Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 milligrams/kilogram/day in patients with Staphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. The Infectious Diseases Consortium of Oregon

New advances in management and treatment of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are increasingly used worldwide, and infection of these devices remains one of the most feared complications.CIED infections (CDIs) represent a challenge for physicians and the healthcare system in general as they require prolonged hospitalization and antibiotic treatment and are burdened by high mortality and high costs, so management of CDIs must be multidisciplinary.The exact incidence of CDIs is difficult to define, considering that it is influenced by various factors mainly represented by the implanted device and the type of procedure. Risk factors for CDIs could be divided into three categories: device related, patient related, and procedural related and the etiology is mainly sustained by Gram-positive bacteria; however, other etiologies cannot be underestimated. As a matter of fact, the two cornerstones in the treatment of these infections are device removal and antimicrobial treatment. Finally, therapeutic drug monitoring and PK/PD correlations should be encouraged in all patients with CDIs receiving antibiotic therapy and may result in a better clinical outcome and a reduction in antibiotic resistance and economic costs.In this narrative review, we look at what is new in the management of these difficult-to-treat infections.

Efficacy and safety of vancomycin for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vancomycin with the other anti-Gram-positive bacteria antibiotics in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases until August 2022 for studies that compared vancomycin with other antibiotic regimens for treating Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Clinical and microbiological responses, adverse events, relapse rate and mortality were considered.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials and nine retrospective studies were included. The efficacy and safety data of vancomycin differed from those of the comparators group. After subgroup analysis, the differences came mainly from the trials compared with daptomycin. Compared to daptomycin, vancomycin showed a lower microbiological cure rate (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.41∼0.82, I2 = 0%, P = 0.002) and clinical cure rate (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.42∼0.68, I2 = 3%, P < 0.00001), as well as more adverse events (OR = 3.21, 95% CI = 1.43∼7.19, I2 = 59%, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of vancomycin in treating Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is still excellent but slightly inferior in adverse events. However, this does not affect its use as a first-line drug. Daptomycin is expected to be a better antimicrobial drug.

Optimal trough concentration of teicoplanin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

It has been recommended that the trough concentration (C_min ) of teicoplanin should be maintained at ≥20 μg/ml for difficult-to-treat complicated infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Conversely, C_min of teicoplanin of at least 10 μg/ml is required for non-complicated MRSA infections. Considering the low incidence of nephrotoxicity for teicoplanin, C_min  = 15-30 μg/ml has been suggested for most MRSA infections. Thus, we assessed the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of teicoplanin at this target C_min .

METHODS

We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Ichushi-Web) to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they provided the incidence of treatment success, mortality in patients with MRSA infection, and/or hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity according to the C_min range.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Four trials assessing clinical success (n = 299) and three studies assessing adverse effects (n = 546) were included. C_min  = 15-30 μg/ml significantly increased the probability of treatment success compared with C_min  < 15 μg/ml (odds ratio [OR] = 2.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-6.32, p = 0.02). The all-cause mortality rate did not differ between the groups (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.13-1.61, p = 0.22). C_min  = 15-30 μg/ml did not increase the risks of nephrotoxicity (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.49-1.69, p = 0.76) or hepatotoxicity (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.18-2.44, p = 0.54).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Teicoplanin therapy using a C_min target of 15-30 μg/ml is likely to be associated with better clinical responses than C_min  < 15 μg/ml without increasing the risk of adverse effects.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but their use is not standardised, due to the differences in presentation, populations affected and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE Classic and EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 30 April 2015. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating possible infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of studies. We described the included studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Four small randomised controlled trials involving 728 allocated/224 analysed participants met our inclusion criteria. These trials had a high risk of bias. Drug companies sponsored two of the trials. We were unable to pool the data due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions and the different antibiotics used.The included trials compared the following antibiotic schedules. The first trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (anti-staphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin) and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone reporting uncertain effects on all-cause mortality (8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.56, very low quality evidence). The second trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an anti-staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin. This showed uncertain effects in terms of cure rates (9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus anti-staphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin, RR 0.89 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89; very low quality evidence). The third trial compared cloxacillin plus gentamicin with a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin. In participants receiving gentamycin plus glycopeptide only 13/23 (56%) were cured versus 11/11 (100%) receiving cloxacillin plus gentamicin (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; very low quality evidence). The fourth trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone and found no conclusive differences in terms of cure (15/34 (44%) with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus 21/33 (64%) with ceftriaxone alone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10; very low quality evidence).The trials reported adverse events, need for cardiac surgical interventions, uncontrolled infection and relapse of endocarditis and found no conclusive differences between comparison groups (very low quality evidence). No trials assessed septic emboli or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited and very low quality evidence suggested that there were no conclusive differences between antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes. However, because of the very low quality evidence, this needs confirmation. The conclusion of this Cochrane review was based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for treatment of infective endocarditis.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of anti-infective agents in critically ill patients

Initial adequate anti-infective therapy is associated with significantly improved clinical outcomes for patients with severe infections. However, in critically ill patients, several pathophysiological and/or iatrogenic factors may affect the pharmacokinetics of anti-infective agents leading to suboptimal drug exposure, in particular during the early phase of therapy. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may assist to overcome this problem. We discuss the available evidence on the use of TDM in critically ill patient populations for a number of anti-infective agents, including aminoglycosides, β-lactams, glycopeptides, antifungals and antivirals. Also, we present the available evidence on the practices of anti-infective TDM and describe the potential utility of TDM to improve treatment outcome in critically ill patients with severe infections. For aminoglycosides, glycopeptides and voriconazole, beneficial effects of TDM have been established on both drug effectiveness and potential side effects. However, for other drugs, therapeutic ranges need to be further defined to optimize treatment prescription in this setting.

Diagnosis and treatment of bacteremia and endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus. A clinical guideline from the Spanish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (SEIMC)

Both bacteremia and infective endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus are common and severe diseases. The prognosis may darken not infrequently, especially in the presence of intracardiac devices or methicillin-resistance. Indeed, the optimization of the antimicrobial therapy is a key step in the outcome of these infections. The high rates of treatment failure and the increasing interest in the influence of vancomycin susceptibility in the outcome of infections caused by both methicillin-susceptible and -resistant isolates has led to the research of novel therapeutic schemes. Specifically, the interest raised in recent years on the new antimicrobials with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci has been also extended to infections caused by susceptible strains, which still carry the most important burden of infection. Recent clinical and experimental research has focused in the activity of new combinations of antimicrobials, their indication and role still being debatable. Also, the impact of an appropriate empirical antimicrobial treatment has acquired relevance in recent years. Finally, it is noteworthy the impact of the implementation of a systematic bundle of measures for improving the outcome. The aim of this clinical guideline is to provide an ensemble of recommendations in order to improve the treatment and prognosis of bacteremia and infective endocarditis caused by S. aureus, in accordance to the latest evidence published.

Optimizing antibiotic therapy of bacteremia and endocarditis due to staphylococci and enterococci: new insights and evidence from the literature

Gram-positive cocci are a well-recognised major cause of nosocomial infection worldwide. Bloodstream infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci, and multi-drug resistant enterococci are a cause of concern for physicians due to their related morbidity and mortality rates. Aim of this article is to review the current state of knowledge regarding the management of BSI caused by staphylococci and enterococci, including infective endocarditis, and to identify those factors that may help physicians to manage these infections appropriately. Moreover, we discuss the importance of an appropriate use of antimicrobial drugs, taking in consideration the in vitro activity, clinical efficacy data, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters, and potential side effects.

Therapeutic drug concentrations of teicoplanin in clinical settings

Background

Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic that is widely used in clinical practice for the treatment of infections caused by drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. The aim of this study was to analyze plasma teicoplanin concentrations to determine the percentage of patients in whom therapeutic concentrations of teicoplanin were achieved in clinical practice.

Materials and Methods

The plasma teicoplanin concentrations of hospitalized patients receiving treatment at a teaching hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The target level was defined as a plasma teicoplanin concentration of 10 mg/L or greater, since this was generally regarded as the lower limit of the optimal concentration range required for the effective treatment of a majority of infections.

Results

Patients with sub-optimal (< 10 mg/L) plasma teicoplanin concentrations constituted nearly half of the total study population. The majority of these patients received the recommended loading dose, which were three 400 mg doses administered every 12 hours. Sub-group analysis showed a trend that the group receiving loading dose was more likely to reach the optimal teicoplanin concentration.

Conclusions

The data revealed that a significant proportion of patients in clinical practice achieved only sub-optimal teicoplanin concentrations, which emphasizes the importance of the mandatory use of loading dose and routine therapeutic drug monitoring. Treatment reassessment and simulation of individual dose regimens may also be necessary to achieve optimal drug concentrations.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of vancomycin for the treatment of patients with gram-positive infections: focus on the study design

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness and safety of vancomycin compared with that of other antibiotics for the treatment of gram-positive infections.

METHODS

Major electronic databases were searched. Data from published randomized controlled trials (January 1, 1950, to September 15, 2011) were pooled using a meta-analytic method.

RESULTS

Fifty-three trials comparing vancomycin with linezolid, daptomycin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, tigecycline, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, telavancin, teicoplanin, iclaprim, and dalbavancin were included in the meta-analysis. Individual antibiotics were as effective as vancomycin, except for linezolid, which was more effective than vancomycin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.43). Comparators were as effective as vancomycin in the intent-to-treat population (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.18) but were more effective in the clinically evaluable population (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.27) when all infections were pooled. When available data from all trials were pooled, no differences were noted when patients with febrile neutropenia (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82-1.39), pneumonia (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.87-1.37), bacteremia (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and skin and soft tissue infections (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39) were studied. Comparators were more effective in open-label (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50) but not in double-blind trials (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.20). Total adverse events attributed to studied antibiotics (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.28) and patients withdrawn from trials (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.09) were similar in the compared groups. Mortality was not different between vancomycin and comparator antibiotics when all trials were included in the analysis (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23). Comparators were associated with higher mortality in open-label (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.54) but not double-blind trials (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80-1.14).

CONCLUSION

On the basis mainly of data from open-label trials, vancomycin is a treatment choice that is as effective as other available antibiotics for patients with gram-positive infections. Study design seems to make a major contribution to the outcome.

Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with proven or suspected infection. Methods: Data Sources: Cochrane Renal Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, nephrology textbooks and review articles. Inclusion criteria: Randomized controlled trials in any language comparing teicoplanin to vancomycin for patients with proven or suspected infection. Data extraction: Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data. Study investigators were contacted for unpublished information. A random effect model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 24 studies (2,610 patients) were included. The drugs had similar rates of clinical cure (RR: 1.03; 95%CI: 0.98-1.08), microbiological cure (RR: 0.98; 95%CI: 0.93-1.03) and mortality (RR: 1.02; 95%CI: 0.79-1.30). Teicoplanin had lower rates of skin rash (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.35-0.92), red man syndrome (RR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.08-0.59) and total adverse events (RR: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.53-1.00). Teicoplanin reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity (RR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.48-0.90). This effect was consistent for patients receiving aminoglycosides (RR: 0.51; 95%CI: 0.30-0.88) or having vancomycin doses corrected by serum levels (RR: 0.22; 95%CI: 0.10-0.52). There were no cases of acute kidney injury needing dialysis. Limitations: Studies lacked a standardized definition for nephrotoxicity. Conclusions: Teicoplanin and vancomycin are equally effective; however the incidence of nephrotoxicity and other adverse events was lower with teicoplanin. It may be reasonable to consider teicoplanin for patients at higher risk for acute kidney injury.

Clinical management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia

Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is one of the most common serious bacterial infections worldwide. In the UK alone, around 12,500 cases each year are reported, with an associated mortality of about 30%, yet the evidence guiding optimum management is poor. To date, fewer than 1500 patients with S aureus bacteraemia have been recruited to 16 controlled trials of antimicrobial therapy. Consequently, clinical practice is driven by the results of observational studies and anecdote. Here, we propose and review ten unanswered clinical questions commonly posed by those managing S aureus bacteraemia. Our findings define the major areas of uncertainty in the management of S aureus bacteraemia and highlight just two key principles. First, all infective foci must be identified and removed as soon as possible. Second, long-term antimicrobial therapy is required for those with persistent bacteraemia or a deep, irremovable focus. Beyond this, the best drugs, dose, mode of delivery, and duration of therapy are uncertain, a situation compounded by emerging S aureus strains that are resistant to old and new antibiotics. We discuss the consequences on clinical practice, and how these findings define the agenda for future clinical research.

Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin and teicoplanin are commonly used to treat gram-positive infections, particularly those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). There is uncertainty regarding the effects of teicoplanin compared to vancomycin on kidney function with some previous studies suggesting teicoplanin is less nephrotoxic than vancomycin.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with proven or suspected infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of nephrology textbooks, review articles with relevant studies and sent letters seeking information about unpublished or incomplete studies to investigators involved in previous studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language comparing teicoplanin to vancomycin for patients with proven or suspected infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data using standardised data extraction forms. Study investigators were contacted for information not available in the original manuscripts. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (2,610 patients) in this review. Teicoplanin reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity compared to vancomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90).The effects of teicoplanin or vancomycin were similar for clinical cure (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.08), microbiological cure (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03) and mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to1.30). Six studies reported no cases of acute kidney injury (AKI) needing dialysis. Adverse events were less frequent with teicoplanin including cutaneous rash (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.92), red man syndrome (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.59) and total adverse events (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00). A lower risk of nephrotoxicity with teicoplanin was observed in patients either with (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88) or without aminoglycosides (RR 0.31, 95% 0.07 to 1.50), and also when vancomycin dosing was guided by serum levels (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.52).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Teicoplanin and vancomycin are both effective in treating those with proven or suspected infection; however the incidence of adverse effects including nephrotoxicity was lower with teicoplanin. There were no cases of AKI needing dialysis. It remains unclear whether the differential effect on kidney function should influence which antibiotic be prescribed, although it may be reasonable to consider teicoplanin for patients at higher risk for AKI needing dialysis.

Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis

Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Serious infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an evolving challenge for physicians

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a well-recognized major cause of nosocomial infection worldwide. During the past decade, however, the epidemiology of staphylococcal infections has partially changed, with an increase in the number of patients who acquire infections in the community. The changing epidemiology is a cause for concern among physicians, leading to an increase in the number of patients with infections due to MRSA diagnosed at hospital admission and in the emergency department. The aims of this article are to review the current state of knowledge regarding MRSA infections, to identify those factors which may help physicians to recognize the patients at high risk, and to manage these infections appropriately.

Treatment ofStaphylococcus aureusinfections: new issues, emerging therapies and future directions

Infections due to Staphylococcus aureus are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Antimicrobial resistance in strains of S. aureus is a continually evolving problem, including widespread methicillin resistance in hospitals, increasing methicillin resistance in community strains, and the recent acquisition of glycopeptide resistance. New antimicrobials with activity against S. aureus have recently entered the market or are in the late stages of development. In addition, there has been significant interest in the development of novel and immune-based strategies for prevention or treatment of S. aureus infections. This review describes established and emerging therapies for S. aureus infections, and considers the safety profiles and likely impact on present treatment standards of novel agents either undergoing clinical development or emerging onto the market.

Guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the UK

These evidence-based guidelines have been produced after a literature review of the treatment and prophylaxis of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. The guidelines were further informed by antibiotic susceptibility data on MRSA from the UK. Recommendations are given for the treatment of common infections caused by MRSA, elimination of MRSA from carriage sites and prophylaxis of surgical site infection. There are several antibiotics currently available that are suitable for use in the management of this problem and potentially useful new agents are continuing to emerge.

Guidelines for the antibiotic treatment of endocarditis in adults: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

The BSAC Guidelines on Endocarditis were last published in 1998. The Guidelines presented here have been updated and extended to reflect changes in both the antibiotic resistance characteristics of causative organisms and the availability of new antibiotics. Randomized, controlled trials suitable for the development of evidenced-based guidelines in this area are still lacking, and therefore a consensus approach has again been adopted. The Guidelines cover diagnosis and laboratory testing, suitable antibiotic regimens and causative organisms. Special emphasis is placed on common causes of endocarditis, such as streptococci and staphylococci, however, other bacterial causes (such as enterococci, HACEK organisms, Coxiella and Bartonella) and fungi are considered. The special circumstances of prosthetic endocarditis are discussed.

The use and therapeutic drug monitoring of teicoplanin in the UK

Teicoplanin dosage recommendations for specific infections have been modified in recent years. However, there was no significant increase in the proportion of pre-dose concentrations > 20 mg/L between 1994 and 1998 in samples sent for teicoplanin assay at the Regional Antimicrobial Reference Laboratory, Bristol, UK. A questionnaire on the use of teicoplanin and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) was sent to all UK National External Quality Assurance Scheme antibiotic assay users. Teicoplanin was widely used in the UK, although vancomycin was more popular as a choice of glycopeptide. Fewer than 25% recommended teicoplanin TDM during routine use, the main reasons being perceived lack of toxicity and lack of evidence for the use of teicoplanin TDM. Pre-dose concentrations < 20 mg/L were considered appropriate for treatment of bacteraemia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by 53% of those responding. Data sheet advice was relied upon more than TDM as an indication of therapeutic dosing. Microbiologists who mainly used vancomycin tended to perform more TDM and seek higher serum concentrations when using teicoplanin than those who preferentially used teicoplanin.

Influence of reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides on activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin against Staphylococcus aureus in experimental endocarditis

The influence of reduced susceptibilities to glycopeptides on the activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin against an isogenic pair of clinical Staphylococcus aureus strains in experimental endocarditis was investigated. While vancomycin was similarly active against both strains, teicoplanin was approximately 100-fold less active against the resistant strain and selected for the emergence of more resistant subpopulations.

Selection of empiric therapy in patients with catheter-related infections

Catheter-related infections (CRI) are frequent and manifest in a wide range of clinical situations. A rational approach is necessary for the adequate management of these infections. Whenever a CRI is suspected, two main questions have to be addressed: whether to remove the catheter and whether to initiate empiric antimicrobial treatment. As the clinical diagnosis of CRI has a low specificity, the catheter should be removed only in circumstances such as severe or ongoing sepsis, persistent bacteremia, pulmonary or peripheral embolization, endocarditis, signs of tunnel infection, when the catheters or when the CRI is caused by fungi, Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa are easy to replace among others. Exchanging the catheter through a guidewire is a frequent practice but is not recommended by some authors. Empiric antimicrobial treatment should be administered in any of the following situations: when the catheter is not removed, in the case of central venous or surgically implanted catheters and prosthetic implants, in the presence of severe sepsis, neutropenia or other immunodepressed status, suppurative phlebitis, embolization and acute endocarditis. Empriic antimicrobial treatment should include a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) as staphylococci are the most frequent cause of CRI. Adding an antipseudomonal agent, such as amikacin, aztreonam, ceftazidime, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, or a carbapenem (depending on the local antimicrobial susceptibility data or antibiotic policy) is necessary in cases of neutropenia, burn patients, severe sepsis, or suspicion of contaminated infusate. Empiric treatment against Candida is not initially necessary in most cases. Empiric treatment should be replaced by specific therapy whenever possible.

The role of glycopeptides in the treatment of intravascular catheter-related infections

There is increasing concern over multiresistant staphylococcci in catheter-associated infections. Local infections due to coagulase-negative staphylococci are usually resolved by removal of the intravascular catheter. However, if the device should remain for a certain period of time, e.g. to complete a course of chemotherapy, the antibiotic lock technique with a glycopeptide should be considered. In case of septic embolism to the lung caused by a multiresistant Staphylococccus aureus or Enterococcus faecium, systemic therapy with glycopeptides, streptogramins or linezolid must be employed.

Limitations of presently available glycopeptides in the treatment of Gram-positive infection

The glycopeptide antibacterial drugs vancomycin and teicoplanin are widely used in hospitals for therapy of severe or multiresistant Gram-positive infections, notably staphylococcal, enterococcal and rarely pneumococcal. Vancomycin has also been used in the management of Clostridium difficile enteropathy. The incidence and potential for resistance differ between agents. The in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics and clinical use of glycopeptide, as well as epidemiology of glycopeptide resistance are discussed. There are limited comparative studies indicating the need for further investigation. Therapeutic drug monitoring has been widely used for vancomycin and less commonly for teicoplanin, but remains controversial. Advances in our understanding of their pharmacodynamics and clinical studies are helping clarify the situation. This paper reviews the current literature and highlights limitations of glycopeptides in treating Gram-positive infection.

Short-course therapy for right-side endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus in drug abusers: cloxacillin versus glycopeptides in combination with gentamicin

A prospective, randomized clinical trial among drug abusers was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of a short course of a combination of a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) and gentamicin compared with a combination of cloxacillin and gentamicin for treatment of right-side endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Therapeutic success was significantly more frequent with cloxacillin than with a glycopeptide. No adverse effects were noted among patients in the cloxacillin group. A 14-day course of vancomycin or teicoplanin plus gentamicin is ineffective in this instance because it is associated with a high rate of clinical and microbiological failure.

Comparative safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin

Teicoplanin have different safety profiles which can affect choice. Nephrotoxicity is significantly less likely to occur during treatment with teicoplanin than vancomycin when an aminoglycoside is being given concurrently. 'Red man' syndrome is a troublesome effect of vancomycin infusion which is extremely uncommon with teicoplanin use. Rash and fever can be dose-related phenomena but patients reacting to one glycopeptide may not react to both. Although thrombocytopenia is more frequent with teicoplanin, it is reversible and seldom seen at standard doses.

Management of serious staphylococcal infections in the outpatient setting

Patients with serious staphylococcal infections, e.g. endocarditis and osteomyelitis, need prompt and prolonged parenteral antibiotic treatment to ensure eradication of the causative pathogen. The major cost in the treatment of these infections is the long period of hospitalisation required for the administration of intravenous antibiotics. To shorten the hospitalisation period, outpatient treatment can be given to some patients. In this study, patients with acute exacerbations of chronic osteomyelitis (n = 44) or endocarditis (n = 10) were treated with intravenous teicoplanin. The pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 41, 13 of which were methicillin resistant) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 13, one of which was methicillin resistant). After a mean loading dose of 15 mg/kg for 3 to 10 days, patients received teicoplanin 3 times a week at a dose (mean 15 mg/kg) individualised to achieve serum trough concentrations of approximately 10 mg/L for osteomyelitis and 20 mg/L for endocarditis. Treatment duration ranged from 28 to 150 (mean 62) days for patients with osteomyelitis and from 28 to 88 (mean 49) days for patients with endocarditis. 37 (84%) patients with osteomyelitis and 8 (80%) patients with endocarditis were treated successfully. Adverse events were observed in 9 patients and included rash (n = 3), thrombocytopenia (n = 3), and drug fever, pseudomembranous colitis, nausea, leucopenia and transient hearing impairment (one patient each). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that teicoplanin can be administered successfully in an outpatient setting according to a 3-times weekly schedule for the treatment of patients with staphylococcal osteomyelitis and endocarditis.

Anti-gram-positive agents. What we have and what we would like

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.

Pharmacodynamics of vancomycin alone and in combination with gentamicin at various dosing intervals against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-infected fibrin-platelet clots in an in vitro infection model

We compared the pharmacodynamic activities of vancomycin with or without gentamicin in an in vitro infection model with methicilin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-infected fibrin-platelet clots. Infected fibrin-platelet clots (FPCs) were prepared with human cryoprecipitate, human platelets, thrombin, and the organism (approximately 10[9] CFU of MRSA-494/g) and were suspended with monofilament line in an infection model capable of simulating human pharmacokinetics. Antibiotics were bolused to simulate vancomycin regimens of 2 g every 24 h (q24h), 1 g q12h, 500 mg q6h, and continuous infusion (steady-state concentration of 20 microg/ml) and gentamicin regimens of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight q12h and 5 mg/kg once daily (q.d.). Model experiments were performed in duplicate over 72 h. FPCs were removed from the models in quadruplicate at 0, 8, 24, 32, 48, 72 h, weighed, homogenized, diluted, and plated to determine colony counts. The inoculum density at 72 h was used to compare bactericidal activities between the regimens. All regimens containing vancomycin significantly decreased the bacterial inoculum compared to the growth control (P < 0.001). Vancomycin monotherapy regimens were similar in bacterial kill regardless of dosing frequency. The addition of gentamicin (either q12h or q.d.) significantly improved the bactericidal activity of the vancomycin q6h, q12h, and q24h regimens (P < 0.001). The greatest reduction in bacterial density at 72 h (P < 0.001) and the most rapid rate of kill (time to 99.9% killing) were achieved with the regimen consisting of 2 g of vancomycin q24h plus gentamicin (q.d. or q12h).

A risk-benefit assessment of teicoplanin in the treatment of infections

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 beta-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).

Teicoplanin. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of gram-positive infections

Teicoplanin, a glycopeptide antibiotic, is active against Gram-positive organisms, including methicillin-resistant staphylococci. It has demonstrated similar efficacy to vancomycin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in febrile patients with neutropenia; fewer comparative data are available in patients with other infection types. Compared with vancomycin, teicoplanin is associated with less nephrotoxicity, appears to cause fewer anaphylactoid reactions, requires less monitoring and is more convenient to administer (once daily by intravenous bolus or intramuscular injection vs 2 to 4 times daily by intravenous infusion). Two European cost-minimisation studies have demonstrated that while the acquisition cost per dose of teicoplanin was approximately twice that of vancomycin, the cost of 2 weeks' therapy with either agent was similar (difference of 1 to 2%). However, in order to fully explore potential differences between these agents, a full economic analysis which considers all treatment-related costs is needed. Home therapy of Gram-positive infections, a setting in which teicoplanin may be preferred over vancomycin because of its tolerability profile and ease of administration, is particularly worthy of future economic study. Thus, there are a number of areas needing further study before the optimum formulary positioning of teicoplanin can be definitely stated. Nevertheless, present evidence suggests that teicoplanin is likely to have pharmacoeconomic advantages over vancomycin in at least some situations.

Right-sided endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus in drug abusers

A prospective, open, and randomized study of right-sided endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus in drug abuse patients is reported. The following parenteral treatments were compared. Group A patients were treated with 2 g of cloxacillin every 4 h and 1.5 mg of gentamicin per kg of body weight every 8 h for 2 weeks. Group B patients were treated with teicoplanin at 10 mg/kg/12 h on the 1st to 3rd days, 6 mg/kg/12 h on the 4th to 7th days, and 7 mg/kg/24 h on the 8th days. Drug abusers with bacteremia caused by S. aureus and suggestive signs of endocarditis were included. Clinical failures were observed in one patient in group A and in four of six patients in group B. Three patients in group B developed breakthrough bacteremia with teicoplanin-susceptible strains on days +6, +14, and +19. Serum teicoplanin levels and serum bactericidal titers showed a decrease in the 2nd week, when dosages received were 7 mg/kg/day. In conclusion, in treatment of right-sided endocarditis caused by S. aureus in drug abusers with teicoplanin, the use of dosages of 7 mg/kg/day is not recommended even if patients have received dosages of 12 mg/kg/day during the 1st week.

Anti-infective treatment in intensive care: the role of glycopeptides

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 bacteraemia 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-resistant Staphylococcus 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.

Teicoplanin: 10 years of clinical experience

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 summarizes in vitro activity data, pharmacokinetics, and clinical experience with teicoplanin, with special consideration of currently recommended doses and serum levels.