Advertisement

Infection

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 430–436 | Cite as

Teicoplanin: 10 years of clinical experience

  • M. Trautmann
  • Margret Oethinger
  • R. Marre
  • Heidemarie Wiedeck
  • M. Ruhnke
Addendum

Summary

The teichomycin antibiotics have been discovered and chemically purified in the late 1970s. Teicoplanin, one of the major derivatives of this group, has been introduced into clinical use in 1984. In Germany, teicoplanin was licensed in 1988 and now ranks among the antimicrobial agents most frequently used in intensive care units. Due to its reduced rate of side effects compared to vancomycin, its longer serum half-life and a simplified mode of application, teicoplanin has become the glycopeptide of choice in many hospitals. The present review summarizesin vitro activity data, pharmacokinetics, and clinical experience with teicoplanin, with special consideration of currently recommended doses and serum levels.

Keywords

Intensive Care Unit Vancomycin Clinical Experience Antimicrobial Agent Activity Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Teicoplanin: 10 Jahre klinische Erfahrung

Zusammenfassung

Die Teichomycin-Antibiotika wurden Ende der 70er Jahre entdeckt und chemisch gereinigt. Das bisher wichtigste Derivat dieser Gruppe, Teicoplanin, wurde 1984 erstmals im Rahmen klinischer Studien angewandt. Nach seiner Zulassung in Deutschland, die Ende 1988 erfolgte, wurde Teicoplanin insbesondere in Intensivbereichen zu einem der meistverwendeten Antibiotika. Aufgrund seiner geringeren Nebenwirkungsrate im Vergleich zu Vancomycin, der längeren Serum-Halbwertszeit und eines vereinfachten Applikationsmodus (Bolus-Injektion), wurde Teicoplanin in vielen Kliniken als Glykopeptid erster Wahl eingeführt. In der vorliegenden Übersicht werden Daten zurIn-vitro-Aktivität, Pharmakokinetik sowie zu den klinischen Ergebnissen mit Teicoplanin zusammengefaßt, wobei insbesondere auf aktuelle Dosierungsempfehlungen und die Bestimmung von Serumspiegeln eingegangen wird.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bardone, M. R., Paternoster, M., Coronelli, C. Teichomycins, new antibiotics fromActinoplanes teichomyceticus nov. sp. II. Extraction and chemical characterisation. J. Antibiot. 31 (1978) 170–177.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Traina, J. L., Bonati, M. Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in man after IV administration. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 12 (1984) 119–128.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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. 26 (1984) 881–886.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smithers, J. A., Kulmala, H. K., Thompson, G. A., Antony, K. K., Lewis, E. W., Ruberg, S. J., Kenny, M. T., Dulworth, J. K., Brackman, M. A. Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin upon multiple-dose intravenous administration of 3, 12 and 30 mg/kg of body weight to healthy male volunteers. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 36 (1992) 115–120.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilbert, D. N., Wood, C. A., Kimbrough, R. C., andthe Infectious Diseases Consortium of Oregon Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 mg/kg/day in patients withStaphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 35 (1991) 79–87.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Venditti, M., Gelfusa, V., Serra, P., Brandimarte, C., Micozzi, A., Martino, P. Four-week treatment of streptococcal native valve endocarditis with high-dose teicoplanin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 36 (1992) 723–726.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Livornese, L. L., Gold, M., Johnson, C. C., Measley, R., Kaye, D., Korzeniowski, O., Walsh, M. L., Samel, C., Hessen, M., Levison, M. E. Clinical evaluation of teicoplanin in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial intravascular infections. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 31 (1993) 188–191.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gorzynski, E. A., Amsterdam, D., Beam jr., T. R., Rotstein, C. Comparativein vitro activities of teicoplanin, vancomycin, oxacillin, and other antimicrobial agents against bacteremic isolates of gram-positive cocci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 33 (1989) 2019–2022.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shonekan, D., Mildvan, D., Handwerger, S. Comparativein vitro activities of teicoplanin, daptomycin, ramoplanin, vancomycin, and PD127,391 against blood isolates of gram-positive cocci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 36 (1992) 1570–1572.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenwood, D. Microbiological properties of teicoplanin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 21 (1988) 1–13.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartoloni, A., Colao, M. G., Orsi, A., Dei, R., Giganti, E., Parenti, F. In vitro activity of vancomycin, teicoplanin, daptomycin, ramoplanin, MDL 62873 and other agents against staphylococci, enterococci andClostridium difficile. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 26 (1990) 627–633.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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. 34 (1990) 899–900.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, A. P., Uttley, A. H. C., Woodford, N., George, R. C. Resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin: an emerging clinical problem. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 3 (1990) 280–291.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leclercq, R., Derlot, E., Duval, J., Courvalin, P. Plasmid-mediated resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin inEnterococcus faecium. N. Engl. J. Med. 319 (1988) 157–161.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Newsom, S. W., Matthews, J., Rampling, A. M. Susceptibility ofClostridium difficile strains to new antibiotics: quinolones, efrotomycin, teicoplanin and imipenem. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 15 (1985) 648–650.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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. 34 (1990) 765–769.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carver, P. L., Nightingale, C. H., Quintiliani, R., Sweeney, K., Stevens, R. C. Pharmacokinetics of single and multiple-dose teicoplanin in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 33 (1989) 82–86.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McNulty, C. A. M., Garden, G. M. F., Wise, R., Andrews, J. M. The pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of teicoplanin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 16 (1985) 743–749.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campoli-Richards, D. M., Brogden, R. N., Faulds, D. Teicoplanin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic potential. Drugs 40 (1990) 449–486.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiström, J., for the Swedish CDAD Study Group Treatment ofClostridium difficile associated diarrhea and colitis with an oral preparation of teicoplanin; a dose finding study. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 26 (1994) 309–316.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Lalla, F., Nicolin, R., Rinaldi, E., Scarpellini, P., Rigoli, R., Manfrin, V., Tramarin, A. Prospective study of oral teicoplanin versus oral vancomycin for therapy of pseudomembranous colitis andClostridium difficile associated diarrhea. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 36 (1992) 2192–2196.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewis, P., Garaud, J. J., Parenti, F. A multicentre open clinical trial of teicoplanin in infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 21 (Suppl. A) (1988) 61–67.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bochud-Gabellon, J., Regamey, C. Teicoplanin, a new antibiotic effective against gram-positive bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissues. Dermatologica 176 (1988) 29–38.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edelstein, H. E., Oster, S. E., Chirurgi, V. A., Karp, R. A., Cassano, K. B., McCabe, R. E. Intravenous or intramuscular teicoplanin once daily for skin and soft tissue infections. Ann. Pharmacother. 25 (1991) 914–918.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stille, W., Sietzen, W., Dieterich, H. A., Fell, J. J. Clinical efficacy and safety of teicoplanin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 21 (Suppl. A) (1988) 69–79.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turpin, P. J., Taylor, G. P., Logan, N. M., Wood, M. J. Teicoplanin in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 21 (Suppl. A) (1988) 117–122.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Webster, A., Scott, G. M. S., Ridgway, G. L., Grüneberg, R. M. An outbreak of group A streptococcal skin infection: control by sound isolation and teicoplanin therapy. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 19 (1987) 205–209.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lang, E., Földes, M., Marghescu, S. Teicoplanin in der Behandlung von Haut- und Weichteilinfektionen: Ergebnisse einer Multicenter-Studie. Fortschritte der antimikrobiellen und antineoplastischen Chemotherapie 11 (1992) 625–633.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glupczynski, Y., Lagast, H., van der Auwera, P., Thys, J. P., Crokaert, F., Yourassowski, E., Meunier-Carpentier, F., Klastersky, J., Kains, J. P., Serruys-Schoutens, E., Legrand, J. C. Clinical evaluation of teicoplanin for therapy of severe infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 29 (1986) 52–57.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eitel, F., Bauernfeind, A., Lang, E. Teicoplanin in der Behandlung von Knochen- und Gelenkinfektionen. Fortschritte der antimikrobiellen und antineoplastischen Chemotherapie 11 (1992) 613–624.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    LeFrock, J. L., Ristuccia, A. M., Ristuccia, P. A., Quenzer, R. W., Haggerty, P. G., Allen, J. E., Lettau, L. A., Schwartz, R., Appleby, D. Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infection. Acta Chir. 567 (1992) 9–13.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Greenberg, R. N. Treatment of bone, joint, and vascular-access-associated gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplanin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 34 (1990) 2392–2397.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Webster, A., Russell, S. J., Souhami, R. L., Richards, J. D. M., Goldstone, A. H., Grüneberg, R. N. Use of teicoplanin for Hickman catheter associated staphylococcal infection in immunosuppressed patients. J. Hosp. Infect. 10 (1987) 77–82.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    O'Connell, B., Browne, P. V., Cafferkey, M. T., McCann, S. R. Coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia treated with teicoplanin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 31 (1993) 438–439.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmit, J. L. Efficacy of teicoplanin for enterococcal infections. 63 cases and review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 15 (1992) 302–306.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davey, P. G., Williams, A. H. Teicoplanin monotherapy of serious infections caused by gram-positive bacteria: a re-evaluation of patients with endocarditis orStaphylococcus aureus bacteremia from a European open trial. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 27 (Suppl. B) (1991) 43–50.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Calain, P., Krause, K. H., Vadaux, 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. 155 (1987) 187–191.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Graninger, W., Presterl, E., Georgopoulos, A., Kurz, R., Fell, J., Breyer, S., Janata, O., Krafft, P., Koci, E.: Teicoplanin in the treatment of septicemia. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Jerusalem, Israel, June 11–16, 1989, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Webster, A., Wilson, A. P. R., Williams, A. H., Treasure, T., Grüneberg, R. N. The use of a new glycopeptide antibiotic, teicoplanin, in the treatment of bacterial endocarditis. Postgrad. Med. J. 63 (1987) 621–624.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kaatz, G. W., Seo, S. M., Dorman, N. J., Lerner, S. A. Emergence of teicoplanin resistance during therapy ofStaphylococcus aureus endocarditis. J. Infect. Dis. 162 (1990) 103–108.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    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. 33 (1989) 1329–1334.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wilson, A. P. R., Grüneberg, R. N., Neu, H. Dosage recommendations for teicoplanin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 32 (1993) 792–796.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Williams, A. H., Grüneberg, R. N. Teicoplanin revisited. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 22 (1988) 397–401.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Van der Auwera, P., Aoun, M., Meunier, F. Randomized study of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections in immunocompromised hosts. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 35 (1991) 451–457.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Antrum, R. M., Bibby, S. R., Ramsden, C. H., Kester, R. C. Teicoplanin: Part II. Evaluation of its use in the biliary system. Drugs Exp. Clin. Res. 15 (1989) 25–27.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lang, E., Schäfer, V., Schaaf, B., Dennhardt, R. Comparison of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in gram-positive infections: a multi-center study. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 72 (1990) 54–60.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bowley, J. A., Pickering, S. J., Scantlebury, A. J., Ackrill, P., Jones, D. M. Intraperitoneal teicoplanin in the treatment of peritonitis associated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 21 (Suppl. A) (1988) 133–139.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kureishi, A., Jewesson, P. J., Rubinger, M., Cole, C. D., Reec, 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. 35 (1991) 2246–2252.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rolston, K. V. I., Nguyen, H., Amos, G., Eiting, L., Fainstein, V., Bodey, G. P. A randomized double-blind trial of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of gram-positive bacteremia in patients with cancer. J. Infect. Dis. 169 (1994) 350–355.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rybak, M. J., Lerner, S. A., Levine, D. P., Albrecht, L. M., McNeil, P. L., Thompson, G. A., Kenny, M. T., Yuh, L. Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in intravenous drug abusers being treated for bacterial endocarditis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 35 (1991) 696–700.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Davey, P. G., Williams, A. H. A review of the safety profile of teicoplanin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 27 (Suppl. B) (1991) 69–73.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cimino, M. A., Rotstein, C., Slaughter, R. L., Emrich, L. J. Relationship of serum antibiotic concentrations to nephrotoxicity in cancer patients receiving concurrent aminoglycoside and vancomycin therapy. Am. J. Med. 83 (1987) 1091–1097.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Downs, N. J., Neihart, R. E., Dolezal, J. M., Hodges, G. R. Mild nephrotoxicity associated with vancomycin use. Arch. Intern. Med. 149 (1989) 1777–1781.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wise, R., Donovan, I. A., McNulty, C. A. M., Waldron, R., Andrews, J. M. Teicoplanin, its pharmacokinetics, blister and peritoneal fluid penetration. J. Hosp. Infect. 7 (Suppl. A) (1986) 47–55.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    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. 33 (1989) 1193–1197.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Davies, A. J., Stone, J. M., Synott, M. Therapy of serious gram-positive infections with teicoplanin. Drugs. Exp. Clin. Res. 16 (1989) 29–31.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    De Pauw, B. E., Novakova, I. R. O., Donnelly, J. P. Options and limitations of teicoplanin in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Br. J. Haematol. 76 (Suppl. 2) (1990) 1–5.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Leport, C., Perronne, C., Massip, P., Canton, P., Leclercq, R., Bernard, E., Lutun, P., Garaud, J. J., Vilde, J. L.: Evaluation of teicoplanin for treatment of endocarditis caused by gram-positive cocci inGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© MMV Medizin Verlag GmbH München 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Trautmann
    • 1
  • Margret Oethinger
    • 1
  • R. Marre
    • 1
  • Heidemarie Wiedeck
    • 2
  • M. Ruhnke
    • 3
  1. 1.Abteilung für Med. Mikrobiologie und HygieneInstitut für Mikrobiologie und Immunologie der Universität UlmUlm
  2. 2.Sektion Operative Intensivmedizin, Abteilung Klinische AnästhesiologieUniversität UlmUlm
  3. 3.Abteilung Innere Medizin mit Schwerpunkt Hämatologie und Poliklinik, Universitätsklinikum Rudolf Virchow/CharlottenburgFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations