Literature DB >> 1829076

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.

P G Davey1, A H Williams.   

Abstract

We have examined case records for patients who received teicoplanin alone for endocarditis or Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. All patients with streptococcal endocarditis were cured (viridans group 14/14; Group D 4/4). Cure rates for other organisms were: Enterococcus faecalis 3/5; S. aureus 5/10 and coagulase negative staphylococci 2/3. Doses for six patients who failed because of poor response were 3.3-4.2 mg/kg. Teicoplanin treatment cured 41/48 patients with S. aureus bacteraemia; treatment failed in two patients because of adverse events. Doses in the remaining treatment failures were 2.1-5.0 mg/kg. In comparison, 48 patients in Dundee hospitals received ten different drugs in 20 combinations for S. aureus bacteraemia; 29 patients received cloxacillin or flucloxacillin but initial doses varied from 0.25-2.0 g. We conclude that the European database does provide evidence that teicoplanin monotherapy is effective for serious infection with Gram-positive bacteria. Doses for staphylococcal infection should probably be at least 6 mg/kg. The upper limit of the teicoplanin dosage range remains to be determined but there is evidently considerable confusion about appropriate regimens for 'standard' therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1829076     DOI: 10.1093/jac/27.suppl_b.43

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  8 in total

Review 1.  Teicoplanin. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of gram-positive infections.

Authors:  C M Spencer; H M Bryson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Comparative Study of Teicoplanin vs Vancomycin for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia.

Authors:  C Y Liu; W S Lee; C P Fung; N C Cheng; C L Liu; S P Yang; S L Chen
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 2.859

Review 3.  A risk-benefit assessment of teicoplanin in the treatment of infections.

Authors:  F de Lalla; A Tramarin
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Teicoplanin: 10 years of clinical experience.

Authors:  M Trautmann; H Wiedeck; M Ruhnke; M Oethinger; R Marre
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1994 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.553

5.  Right-sided endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus in drug abusers.

Authors:  J Fortún; J A Pérez-Molina; M T Añón; J Martínez-Beltrán; E Loza; A Guerrero
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Teicoplanin alone or combined with rifampin compared with vancomycin for prophylaxis and treatment of experimental foreign body infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  H J Schaad; C Chuard; P Vaudaux; F A Waldvogel; D P Lew
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 7.  Teicoplanin. A reappraisal of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy.

Authors:  R N Brogden; D H Peters
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 9.546

8.  Clinical practice guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of teicoplanin: a consensus review by the Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and the Japanese Society of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

Authors:  Yuki Hanai; Yoshiko Takahashi; Takashi Niwa; Toshihiko Mayumi; Yukihiro Hamada; Toshimi Kimura; Kazuaki Matsumoto; Satoshi Fujii; Yoshio Takesue
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 5.790

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.