Literature DB >> 24610668

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

C Y Liu1, W S Lee, C P Fung, N C Cheng, C L Liu, S P Yang, S L Chen.   

Abstract

Forty patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia were randomised to receive either teicoplanin or vancomycin therapy to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of these glycopeptides. Treatment was successful in 17 (85%) of 20 patients who were randomised to the teicoplanin group, with 6 cures and 11 improvements, and in 15 (75%) of 20 patients randomised to the vancomycin group, with 8 cures and 7 improvements (p = 0.69). Microbiologically, all MRSA pathogens isolated were susceptible to both glycopeptides by the disc diffusion test. The mean zone of inhibition for teicoplanin was 18 ± 2mm (range 16 to 20mm) and 20 ± 2mm (range 16 to 24mm) for vancomycin. The minimum inhibitory concentration required to inhibit the growth of 90% of organisms in culture (MIC90) for all MRSA isolates was 2.0 mg/L (range 0.5 to 4 mg/L) for teicoplanin and 2.0 mg/L (range 0.5 to 2 mg/L) for vancomycin. The microbiological eradication rate was 85% (17 of 20 isolates) for teicoplanin and 75% (15 of 20 isolates) for vancomycin. None of the failures were due to the emergence of resistant pathogens. Adverse reactions occurred in 19% of patients treated with teicoplanin and 60% of patients treated with vancomycin. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of skin rash (p = 0.60) or in elevation of aminotransferase (p = 0.18). However, nephrotoxicity was significantly greater in the vancomycin group than in the teicoplanin group (50 vs 9.5%, p < 0.05).In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate that teicoplanin appears to be a valuable alternative to vancomycin because it is as efficacious as vancomycin, has fewer adverse reactions, and is conveniently administered.

Entities:  

Year:  1996        PMID: 24610668     DOI: 10.2165/00044011-199612020-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Drug Investig        ISSN: 1173-2563            Impact factor:   2.859


  39 in total

1.  World-wide antibiotic resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  P A Maple; J M Hamilton-Miller; W Brumfitt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1989-03-11       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Teicoplanin in infections caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococci.

Authors:  Y J Drabu; B Walsh; P H Blakemore; S Mehtar
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 5.790

Review 3.  Diagnosis and management of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection.

Authors:  G J Duckworth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-10-23

4.  Vancomycin Ototoxicity in patient with normal renal function.

Authors:  P G Traber; D P Levine
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1981-10       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Comparison of tests for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a clinical microbiology laboratory.

Authors:  S Unal; K Werner; P DeGirolami; F Barsanti; G Eliopoulos
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Major trends in the microbial etiology of nosocomial infection.

Authors:  D R Schaberg; D H Culver; R P Gaynes
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1991-09-16       Impact factor: 4.965

7.  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Europe.

Authors:  A Voss; D Milatovic; C Wallrauch-Schwarz; V T Rosdahl; I Braveny
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.267

8.  Absence of "red man syndrome" in patients being treated with vancomycin or high-dose teicoplanin.

Authors:  M J Rybak; E M Bailey; L H Warbasse
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Activity of teicoplanin in localized experimental infections in rats.

Authors:  V Arioli; M Berti; G Candiani
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 3.926

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

Authors:  A Kureishi; P J Jewesson; M Rubinger; C D Cole; D E Reece; G L Phillips; J A Smith; A W Chow
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  7 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

Review 3.  Anti-gram-positive agents. What we have and what we would like.

Authors:  R N Grüneberg
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 4.  Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shuli Svetitsky; Leonard Leibovici; Mical Paul
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2009-07-13       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Multicenter prospective observational study of the comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

Authors:  Young Kyung Yoon; Dae Won Park; Jang Wook Sohn; Hyo Youl Kim; Yeon-Sook Kim; Chang-Seop Lee; Mi Suk Lee; Seong-Yeol Ryu; Hee-Chang Jang; Young Ju Choi; Cheol-In Kang; Hee Jung Choi; Seung Soon Lee; Shin Woo Kim; Sang Il Kim; Eu Suk Kim; Jeong Yeon Kim; Kyung Sook Yang; Kyong Ran Peck; Min Ja Kim
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Vancomycin, teicoplanin, daptomycin, and linezolid MIC creep in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is associated with clonality.

Authors:  Yu-Chia Hsieh; Yu-Chun Lin; Yhu-Chering Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 7.  Applications and Limitations of Dendrimers in Biomedicine.

Authors:  Adriana Aurelia Chis; Carmen Dobrea; Claudiu Morgovan; Anca Maria Arseniu; Luca Liviu Rus; Anca Butuca; Anca Maria Juncan; Maria Totan; Andreea Loredana Vonica-Tincu; Gabriela Cormos; Andrei Catalin Muntean; Maria Lucia Muresan; Felicia Gabriela Gligor; Adina Frum
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 4.411

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.