Literature DB >> 1839490

Double-blind comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving concomitant tobramycin and piperacillin: effect on cyclosporin A-associated nephrotoxicity.

A Kureishi1, P J Jewesson, M Rubinger, C D Cole, D E Reece, G L Phillips, J A Smith, A W Chow.   

Abstract

A prospective, randomized, and double-blind study comparing teicoplanin with vancomycin in the initial management of febrile neutropenic patients was conducted. Teicoplanin was administered at 6 mg per kg of body weight every 24 h (q24h) intravenously (i.v.) after initial loading at 6 mg/kg q12h for three doses. Vancomycin was administered at 15 mg/kg q12h i.v. Patients also received piperacillin (3 g q4h i.v.) and tobramycin (1.5 to 2.0 mg/kg q8h i.v.). Of 53 patients enrolled, 50 were judged to be evaluable. Among these, 25 received teicoplanin and 25 received vancomycin. At enrollment, both groups were comparable in age, sex, renal function, underlying hematologic condition, and concurrent therapy. Both groups had similar sites of infection and microbial pathogens. Empirical antimicrobial therapy resulted in the cure of or improvement in 23 (92%) teicoplanin patients and 21 (84%) vancomycin patients (P = 0.67). Failures occurred with two vancomycin patients but no teicoplanin patients. Clinical response was indeterminate for two patients in each group. Adverse reactions occurred significantly more often in the vancomycin group than in the teicoplanin group (P = 0.01), and these reactions required the termination of the study regimens of 6 vancomycin versus 0 teicoplanin patients (P = 0.02). Nephrotoxicity was observed more frequently in the vancomycin group (10 versus 2 patients; P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant deterioration of renal function when vancomycin and cyclosporin A, but not teicoplanin and cyclosporin A, were used concurrently (P = 0.02). Among patients who received vancomycin and amphotericin B or teicoplanin and amphotericin B concurrently, deterioration in renal function was equivalent in both groups. Teicoplanin in the dosage employed was tolerated better than vancomycin in the empirical treatment of fever and neutropenia in our patient population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1839490      PMCID: PMC245367          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.35.11.2246

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


  31 in total

1.  Time-kill studies with oxacillin, vancomycin, and teicoplanin versus Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  R N Greenberg; C A Benes
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 5.226

2.  Failure of teicoplanin therapy in two neutropenic patients with staphylococcal septicemia who recovered after administration of vancomycin.

Authors:  F Brunet; G Vedel; F Dreyfus; J F Vaxelaire; T Giraud; B Schremmer; J F Monsallier
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.267

3.  Percentages and distributions of teicoplanin- and vancomycin-resistant strains among coagulase-negative staphylococci.

Authors:  F W Goldstein; A Coutrot; A Sieffer; J F Acar
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Effects of dosage, peak and trough concentrations in serum, protein binding, and bactericidal rate on efficacy of teicoplanin in a rabbit model of endocarditis.

Authors:  H F Chambers; S Kennedy
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Selection of vancomycin- and teicoplanin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus during teicoplanin treatment of S. epidermidis infection.

Authors:  G Aubert; S Passot; F Lucht; G Dorche
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 5.790

6.  Comparison of vancomycin- and teicoplanin-induced histamine release and "red man syndrome".

Authors:  J Sahai; D P Healy; M J Shelton; J S Miller; S J Ruberg; R Polk
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Efficacy of teicoplanin in two dosage regimens for experimental endocarditis caused by a beta-lactamase-producing strain of Enterococcus faecalis with high-level resistance to gentamicin.

Authors:  J D Yao; C Thauvin-Eliopoulos; G M Eliopoulos; R C Moellering
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Emergence of teicoplanin resistance during therapy of Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis.

Authors:  G W Kaatz; S M Seo; N J Dorman; S A Lerner
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 5.226

9.  Teicoplanin as modification of initial empirical therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients.

Authors:  I R Nováková; J P Donnelly; C S Verhagen; B E De Pauw
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 5.790

10.  In vitro activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin against coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from neutropenic patients.

Authors:  J Maugein; J L Pellegrin; G Brossard; J Fourche; B Leng; J Reiffers
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  17 in total

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

Authors:  Konstantinos Z Vardakas; Michael N Mavros; Nikolaos Roussos; Matthew E Falagas
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 2.  A survey of the use of teicoplanin in patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours.

Authors:  J M Davies
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.553

3.  Population pharmacokinetic study of teicoplanin in severely neutropenic patients.

Authors:  O Lortholary; M Tod; N Rizzo; C Padoin; O Biard; P Casassus; L Guillevin; O Petitjean
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Top Guns: The "Maverick" and "Goose" of Empiric Therapy.

Authors:  Stephen W Davies; Jimmy T Efird; Christopher A Guidry; Zachary C Dietch; Rhett N Willis; Puja M Shah; Robert G Sawyer
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 2.150

Review 5.  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

6.  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 7.  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

Review 8.  Anti-infective treatment in intensive care: the role of glycopeptides.

Authors:  R N Grüneberg; A P Wilson
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Teicoplanin: a well-tolerated and easily administered alternative to vancomycin for gram-positive infections in intensive care patients.

Authors:  P Charbonneau; I Harding; J J Garaud; J Aubertin; F Brunet; Y Domart
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 10.  [Febrile neutropenia: practical aspects].

Authors:  P Harten; B Seyfarth; N Schmitz
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.