Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1986 Jan;23(1):100–103. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.1.100-103.1986

Evaluation of teicoplanin and vancomycin disk susceptibility tests.

A L Barry, C Thornsberry, R N Jones
PMCID: PMC268579  PMID: 2939101

Abstract

Disk tests with two glycopeptide antibiotics, teicoplanin and vancomycin, were evaluated, and MICs were compared with those of fusidic acid and coumermycin. For tests with 30-micrograms vancomycin disks, we recommend modification of the current zone size standards to less than or equal to 10 mm for resistant and greater than or equal 15 mm for susceptible. For teicoplanin disk tests, 30-micrograms disks are recommended, with zone size interpretive standards of less than or equal to 10 and greater than or equal 14 mm. Since no resistant clinical isolates are available at this time, susceptibility testing of either drug is rarely necessary, and zone size standards are tentative.

Full text

PDF
100

Selected References

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

  1. Bauernfeind A., Petermüller C. In vitro activity of teichomycin A 2 in comparison with penicillin and vancomycin against gram-positive cocci. Eur J Clin Microbiol. 1982 Oct;1(5):278–281. doi: 10.1007/BF02019971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Borghi A., Coronelli C., Faniuolo L., Allievi G., Pallanza R., Gallo G. G. Teichomycins, new antibiotics from Actinoplanes teichomyceticus nov. sp. IV. Separation and characterization of the components of teichomycin (teicoplanin). J Antibiot (Tokyo) 1984 Jun;37(6):615–620. doi: 10.7164/antibiotics.37.615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Guenthner S. H., Wenzel R. P. In vitro activities of teichomycin, fusidic acid, flucloxacillin, fosfomycin, and vancomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 Aug;26(2):268–269. doi: 10.1128/aac.26.2.268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jadeja L., Fainstein V., LeBlanc B., Bodey G. P. Comparative in vitro activities of teichomycin and other antibiotics against JK diphtheroids. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Aug;24(2):145–146. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.2.145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. Williams A. H., Grüneberg R. N. Teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1984 Nov;14(5):441–445. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES