. In vitro testing showed the 13 bacterial isolates (9 S. aureus, 3 S. epidermidis, and 1 group B streptococcus) to be uniformly susceptible to teicoplanin, with MICs ranging from 0.12 to 0.5 microgram/ml. Every isolate was more susceptible in vitro to teicoplanin than to vancomycin. Three of the staphylococcal isolates were resistant to methicillin. Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated that after an initial drug-accumulation period, a single daily dose adequately maintained the teicoplanin concentrations in serum within therapeutic ranges. Teicoplanin also penetrated well into synovial fluid. The drug was well tolerated by either intravenous or intramuscular administration. The most significant adverse reaction was an urticarial rash which required discontinuation of therapy in one patient; a second patient experienced a modest decrease in high-frequency auditory threshold. Asymptomatic eosinophilia and mild elevation of serum transaminases were noted as well. The results of this study suggest that teicoplanin is a safe and effective new agent for treatment of serious infections caused by gram-positive organisms.

Full text

PDF
207

Selected References

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

  1. Abrams B., Sklaver A., Hoffman T., Greenman R. Single or combination therapy of staphylococcal endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers. Ann Intern Med. 1979 May;90(5):789–791. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-90-5-789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chambers H. F., Korzeniowski O. M., Sande M. A. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: clinical manifestations in addicts and nonaddicts. Medicine (Baltimore) 1983 May;62(3):170–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fainstein V., LeBlanc B., Bodey G. P. Comparative in vitro study of teichomycin A2. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Mar;23(3):497–499. doi: 10.1128/aac.23.3.497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Farber B. F., Moellering R. C., Jr Retrospective study of the toxicity of preparations of vancomycin from 1974 to 1981. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Jan;23(1):138–141. doi: 10.1128/aac.23.1.138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Faville R. J., Jr, Zaske D. E., Kaplan E. L., Crossley K., Sabath L. D., Quie P. G. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Combined therapy with vancomycin and rifampin. JAMA. 1978 Oct 27;240(18):1963–1965. doi: 10.1001/jama.240.18.1963. [DOI] [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. Inman R. D., Gallegos K. V., Brause B. D., Redecha P. B., Christian C. L. Clinical and microbial features of prosthetic joint infection. Am J Med. 1984 Jul;77(1):47–53. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90434-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Korzeniowski O., Sande M. A. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: A prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1982 Oct;97(4):496–503. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-97-4-496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Levine D. P., Cushing R. D., Jui J., Brown W. J. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in the Detroit Medical Center. Ann Intern Med. 1982 Sep;97(3):330–338. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-97-3-330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Massanari R. M., Donta S. T. The efficacy of rifampin as adjunctive therapy in selected cases of staphylococcal endocarditis. Chest. 1978 Mar;73(3):371–375. doi: 10.1378/chest.73.3.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McNulty C. A., Garden G. M., Wise R., Andrews J. M. The pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985 Dec;16(6):743–749. doi: 10.1093/jac/16.6.743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Rajashekaraiah K. R., Rice T., Rao V. S., Marsh D., Ramakrishna B., Kallick C. A. Clinical significance of tolerant strains of Staphylococcus aureus in patients with endocarditis. Ann Intern Med. 1980 Dec;93(6):796–801. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-93-6-796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Reisberg B. E. Infective endocarditis in the narcotic addict. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1979 Nov-Dec;22(3):193–204. doi: 10.1016/0033-0620(79)90023-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Reymann M. T., Holley H. P., Jr, Cobbs C. G. Persistent bacteremia in staphylococcal endocarditis. Am J Med. 1978 Nov;65(5):729–737. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(78)90790-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sorrell T. C., Collignon P. J. A prospective study of adverse reactions associated with vancomycin therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985 Aug;16(2):235–241. doi: 10.1093/jac/16.2.235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Traina G. L., Bonati M. Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in man after intravenous administration. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1984 Apr;12(2):119–128. doi: 10.1007/BF01059273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Walker C. A., Kopp B. Sensitive bioassay for vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Jan;13(1):30–33. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.1.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Watanakunakorn C., Tan J. S., Phair J. P. Some salient features of Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Am J Med. 1973 Apr;54(4):473–481. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(73)90043-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES