Abstract
Antibiotics are used in 80% of patients in the ICU, encouraging nosocomial infections with resistant organisms. If the antibiotic susceptibilities of the pathogen are known, a narrow-spectrum antibiotic is preferable to preserve the patient's resistance to colonization. However, treatment is often empirical and broad-spectrum combinations are commonly used. Gram-positive bacteriaemia is associated with invasive monitoring or intravascular catheters. If the device cannot be removed easily, the glycopeptides are the only agents likely to be active against most strains of the commonest pathogen, the coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Long-stay patients are susceptible to infection with enterococci and methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus, which are often resistant to all the usual agents other than glycopeptides. Vancomycin is long established, but is nephrotoxic, requires serum monitoring, must be administered as an infusion and can cause red man syndrome. Teicoplanin can be given as a single daily bolus without similar side-effects or monitoring. In deep-seated staphylococcal infection, the usual dose of teicoplanin is adequate if given in combination with other agents, but it may need to be doubled if used as monotherapy. Monitoring of the levels in the serum is helpful to ensure an adequate dose in patients with renal failure or in drug abusers, but is not needed to prevent toxicity.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Daschner F (1985) Nosocomial infections in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 11:284–287
Humphreys H, Winter R, Pick A (1992) The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on gastrointestinal enterococcal colonization in ITU patients. Intensive Care Med 18:459–463
Farber BF, Kaplan MH, Clogston AG (1990)Staphylococcus epidermidis extracted slime inhibits the antimicrobial action of glycopeptide antibiotics. J Infect Dis 161:37–40
Hoban DJ, Weshnoweski B, Palatnick L, Zhanel CG, Davidson RJ (1992) In vitro activity of streptogramin RP 59500 against staphylococci including bactericidal kinetic studies. J Antimicrob Chemother 30 [Suppl A]:59–65
Jones RN, Goldstein FW, Zhou XY (1991) Activities of two new teicoplanin amide derivatives (MDL 62211 and MDL 62873) compared with activities of teicoplanin and vancomycin against 800 recent staphylococcal isolates from France and the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 35:584–586
Niu W-W, Neu HC (1991) Activity of mersacidin, a novel peptide, compared with that of vancomycin, teicoplanin and daptomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 35:998–1000
Shonekan D, Mildvan D, Handwerger S (1992) Comparative in vitro activities of teicoplanin, daptomycin, ramoplanin, vancomycin, and PD127.391 against blood isolates of Gram-positive cocci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 36:1570–1572
Rolston KV, Nguyen H, Messer M (1990) In vitro activity of LY264826, a new glycopeptide antibiotic, against Gram-positive bacteria isolated from patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 34:2137–2141
Tuazon CU, Miller H (1983) Clinical and microbiologic aspects of serious infections caused byStaphylococcus epidermidis. Scand J Infect Dis 15:347–360
Schwalbe RS, Stapleton JT, Gilligan PH (1987) Emergence of vancomycin resistance in coagulase negative staphylococci. N Engl J Med 316:927–931
O'Hare MD, Felmingham D, Grüneberg RN (1989) The bactericidal activity of vancomycin and teicoplanin against methicillin-resistant strains of coagulase negative staphylococcus spp. J Antimicrob Chemother 23:800–802
Campoli-Richards DM, Brogden RN, Faulds D (1990) Teicoplanin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 40:449–486
Gorzynski EA, Amsterdam D, Beam TR, Rotstein C (1989) Comparative in vitro activities of teicoplanin, vancomycin, oxacillin, and other antimicrobial agents against bacteremic isolates of Grampositive cocci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 33:2019–2022
Woodford N, Johnson AP, Morrison D, Chin ATL, Stephenson JR, George RC (1990) Two distinct forms of vancomycin resistance amongst enterococci in the UK. Lancet i:226.
Leclerq R, Derlot E, Weber M, Duval J, Courvalin P (1989) Transferable vancomycin and teicoplanin resistance inEnterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 33:10–15
Wilson APR, Felmingham D, Robbins M, Chopra R (1991)Enterococcus faecium sensitive to teicoplanin but not to vancomycin. J Hosp Infect 18:322–324
Maple PAC, Hamilton-Miller JMT, Brumfit W (1989) Worldwide antibiotic resistance in methicillin resistantStaphylococcus aureus. Lancet i:537–540
Mann HJ, Fuhs DW, Cerra FB (1987) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in critically ill patients. World J Surg 11:210–217
Sauvageon-Martre H, Vermerie N, Sauvageon X, Cartot S, Morgand O, Durrande JB, Chast F (1991) Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in intensive care patients: comparison of two loading doses. In: Periti P (ed) Fourth international Marion Merrell Dow Inc symposium on Gram-positive infection. Lake Como, Italy. Thalwil, Switzerland: Marion Merrell Dow, abstract, p 11
Derbyshire N, Webb DB, Roberts D, Glew D, Williams JD (1989) Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in subjects with varying degrees of renal function. J Antimicrob Chemother 23:869–876
Falcoz C, Ferry N, Pozet N, Cuisinaud G, Zech PY, Sassard J (1987) Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in renal failure. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 31:1255–1262
Höffler D, Koeppe P, Naumann E, Lang E, Sörgel F (1991) Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in hemodialysis patients. Infection 19:324–327
Beckers B, Brodersen HP, Stolpmann RM, Jansen G, Larbig D (1993) Efficacy and pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in haemodialysis patients. Infection 21:71–74
Garaud JJ, Regnier B, Inglebert F, Faurisson F, Bauchet J, Vachon F (1984) Vancomycin pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 14 [Suppl D]:53–57
Moellering RC, Krogstad DJ, Greenblatt DJ (1981) Vancomycin therapy in patients with impaired renal function: a nomogram for dosage. Ann Intern Med 94:343–346
O'Connell B, Browne PV, Cafferkey MT, McCann SR (1993) Coagulase negative staphylococcal bacteraemia treated with teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 31:438–439
Gilbert DN, Wood CA, Kimbrough RC, The Infectious Disease Consortium of Oregon (1991) Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 milligrams/kilogram/day in patients withStaphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 35:79–87
Schlech WF et al (1991) Double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of teicoplanin and vancomycin in the treatment of catheter-related Gram-positive bacteremias. The 1st Marion Merrell Dow symposium on Gram-positive infection, April
McKee R, Dunsmuir R, Whitby M, Garden OJ (1985) Does antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of catheter insertion reduce the incidence of catheter-related sepsis in intravenous nutrition? J Hosp Infect 6:419–425
Lim SH, Smith MP, Salooja N, Machin SJ, Goldstone AH (1991) A prospective randomized study of prophylactic teicoplanin to prevent early Hickman catheter-related sepsis in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy for haematological malignancies. J Antimicrob Chemother 28:109–116
Glupczynski Y, Lagast H, Van der Auwera P, Thys JP, Crokaert F, Yourassowky E, Meunier-Carpentier F, Klastersky J, Kains JP, Serruys-Schoutens E, LeGrand JC (1986) Clinical evaluation of teicoplanin for therapy of severe infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 29:52–57
Calain P, Krause KH, Vaudaux P, Auckenthaler R, Lew D, Waldvogel F, Hirschel B (1987) Early termination of a prospective, randomized trial comparing teicoplanin and flucloxacillin for treating severe staphylococcal infections. J Infect Dis 155:187–191
Wilson APR, Grüneberg RN, Neu H (1993) Dosage recommendations for teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 32:729–769
Van Laethem Y, Hermans P, De Wit S, Goosens H, Clumeck N (1988) Teicoplanin compared with vancomycin in methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus infections: preliminary results. J Antimicrob Chemother 21 [Suppl A]: 81–87
Smith SR, Cheesbrough J, Spearing R, Davies JM (1989) Randomized prospective study comparing vancomycin with teicoplanin in the treatment of infections associated with Hickman catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 33:1193–1197
Neville LO, Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT, Harding I (1993) Randomised trial of teicoplanin vs vancomycin in serious Grampositive infection. In: Programme and abstracts, 18th Int Congr Chemother, Stockholm, No. 1286, p 337
Gerard M, Van der Auwera P, Meunier F, Ninove D, Daneau D, Klastersky J (1987) A controlled clinical trial on efficacy and safety of teicoplanin. ICAAC, Abstract 1039
Van der Auwera P, Aoun M, Meunier F (1991) Randomized study of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of Grampositive bacterial infections in immunocompromised hosts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 35:451–457
Del Favero A (1991) Teicoplanin versus vancomycin in combined therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with haematologic malignancies. International Symposium on Therapy of Acute Leukaemia, Rome, November (oral presentation)
Cony-Makhoul P, Brossard G, Marit G, Pellegrin JL, Texier-Maugein J, Reiffers J (1990) A prospective study comparing vancomycin and teicoplanin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients. Br J Haematol 76 [Suppl 2]:35–40
Choi JY, Kim YR, Shin WS, Kang MW, Kim DW, Min WS, Park CW, Kim CC, Kim DJ (1992) A randomized study comparing clinical efficacy of ceftazidime plus aztreonam plus teicoplanin or vancomycin containing regimen in febrile granulocytopenic patients. J Korean Soc Chemother 10:165–171
Charbonneau P, Garaud JJ, Aubertin J, Bazin C, Brunet F, Domart Y (1989) Efficacy and safety of teicoplanin plus netilmicin (T+N) compared to vancomycin plus netilmicin (V+N) in the treatment of severe Gram+infections. In: Fourth European Congress of Clinical Microbiology, Nice 979/SY45 (abstract), p 426
Kureishi A, Jewesson PJ, Rubinger M, Cole CD, Reece DE, Phillips GL, Smith JA, Chow AW (1991) 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 35:2246–2252
Hedstrom et al. Marion Merrell Dow, data on file
Neville LO et al (1994) Teicoplanin vs vancomycin for the treatment of serious infections: a randomised trial. ICC Stockholm, 337
Lewis P, Garaud JJ, Parenti F (1988) A multicentre open clinical trial of teicoplanin in infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 21 [Suppl A]:61–67
Geraci JE, Wilson WR (1981) Vancomycin therapy for infective endocarditis. Rev Infect Dis 3 [Suppl]:250–258
Small PM, Chambers HF (1990) Vancomycin forStaphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 34:1227–1231
Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR (1991) Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampicin in methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med 115:674–680
Jay SJ (1983) Nosocomial infections. Med Clinic N Am 67:1251–1277
Papazian L, Martin C, Albanese J, Saux P, Charrel J, Gouin F (1989) Comparison of two methods of bacteriologic sampling of the lower respiratory tract: a study in ventilated patients with nosocomial bronchopneumonia. Crit Care Med 17:461–464
Amaducci S, Rosina R, Pugnetti P, Pollice P, Cellurale U, Beulcke G, Zanon P, Grassi C (1990) Efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) bacteriologically diagnosed by fibreoptic bronchoscopy aspirate cultures. In: Grüneberg RN (ed) Teicoplanin: further European experience. R Soc Med Services Int Congr Symp Ser No. 156, pp 9–19
Drabu Y, Walsh B, Blakemore PH, Mehtar S (1988) Teicoplanin in infections caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 21 [Suppl A]:89–92
Felmingham D, Wilson APR, Quintana AI, Grüneberg RN (1992) Enterococcus species in urinary tract infection. Clin Infect Dis 15:295–301
Herman DJ, Gerding DN (1991) Screening and treatment of infections caused by resistant enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 35:215–219
Farber BF, Moellering RC (1983) Retrospective study of the toxicity of preparations of vancomycin from 1974 to 1981. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 23:138–141
Geraci JE, Martin WJ (1954) Antibiotic therapy of bacterial endocarditis. VI Subacute enterococcal endocarditis: clinical pathologic and therapeutic consideration of 33 cases. Circulation 10:173–194
Data on file, Marion Merrell Dow Inc., Cincinnati, USA, 1991
Davey PG, Williams AH (1991) A review of the safety profile of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 27 [Suppl B]:69–73
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grüneberg, R.N., Wilson, A.P.R. Anti-infective treatment in intensive care: The role of glycopeptides. Intensive Care Med 20 (Suppl 4), S17–S22 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01713978
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01713978