Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1994 Sep;38(9):2041–2046. doi: 10.1128/aac.38.9.2041

Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Gimema Infection Program.

F Menichetti 1, P Martino 1, G Bucaneve 1, G Gentile 1, D D'Antonio 1, V Liso 1, P Ricci 1, A M Nosari 1, M Buelli 1, M Carotenuto 1, et al.
PMCID: PMC284681  PMID: 7811016

Abstract

The efficacy and toxicity of teicoplanin and vancomycin in the initial empirical antibiotic regimen in febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies were compared in a prospective, randomized, unblinded, multicenter trial in the setting of 29 hematologic units in tertiary-care or university hospitals. A total of 635 consecutive febrile patients with hematologic malignancies and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia were randomly assigned to receive intravenously amikacin plus ceftazidime plus either teicoplanin at 6 mg/kg of body weight once daily or vancomycin at 1 g twice daily. An efficacy analysis was done for 527 evaluable patients: 275 treated with teicoplanin and 252 treated with vancomycin. Overall, successful outcomes were recorded for 78% of patients who received teicoplanin and 75% of those who were randomized to vancomycin (difference, 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 4%; P = 0.33). A total of 102 patients presented with primary, single-agent, gram-positive bacteremia. Coagulase-negative staphylococci accounted for 42%, Staphylococcus aureus accounted for 27%, and streptococci accounted for 21% of all gram-positive blood isolates. The overall responses to therapy of gram-positive bacteremias were 92 and 87% for teicoplanin and vancomycin, respectively (difference, 5%; CI, -17 to 6%; P = 0.22). Side effects, mainly represented by skin rash, occurred in 3.2 and 8% of teicoplanin- and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively (difference, -4.8%; CI, 0.7 to 8%; P = 0.03); the rate of nephrotoxicity was 1.4 and 0.8% for the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively (difference, 0.6%; CI, -2 to 1%; P = 0.68). Further infections were caused by gram-positive organisms in two patients (0.7%) treated with teicoplanin and one patient (0.4%) who received vancomycin (difference, 0.3%; CI, -0.9 to 1.0%; P = 0.53). Overall mortalities were 8.5 and 11% for teicoplanin- and vancomycin-treated patients, respectively (difference, -2.5%; CI, - 2 to 7%; P = 0.43); death was caused by primary gram-positive infections in three patients (1%) in each treatment group. When used for initial empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile, neutropenic patients, teicoplanin was at least as efficacious as vancomycin, but it was associated with fewer side effects.

Full text

PDF
2041

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. Brunet F., Vedel G., Dreyfus F., Vaxelaire J. F., Giraud T., Schremmer B., Monsallier J. F. Failure of teicoplanin therapy in two neutropenic patients with staphylococcal septicemia who recovered after administration of vancomycin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1990 Feb;9(2):145–147. doi: 10.1007/BF01963643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Del Favero A., Menichetti F., Guerciolini R., Bucaneve G., Baldelli F., Aversa F., Terenzi A., Davis S., Pauluzzi S. Prospective randomized clinical trial of teicoplanin for empiric combined antibiotic therapy in febrile, granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Jul;31(7):1126–1129. doi: 10.1128/aac.31.7.1126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Galanakis N., Giamarellou H., Vlachogiannis N., Dendrinos C., Daikos G. K. Poor efficacy of teicoplanin in treatment of deep-seated staphylococcal infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988 Apr;7(2):130–134. doi: 10.1007/BF01963065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gaya H., Klastersky J., Schimpff S. C., Tattersall M. H. Protocol for an international prospective trial of initial therapy regimens in neutropenic patients with malignant disease. Eur J Cancer. 1975 Aug;11SUPPL:1–4. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-08-019964-1.50004-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gilbert D. N., Wood C. A., Kimbrough R. C. Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 milligrams/kilogram/day in patients with Staphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. The Infectious Diseases Consortium of Oregon. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jan;35(1):79–87. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.1.79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldstein F. W., Coutrot A., Sieffer A., Acar J. F. Percentages and distributions of teicoplanin- and vancomycin-resistant strains among coagulase-negative staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 May;34(5):899–900. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.5.899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Karp J. E., Dick J. D., Angelopulos C., Charache P., Green L., Burke P. J., Saral R. Empiric use of vancomycin during prolonged treatment-induced granulocytopenia. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with acute leukemia. Am J Med. 1986 Aug;81(2):237–242. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(86)90257-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kureishi A., Jewesson P. J., Rubinger M., Cole C. D., Reece D. E., Phillips G. L., Smith J. A., Chow A. W. Double-blind comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving concomitant tobramycin and piperacillin: effect on cyclosporin A-associated nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Nov;35(11):2246–2252. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.11.2246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Martino P., Micozzi A., Gentile G., Raccah R., Girmenia C., Mandelli F. Piperacillin plus amikacin vs. piperacillin plus amikacin plus teicoplanin for empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients receiving quinolone prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis. 1992 Aug;15(2):290–294. doi: 10.1093/clinids/15.2.290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Menichetti F., Del Favero A., Bucaneve G., Aversa F., Baldelli F., Felicini R., Terenzi A., Pauluzzi S. Teicoplanin in empirical combined antibiotic therapy of bacteraemias in bone marrow transplant patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988 Jan;21 (Suppl A):105–111. doi: 10.1093/jac/21.suppl_a.105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Menichetti F., Del Favero A., Guerciolini R., Tonato M., Aversa F., Roila F., Frongillo R. F., Martelli M. F., Davis S., Pauluzzi S. Empiric antimicrobial therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Randomized prospective comparison of amikacin plus piperacillin with or without parenteral trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole. Infection. 1986 Nov-Dec;14(6):261–267. doi: 10.1007/BF01643959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Menichetti F., Del Favero A. The role of gram-positive therapy in the neutropenic patient. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991 Apr;27 (Suppl B):51–60. doi: 10.1093/jac/27.suppl_b.51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nováková I., Donnelly J. P., De Pauw B. Ceftazidime as monotherapy or combined with teicoplanin for initial empiric treatment of presumed bacteremia in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Apr;35(4):672–678. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.4.672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ramphal R., Bolger M., Oblon D. J., Sherertz R. J., Malone J. D., Rand K. H., Gilliom M., Shands J. W., Jr, Kramer B. S. Vancomycin is not an essential component of the initial empiric treatment regimen for febrile neutropenic patients receiving ceftazidime: a randomized prospective study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992 May;36(5):1062–1067. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.5.1062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Rybak M. J., Albrecht L. M., Boike S. C., Chandrasekar P. H. Nephrotoxicity of vancomycin, alone and with an aminoglycoside. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990 Apr;25(4):679–687. doi: 10.1093/jac/25.4.679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sahai J., Healy D. P., Shelton M. J., Miller J. S., Ruberg S. J., Polk R. Comparison of vancomycin- and teicoplanin-induced histamine release and "red man syndrome". Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 May;34(5):765–769. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.5.765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Shenep J. L., Hughes W. T., Roberson P. K., Blankenship K. R., Baker D. K., Jr, Meyer W. H., Gigliotti F., Sixbey J. W., Santana V. M., Feldman S. Vancomycin, ticarcillin, and amikacin compared with ticarcillin-clavulanate and amikacin in the empirical treatment of febrile, neutropenic children with cancer. N Engl J Med. 1988 Oct 20;319(16):1053–1058. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198810203191604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES