Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anti-Gram-Positive Agents

What We Have and What We Would Like

  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The usefulness of many anti-Gram-positive antibiotics is being compromised by the spread of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The most reliable agents for serious infections are the glycopeptide agents vancomycin and teicoplanin.

The appropriate maintenance dosage for teicoplanin in serious infections is 6 mg/kg/day, i.e. usually 400 mg/day. There are 3 exceptions for which the daily maintenance dosage should be 12 mg/kg/day and these are intravenous drug abusers, septic arthritis (but not osteomyelitis), and Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis treated with teicoplanin monotherapy.

When teicoplanin is given at these doses, it achieves clinical and bacteriological results that are equivalent to those obtained with vancomycin, irrespective of pathogen or type of infection. The toxicity profile favours teicoplanin over vancomycin, especially when other, potentially toxic, drugs are coadministered. Teicoplanin also has an advantage in terms of ease and convenience of administration, which, together with its lack of need for routine blood level monitoring, facilitates its use outside hospital.

New agents hold some promise for the future; however, oral agents, if developed, could present the risk of being overused, which might compromise their long term utility.

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. Stickler D. Prosthetic device-associated infections: what’s new? Curr Opin Infect Dis 1996; 9: 265–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Eykyn SJ, Grandsen WR, Phillips I. The causative organisms of septicaemia and their epidemiology. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25 Suppl. C: 41–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Voss A, Milatovic D, Wallrauch-Schwarz C, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Europe. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 50–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Spencer RC, Goering R. A critical review of the in vitro activity of teicoplanin. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1995; 5: 169–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldstein F, Acar J. Antimicrobial resistance among lower respiratory tract isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae — results of a 1992–93 Western European and United States collaborative surveillance study. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38 Suppl. A: 71–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones RN, Sader HS, Erwin ME, et al. Emerging multiply resistant enterococci among clinical isolates. I. Prevalence data from a 97 medical center surveillance study in the United States. Enterococcus Study Group. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 21: 85–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown DFJ, Courvalin P, European Glycopeptide Resistance Group. European Glycopeptide Susceptibility Survey: susceptibility of Enterococcus spp to teicoplanin and vancomycin [abstract no. E026]. In: Program and Abstracts of the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1996 Sep 15–18; New Orleans

  8. Michel M, Gatmann L. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci: therapeutic realities and possibilities. Lancet 1997 Jun 28; 349: 1901–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Glupczynski Y, Lagast H, Van der Auwera P, et al. Clinical evaluation of teicoplanin for therapy of severe infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29: 52–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Galanakis N, Giamarellou H, Vlachogiannis N, et al. Poor efficacy of teicoplanin in treatment of deep-seated staphylococcal infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1988; 7(2): 130–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Calain P, Krause KH, Vaudaux P, et al. Early termination of a prospective randomised trial comparing teicoplanin and flucloxacillin for treating severe staphylococcal infections. J Infect Dis 1987; 155: 187–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gilbert DN, Wood CA, Kimbrough RC. The Infectious Disease Consortium of Oregon. 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 

  14. Martinetto P, Gariglio M, Malcangi A, et al. Studio microbiologico-clinico sull’efficacia di un nuovo antibiotico: la teicoplanina. G Batteriol Virol Immunol 1985; 78: 86–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN, Neu H. A critical review of the dose of teicoplanin in Europe and the USA. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1994; 4 Suppl. 1: Sl–30

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN. Teicoplanin, the first decade. Abingdon: The Medicine Group, 1997: 57–64

  17. Gerard M, Van der Auwera P, Meunier F, et al. A controlled clinical trial on efficacy and safety of teicoplanin versus van-comycin in the treatment of staphylococcal infections [abstract no. 1039]. In: Program and Abstracts of the 27th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1987 Oct 4–7; New York: 278

  18. Hoechst Marion Roussel. US Trial 102-009 (Data on file)

  19. Wood MJ. The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 209–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Choi JY, Kim YR, Shin WS, et al. A randomised study comparing clinical efficacy of ceftazidime plus teicoplanin or vancomycin containing regimen in febrile granulocytopenia patients. J Korean Soc Chemother 1992; 10: 165–71

    Google Scholar 

  21. Liu CY, Lee WS, Fung CP, et al. Comparative study of teicoplanin vs vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 12: 80–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Studena M, Hlavacova E, Helpianska L, et al. Teicoplanin plus pefloxacin versus teicoplanin plus netilmicin in empiric therapy of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer and neutropenia: a randomised study of two once daily regimens in patients with previously inserted catheters. Chemotherapy 1994; 40: 431–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hernandez L, Figuera A, Jimenez ML, et al. Empiric antibiotic regimen for febrile neutropenia (FN): imipenem plus vancomycin vs imipenem plus teicoplanin as initial therapy [abstract no. 271]. Bone Marrow Transplant 1994; Suppl. 162

  24. Lewis PJ, Martino P, Mosconi G, et al. Teicoplanin in endocarditis: a multicentre, open European study. Chemotherapy 1995; 41: 399–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Leport C, Perronne C, Massip P, et al. Evaluation of teicoplanin for treatment of endocarditis caused by Gram-positive cocci in 20 patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 871–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Martino P, Venditti M, Micozzi A, et al. Teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 1329–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Presterl B, 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 

  28. Mehtar S, Walsh B, Drabu YJ, et al. Teicoplanin v flucloxacillin + fusidic acid in Gram-positive infections — a multi-centre randomised study [abstract no. 932]. In: Program and Abstracts of the 28th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1988 Oct 23–26; Los Angeles

  29. Le Frock JL. Teicoplanin Study Group of North America. Safety and efficacy of teicoplanin (Teico) vs cefazolin (Cef) for the treatment of skin/soft tissue infections due to Gram-positive pathogens [abstract no. 1335]. In: Programme and Abstracts of the 18th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1993 Jun 27–Jul 2; Stockholm: 345

  30. Jemsek JG, Teicoplanin Study Group of North America. Safety and efficacy of teicoplanin (Teico) vs cefazolin (Cef) for the treatment of skin/soft tissue infections due to Staphylococcus aureus [abstract no. 1336]. In: Programme and Abstracts, 18th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1993 Jun 27–Jul 2; Stockholm: 345

  31. Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN. Teicoplanin, the first decade. Abingdon: The Medicine Group, 1997: 83–4

  32. Le Frock JL, Ristuccia AM, Ristuccia PA, et al. Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infection. Eur J Surg 1992; S567: 9–13

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Anon. Targoeid NDA50-681. Clinical/statistical data section, volume 60, p. 335. Marion Merrell Dow Inc., Cincinnati, USA, 1991

  35. Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN. Teicoplanin, the first decade. Abingdon: The Medicine Group, 1997: 143

    Google Scholar 

  36. Grüneberg RN. The true cost of monitoring antibiotic levels. Hosp Formul 1993; 28: 55–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN. Use of teicoplanin in community medicine. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 701–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Nathwani D, Parker S, Davey PG, et al. A feasibility study of non-inpatient IV (NIPIV) antibiotic therapy in the UK [abstract no. 1295]. In: Programme and Abstracts, 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; 1995 Mar 26–30; Vienna: 252

  39. Graninger W, Wenisch C, Wieslinger E, et al. Experience with outpatient intravenous teicoplanin therapy for chronic osteomyelitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 14: 643–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pye KG, Kelsey SM, Newland AC. Outpatient treatment of Hickman catheter infections. Lancet 1992; 339: 1237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ball LM, Siddal S, Van Saenen H. Teicoplanin in home therapy of the terminally ill child. Eur J Haematol 1993; Suppl. 51/54: 14–7

  43. 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 

  44. 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 

  45. Rubinstein E. Teicoplanin — domiciliary use in surgical infections. Eur J Surg Suppl. 1992; 567: 27–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dagan R, Einhorn M, Howard CB, et al. Outpatient and inpatient teicoplanin treatment for serious Gram-positive infections in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993; 12: S17–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Noble WC, Virani Z, Cree RGA. Co-transfer of vancomycin and other resistant genes from Enterrococcus faecalis NCTC 12201 to Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1992; 93: 195–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Biavasco F, Lupidi R, Manso E, et al. In vitro activity of LY333328 against Gram-positive bacteria resistant or moderately susceptible to clinically available glycopeptides (GPs) [abstract no. F202]. In: Program and Abstracts of the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1996 Sep 15–18; New Orleans

  49. Blumberg EA, Mandler HD, Fuchs AE, et al. Efficacy and toxicity of Synercid (quinupristin/dalfopristin) [SYN (Q/D)] for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREF) infections [abstract no. L032]. In: Program and Abstracts of the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1996 Sep 15–18; New Orleans

  50. Jernigan JA, Hadziyannis E, Schwarzmann SC, et al. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) bacteremia (B) in severely neutropenic patients [abstract no. J008]. In: Program and Abstracts of the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1996 Sep 15–18; New Orleans

  51. Nepomuceno J, Case M, Packuchi JR, et al. In vitro activity of oxazolidinones U-100592 and U-100766 against thirty-five isolates of vancomycin resistant enterococci [abstract no. F231]. In: Program and Abstracts of the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1996 Sep 15–18; New Orleans

  52. Willey BM, Sachse L, Mustachi B, et al. Comparative in vitro activities of a new oligosaccharide, everninomicin (SH27899), against clinical enterococci In: Program and Abstracts of the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1996 Sep 15–18; New Orleans

  53. Goldstein FW, Acar JF. Epidemiology of quinolone resistance: Europe and North and South America. Drugs 1995; 49 Suppl. 2: 36–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology, University College Hospital, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6DB, England

    Reuben N. Grüneberg

Authors
  1. Reuben 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

Grüneberg, R.N. Anti-Gram-Positive Agents. Drugs 54 (Suppl 6), 29–38 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199700546-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199700546-00007

Keywords

Search

Navigation