Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of teicoplanin in community medicine

  • Review
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Administration of parenteral antibiotics to outpatients is increasingly used to reduce hospital costs, to reduce loss of earnings for the patient and to improve the quality of life in patients requiring prolonged antibiotic treatment. The glycopeptides are required for treatment of infections caused by methicillin resistant staphylococci and some enterococci, or for treatment of patients allergic to beta-lactam agents. For home therapy, teicoplanin has some advantages over vancomycin in that it requires only once-daily bolus administration, does not necessitate monitoring of serum concentrations and offers the choice of intravenous or intramuscular administration. Teicoplanin has been used to complete treatment of endocarditis at home in selected patients, streptococcal disease being the most suitable form of endocarditis for this treatment. In open trials, teicoplanin has been found effective in home therapy of osteomyelitis but, as with other agents, prolonged dosage can be associated with adverse effects. It has also been used for home treatment of infections of the respiratory tract, intravascular catheters and soft tissue. Despite its higher acquisition costs, teicoplanin is to be preferred over vancomycin because of the reduced administration and assay costs and fewer adverse effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tice AD: An office model of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1991, 13, Supplement 2: S184-S188.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Voss A, Milatovic D, Wallrauch-Schwarz C, Rosdahl VT, Braveny I: Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus in Europe. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 1994, 13: 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Poretz DM, Eron LJ, Goldenberg RI, Gilbert AF, Rising J, Sparks S, Horn CE: Intravenous antibiotic therapy in an outpatient setting. Journal of the American Medical Association 1982, 248: 336–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rehm SJ, Weinstein AJ: Home intravenous antibiotic therapy: a team approach. Annals of Internal Medicine 1983, 99: 388–392.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Poretz DM, Woolard D, Eron LJ, Goldenberg RI, Rising J, Sparks S: Outpatient use of ceftriaxone: a cost-benefit analysis. American Journal of Medicine 1984, 77, Supplement 4C: 77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Balinsky W, Nesbitt S: Cost-effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antibiotics: a review of the literature. American Journal of Medicine 1989, 87: 301–305.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Halls GA: The management of infections and anti-biotic therapy: a European survey. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1993, 31: 985–1000.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moellering RC: Emergence ofEnterococcus as a significant pathogen. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1992, 14: 1173–1178.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Geslin P, Buu-Hoi A, Frémaux A, Acar JF: Antimicrobial resistance inStreptococcus pneumoniae: an epidemiological survey in France 1970–1990. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1992, 15: 95–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ayliffe GAJ, Lilly HA: Cross-infection and its prevention. Journal of Hospital Infection 1985, 6, Supplement B: 47–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rowland M: Clinical pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 1990, 18: 184–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thompson GA, Smithers JA, Kenny MT, Dulworth JK, Kulmala HK, Yuh L, Lewis EW, Antony KK: Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin upon multiple dose intravenous administration to normal healthy male volunteers. Biopharmaceutics and Drug Disposition 1992, 13: 213–220.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lewis P, Garaud JJ, Parenti F: A multicentre open clinical trial of teicoplanin in infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1988, 21, Supplement A: 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Amaducci S, Barbieri D, Cogo R, Dardes N, Fracchia C, Guffanti E, Pela R, Rampulla C, Sanguinetti CM, Zanon P, Grassi C: Valutazione comparativa di trattamenti antibiotici empirici in pazienti insufficienza respiratoria cronica con riacutizzazione infettiva bronchiale. Antibioticoterapia per la Pratica 1992, 3: 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Derbyshire N, Webb DB, Roberts D, Glew D, Williams JD: Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in subjects with varying degrees of renal function. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1989, 23: 869–876.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rybak MJ, Lerner SA, Levine DP, Albrecht LM, McNeil PL, Thompson GA, Kenny MT, Yuh L: Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in intravenous drug abusers being treated for bacterial endocarditis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1991, 35: 696–700.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Davey PG, Williams AH: A review of the safety profile of teicoplanin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1991, 27, Supplement B: 69–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kureishi A, Jewesson PJ, Rubinger M, Cole CD, Reece DE, Phillips GL, Smith JA, Chow AW: Doubleblind comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving concomitant tobramycin and piperacillin: effect on cyclosporin A-associated nephrotoxicity. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1991, 35: 2246–2252.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith SR, Cheesbrough JM, Makris M, Davies JM: Teicoplanin administration in patients experiencing reactions to vancomycin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1989, 23: 810–812.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Presterl E, Graninger W, Georgopoulos A: The efficacy of teicoplanin in the treatment of endocarditis caused by gram-positive bacteria. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1993, 31: 755–766.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leport C, Perronne C, Massip P, Canton P, Leclerq P, Bernard E, Lutun P, Garaud JJ, Vilde J: Evaluation of teicoplanin for treatment of endocarditis caused by gram-positive cocci in 20 patients. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1989, 33: 871–876.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Martino P, Venditti M, Micozzi A, Brandimarte C, Gentile G, Santini C, Serra P: Teicoplanin in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial endocarditis. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1989, 33: 1329–1334.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gilbert DN, Wood CA, Kimbrough RC, The Infectious Disease Consortium of Oregon: Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 milligrams/kilogram/day in patients withStaphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1991, 35: 79–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN, Neu H: Dosage recommendations for teicoplanin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1993, 32: 792–796.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Small PM, Chambers HF: Vancomycin forStaphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1990, 34: 1227–1231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR: Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampicin in methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991, 115: 674–680.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Le Frock JL, Ristuccia AM, Ristuccia PA, Quenzer RW, Haggerty PG, Allen JE, Lettau LA, Schwartz R, Appleby D: Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections. European Journal of Surgery 1992, Supplement 567, 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Craven PC: Treating bone and joint infections with teicoplanin: hospitalization vs outpatient cost issues. Hospital Formulary 1993, 28, Supplement 1: 41–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cony-Makhoul P, Brossard G, Marit G, Pellegrin JL, Texier-Maugein J, Reiffers J: A prospective study comparing vancomycin and teicoplanin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients. British Journal of Haematology 1990, 76, Supplement 2: 35–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith SR, Cheesbrough J, Spearing R, Davies JM: Randomized prospective study comparing vancomycin with teicoplanin in the treatment of infections associated with Hickman catheters. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1989, 33: 1193–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1991, 35, 451–457.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ball LM, Siddal S, van Saenen H: Teicoplanin in home therapy of the terminally ill child. European Journal of Haematology 1993, 51, Supplement 54: 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Holloway W, Bacon A, Reinhardt J: Teicoplanin in skin and soft tissue infections. In: Rubinstein E, Adam D (ed): Recent advances in chemotherapy. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Chemotherapy. Lewin-Epstein, Jerusalem, 1990, 2: 459.1–459.2.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rubinstein E: Teicoplanin — domiciliary use in surgical interventions. European Journal of Surgery 1992, Supplement 567: 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nightingale CH: Impact of nosocomial infections on hospital costs. Hospital Formulary 1993, 28: 51–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dagan R, Einhorn M, Howard CB, Williams AH: Outpatient and inpatient teicoplanin treatment for serious infections in children. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1993, 12, Supplement 1: S17-S20.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mawhinney WM, Adair CG, Gorman SP, McClurg B: Long-term stability of teicoplanin in dialysis fluid: implications for the home treatment of CAPD peritonitis. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 1991, 1: 90–93.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Al-Wali W, Baillod RA, Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT: Teicoplanin in the treatment of peritonitis in patients receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a comparative trial against vancomycin. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 1992, 1, Supplement 1: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wale MCJ, Finch RG, Morgan AG, Burden RP, Holliday A: A prospective randomised trial of teicoplanin plus aztreonam versus cefuroxime in CAPD peritonitis. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 1992, 1, Supplement 1: 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Joint Formulary Committee: British National Formulary. British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, London, September 1993, Number 26, p. 199.

  41. Shanson DC, Shehata A, Tadayon M, Harris M: Comparison of intravenous teicoplanin with intramuscular amoxycillin for the prophylaxis of streptococcal bacteraemia in dental patients. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1987, 20: 85–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Davey PG: The economics of hospital antibiotic use in the changing world. British Journal of Intensive Care 1993, 3, Supplement 1: 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tanner DJ, Nazarian MQ: Cost containment associated with decreased parenteral antibiotic administration frequencies. American Journal of Medicine 1984, 77: 104–111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Baumgartner JD, Glauser MP: Single daily dose treatment of severe refractory infections with ceftriaxone. Annals of Internal Medicine 1983, 143: 1868–1873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Grüneberg RN: The true cost of monitoring antibiotic levels. Hospital Formulary 1993, 28: 55–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wenzel RP, Pfaller MA: Feasible and desirable future targets for reducing the costs of hospital infections. Journal of Hospital Infection 1991, 18, Supplement A: 94–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Davey PG, Hernanz C, Lynch W, Malek M, Byrne D: Human and non-financial costs of hospital acquired infection. Journal of Hospital Infection 1991, 18, Supplement A: 79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Korin J: Cost implications of malpractice and adverse events. Hospital Formulary 1993, 28: 59–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rubinstein E: Cost implications of home care on serious infections. Hospital Formulary 1993, 28: 46–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schaison GS: Cost effectiveness of teicoplanin and ceftriaxone: a once daily antibiotic regimen. Hospital Formulary 1993, 28: 20–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Microbiology, University College Hospital, Grafton Way, WC1E 6AU, London, UK

    A. P. R. Wilson & R. N. Grüneberg

Authors
  1. A. P. R. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. N. Grüneberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, A.P.R., Grüneberg, R.N. Use of teicoplanin in community medicine. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 13, 701–710 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02276052

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02276052

Keywords

Search

Navigation