Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1991 Sep;35(9):1919–1922. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.9.1919

Susceptibility of Staphylococcus species and subspecies to teicoplanin.

T L Bannerman 1, D L Wadiak 1, W E Kloos 1
PMCID: PMC245293  PMID: 1835340

Abstract

Twenty-four Staphylococcus species and their subspecies were examined for their susceptibilities to teicoplanin by disk diffusion (30-micrograms disk) and agar dilution for the determination of MICs. Moderately susceptible and resistant clinical strains were further tested for their susceptibilities to oxacillin and vancomycin. Teicoplanin resistance was not observed in the reference strains of the various Staphylococcus species isolated from healthy volunteers or animals. However, the novobiocin-resistant species Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Staphylococcus cohnii, Staphylococcus xylosus, Staphylococcus arlettae, Staphylococcus kloosii, and Staphylococcus gallinarum were less susceptible to teicoplanin (MIC, 2 to 8 micrograms/ml) than most of the novobiocin-susceptible species were (MIC, 0.5 to 4 micrograms/ml). Clinical isolates of coagulase-negative species were generally less susceptible to teicoplanin than were reference strains. Seven percent of the Staphylococcus epidermidis clinical strains were moderately susceptible (MIC, 16 micrograms/ml) to teicoplanin. Of these strains, 70% were oxacillin resistant. For Staphylococcus haemolyticus strains, 11% were resistant (MIC, greater than 16 micrograms/ml) and 21% were moderately susceptible to teicoplanin. Of these strains, 95% were oxacillin resistant, No strains of S. epidermidis or S. haemolyticus were intermediate or resistant to vancomycin. Teicoplanin appears to be less active in vitro against oxacillin-resistant S. haemolyticus. However, teicoplanin is an effective antimicrobial agent against many Staphylococcus species.

Full text

PDF
1919

Selected References

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

  1. Arioli V., Pallanza R. Teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci. Lancet. 1987 Jan 3;1(8523):39–39. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)90724-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry A. L., Jones R. N., Gavan T. L., Thornsberry C. Quality control limits for teicoplanin susceptibility tests and confirmation of disk diffusion interpretive criteria. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Sep;25(9):1812–1814. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.9.1812-1814.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barry A. L., Thornsberry C., Jones R. N. Evaluation of teicoplanin and vancomycin disk susceptibility tests. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Jan;23(1):100–103. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.1.100-103.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Del Bene V. E., John J. F., Jr, Twitty J. A., Lewis J. W. Anti-staphylococcal activity of teicoplanin, vancomycin, and other antimicrobial agents: the significance of methicillin resistance. J Infect Dis. 1986 Aug;154(2):349–352. doi: 10.1093/infdis/154.2.349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Grant A. C., Lacey R. W., Brownjohn A. M., Turney J. H. Teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Lancet. 1986 Nov 15;2(8516):1166–1167. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90580-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Johnson A. P., Uttley A. H., Woodford N., George R. C. Resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin: an emerging clinical problem. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1990 Jul;3(3):280–291. doi: 10.1128/cmr.3.3.280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kloos W. E., Schleifer K. H. Simplified scheme for routine identification of human Staphylococcus species. J Clin Microbiol. 1975 Jan;1(1):82–88. doi: 10.1128/jcm.1.1.82-88.1975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kloos W. E., Wolfshohl J. F. Identification of Staphylococcus species with the API STAPH-IDENT system. J Clin Microbiol. 1982 Sep;16(3):509–516. doi: 10.1128/jcm.16.3.509-516.1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Low D. E., McGeer A., Poon R. Activities of daptomycin and teicoplanin against Staphylococcus haemolyticus and Staphylococcus epidermidis, including evaluation of susceptibility testing recommendations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Apr;33(4):585–588. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.4.585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]

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

RESOURCES