Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Risk-Benefit Assessment of Teicoplanin in the Treatment of Infections

  • Review Article
  • Risk-Benefit Assessment
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic whose activity is selectively oriented against Gram-positive aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Clostridium difficile, Peptostreptococcus spp. and Corynebacterium jeikeium; such activity is affected by neither methicillin resistance nor β-lactamase production.

Teicoplanin is not significantly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract; consequently, it has to be administered intravenously (either by infusion or by rapid injection) or intramuscularly. Its long half-life allows regimens based upon once daily administration.

The adverse effects most frequently associated with teicoplanin treatment are local and hypersensitivity reactions, such as itching and drug fever; anaphylactoid reactions (the ‘red man syndrome’) are seldom observed. Teicoplanin also has less potential than vancomycin to cause nephrotoxicity, especially when administered in combination with an aminoglycoside.

Teicoplanin has been proven to be effective in the treatment of microbiologically documented Gram-positive infections, including ‘difficult to treat infections’ such as endocarditis and prosthetic infections. Furthermore, recent trials in patients with haematological malignancies or other cancers have clearly demonstrated that teicoplanin is at least as efficacious as vancomycin in the empirical initial antibiotic regimen for febrile neutropenic patients, and is associated with fewer adverse effects. Finally, owing to its good tolerability profile and the advantage of once daily administration by both intravenous and intramuscular routes, teicoplanin has proven to be very useful for the outpatient treatment of serious Gram-positive infections.

In conclusion, teicoplanin is potentially an effective alternative to vancomycin both in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients, with the advantage over vancomycin of single daily dose administration and lower toxicity. Further comparative studies with vancomycin are, however, required to better define the therapeutic role of teicoplanin for particular infections (i.e. infective endocarditis).

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. Parenti F. Structure and mechanism of action of teicoplanin. J Hosp Infect 1986; 7 Suppl. A: 79–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brogden RN, Peters DH. Teicoplanin. A reappraisal of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1994; 47: 823–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reynolds PE. Inhibitors of bacterial wall synthesis. In: Greenwood D, O’Grady F, editors. The scientific basis of antimicrobial chemotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985: 13–40

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Committee for Laboratory Standards. 1992; 12: No. 20; Villanova, PA, USA

  5. Dutka-malen S, Leclercq R, Coutant V, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic heterogenicity of glycopeptide resistance determinants in Gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1875–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Verbist L, Tjandramaga B, Hendrickx B, et al. In vitro activity and human pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26: 881–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wise R, Donovan IA, McNulty CAM, et al. Teicoplanin, its pharmacokinetics, blister and peritoneal fluid penetration. J Hosp Infect 1986; 7: Suppl. A: 47–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Buniva G, Del Favero A, Bernareggi A, et al. Pharmacokinetics of 14C-teicoplanin in healthy volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21: Suppl. A: 23–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Del Favero A, Patoia L, Rosina R, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of teicoplanin in healthy volunteers after single increasing doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2551–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Thompson GA, Smithers JA, Kenny MT, et al. Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin upon multiple dose intravenous administration to normal healthy male volunteers. Biopharm Drug Dispos 1992; 13: 213–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Antony KK, Lewis EW, Kenny MT, et al. Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of a new formulation of teicoplanin following intravenous and intramuscular administration to humans. J Pharm Sci 1991; 80: 605–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cruciani M, Navarra A, Di Perri G, et al. Evaluation of intra-ventricular teicoplanin for the treatment of neurological shunt infections. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: 285–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson APR, Gruneberg RN, Neu H. Dosage recommendations for teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32: 792–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Greenberg RN. Treatment of bone, joint, and vascular-access-associated Gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 2392–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fernandez-Guerrero M, Gobernado M, Ariza J, et al. Spanish experience with teicoplanin. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl. 1990; 72: 38–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Livornese LL, Gold M, Johnson CC, et al. Clinical evaluation of teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial intravascular infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31: 188–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Presterl E, Graninger W, Georgopoulos A. The efficacy of teicoplanin in the treatment of endocarditis caused by Gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31: 755–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Venditti M, Gelfusa V, Serra P, et al. 4-week treatment of streptococcal native valve endocarditis with high-dose teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 723–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Davey P, Williams AH. Teicoplanin monotherapy of serious infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria: a re-evaluation of patients with endocarditis or Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia from a European open trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27: Suppl. B: 43–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gilbert DN, Wood CA, Kimbrough RC, et al. Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 milligrams/kilogram/day in patients with Staphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 79–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 1991; 35: 451–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis P, Garaud JJ, Parenti F. A multicentre open clinical trial of teicoplanin in infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21: Suppl. A: 61–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nathwani D, Reid TMS, Gould IM, et al. An open study of teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections. J Chemother 1991; 3: 315–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Edelstein HE, Oster SE, Karp RA, et al. Intravenous or intramuscular teicoplanin once daily for skin and soft-tissue infections. DICP 1991; 25: 914–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. LeFrock JL, Ristuccia AM, Ristuccia PA, et al. Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections. Eur J Surg 1992; Suppl. 567: 10–3

    Google Scholar 

  26. Weinberg WG. Safety and efficacy of teicoplanin for bone and joint infections: results of a community-based trial. South Med J 1993; 86: 891–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Concia E. Ruolo della teicoplanina nelle infezioni delle basse vie respiratorie. Antibioticoter Prat 1991; 1: 41–7

    Google Scholar 

  28. Amaducci S, Barbieri D, Cogo R, et al. Valutazione comparativa di trattamenti antibiotici empirici in pazienti in insufficienza respiratoria cronica con riacutizzazione infettiva bronchiale. Antibioticoter Prat 1992; 2: 63–70

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pizzo PA. Management of fever in patients with cancer and treatment induced neutropenia. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1323–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Menichetti F, Del Favero A. The role of Gram-positive therapy in the neutropenic patient. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27: Suppl. B: 51–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Del Favero A, Menichetti F, Guerciolini R, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial of teicoplanin for empiric combined antibiotic therapy in febrile, granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 1126–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group and the National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinica Trials Group. Vancomycin added to empirical combination therapy for fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. J Infect Dis 1991; 163: 951–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shenep J, Hughes WT, Roberson PK, et al. 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; 319: 1053–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Menichetti F, Martino P, Bucaneve G, et al. Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2041–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rolston KVI, Nguyen H, Amos G, et al. A randomized double-blind trial of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of Gram-positive bacteremia in patients with cancer. J Infect Dis 1994; 169: 350–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chow AW, Jewesson PJ, Kureishi A, et al. Teicoplanin versus vancomycin in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Eur J Haematol 1993; 51 Suppl. 54: 18–24

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kureishi A, Jewesson PJ, Rubinger M, et al. Double-blind comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving concomitant tobramycin and piperacillin: effect of ciclosporin A associated nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2246–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Nováková IR, Donnelly JP, Verhagen CS, et al. Teicoplanin as modification of initial empirical therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25: 985–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fauser AA, Lang E, Schmid J, et al. Antibiotische Behandlung der Sepsis mit Teicoplanin bei Knochenmarktransplantierten Patienten. Onkologie 1991; 14: 248–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Periti P, Stringa G, Donati L, et al. Teicoplanin. Its role as systemic therapy of burn infections and as prophylaxis for orthopaedic surgery. Eur J Surg 1991; Suppl. 567: 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  41. de Lalla F, Nicolin R, Rinaldi E, et al. Prospective study of oral teicoplanin versus oral vancomycin for therapy of pseudomembranous colitis and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2192–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. The Swedish CDAD Study Group. Treatment of Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea and colitis with an oral preparation of teicoplanin; a dose finding study. Scand J Infect Dis 1994; 26: 309–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Goodman SB, Schurman DJ. Prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. In: Schlossberg D, editor. Orthopedic infection. New York: Springier-Verlag, 1988: 144–55

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gorbach SL, Conbdon RE, Conte JE, et al. Evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for surgical prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: S313–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mollan RAB, Haddock M, Webb CH. Teicoplanin vs cephamandole for antimicrobial prophylaxis in prosthetic joint implant surgery (preliminary results). Eur J Surg 1992; Suppl. 567: 19–21

    Google Scholar 

  46. de Lalla F, Novelli A, Pellizzer GP, et al. Regional and systemic prophylaxis with teicoplanin in monolateral and bilateral total knee replacement procedures: study of pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 2693–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. de Lalla F, Viola R, Pellizzer GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of regional prophylaxis (RP) with teicoplanin (T) in total knee replacement (TKR) [abstract K3]. Abstracts of the 34th Inter-science Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: 1994 Oct 4–7; Orlando, Florida

  48. Lim SH, Smith MP, Machin SJ, et al. A prospective randomised study of prophylactic teicoplanin to prevent early Hickman catheter-related sepsis in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy for haematological malignancies. Eur J Haematol 1993; 51 Suppl. 54: 10–3

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Pellizzer GP, Nicolin R, D’Emilio A, et al. Teicoplanin (T) prophylaxis in tunnelled central venous catheter (TCVC) [abstract 89]. Abstracts of the 35th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: 1995 Sep 17–20; San Francisco

  50. Davey PG, Williams AH. A review of the safety profile of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27: Suppl. B: 69–73

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Polk RE. Anaphylactoid reactions to glycopeptide antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27: Suppl. B: 17–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Dubettier S, Boibieux A, Lagable M, et al. Red man syndrome with teicoplanin. Rev Infect Dis 1991; 13: 770–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Sahai J, Healy DP, Shelton MJ, et al. Comparison of vancomycin- and teicoplanin-induced histamine release and ‘red man syndrome’. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 765–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Davenport A. Allergic cross-reactivity to teicoplanin and vancomycin. Nephron 1993; 63: 482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Grek V, Andrien F, Collignon J, et al. Allergic cross-reaction of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 28: 476–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Knudsen JD, Pedersen M. IgE-mediated reaction to vancomycin and teicoplanin after treatment with vancomycin. Scand J Infect Dis 1992; 24: 395–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Lewis EW, Gibson CB, Heilman CJ, et al. Teicoplanin administration in patients with vancomycin hypersensitivity [abstract no. 1672]. Program and Abstracts of the 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: 1992 Oct 11–14; Anaheim, California

  58. Del Favero A, Patoia L, Bucaneve G, et al. Leukopenia with neutropenia associated with teicoplanin therapy. DICP 1989; 23: 45–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Novakòvà I, Donnelly JP, De Pauw B. Ceftazidime as monotherapy or combined with teicoplanin for initial empiric treatment of presumed bacteremia in febrile granulocytopenic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 35: 672–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lang E, Schafer V, Schaaf B, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in Gram-positive infections: a multi-centre study. Scand J Infect Dis 1990; 72: Suppl.: 54–60

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Guaglianone MH, Bachini V, Mosconi G, et al. Teicoplanin for empiric combined antibiotic therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Multicenter open trial: preliminary analysis of results in 614 treated patients. J Chemother 1993; 5: Suppl. 1:173–4

    Google Scholar 

  62. Frye RF, Job ML, Dretler RH, et al. Teicoplanin nephrotoxicity: first case report. Pharmacotherapy 1992; 12: 240–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Wilson APR, Gruneberg RN, Neu H. A critical review of the dosage of teicoplanin in Europe and the USA. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1994; 4: Suppl. 1: S1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Shanson DC, Shehata A, Tadayon M, et al. Comparison of intravenous teicoplanin with intramuscular amoxycillin for the prophylaxis of streptococcal bacteremia in dental patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20: 85–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Wilson APR, Treasure T, Gruneberg RN, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: a prospective comparison of two dosage regimens of teicoplanin with a combination of flucloxacillin and tobramycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21: 213–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Webster A, Wilson APR, Williams AH, et al. The use of a new glycopeptide antibiotic, teicoplanin, in the treatment of bacterial endocarditis. Postgrad Med J 1987; 63: 621–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Maher ER, Hollman A, Gruneberg RN. Teicoplanin-induced ototoxicity in Down’s syndrome. Lancet 1986; 1: 613

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Dagan R, Einhorn M, Howard CB, et al. Infections due to Gram-positive organisms in children: possible role for teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27: Suppl. B: 37–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Peller P, Aichholzer B, Fell J, et al. Safety and efficacy of teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in pediatric patients in Germany. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993; 12: S7–9

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kacet N, Dubos JP, Roussel-Delvallez M, et al. Teicoplanin and amikacin in neonates with staphylococcal infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993; 12: S10–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wilson AP, Gruneberg RN. Use of teicoplanin in community medicine. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 701–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Davey PG, Rowley DR, Phillips GA. Teicoplanin: home therapy for prosthetic joint infections. Eur J Surg 1992; Suppl. 567: 23–5

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ball LM, Siddal S, Van-Saenen H. Teicoplanin in home therapy of the terminally ill child. Eur J Haematol 1993; 54 Suppl.: 14–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Preis S, Jurgens H, Friedland C, et al. Ceftriaxone alone or in combination with teicoplanin in the management of febrile episodes in neutropenic children and adolescents with cancer on an outpatient base. Klin Padiatr 1993; 205: 295–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Infectious Diseases, San Bortolo Hospital, Viale Rodolfi, 36100, Vicenza, Italy

    Fausto de Lalla & Andrea Tramarin

Authors
  1. Fausto de Lalla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Tramarin
    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

de Lalla, F., Tramarin, A. A Risk-Benefit Assessment of Teicoplanin in the Treatment of Infections. Drug-Safety 13, 317–328 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-199513050-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-199513050-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation