Literature DB >> 7843174

Use of teicoplanin in community medicine.

A P Wilson1, R N Grüneberg.   

Abstract

Administration of parenteral antibiotics to outpatients is increasingly used to reduce hospital costs, to reduce loss of earnings for the patient and to improve the quality of life in patients requiring prolonged antibiotic treatment. The glycopeptides are required for treatment of infections caused by methicillin resistant staphylococci and some enterococci, or for treatment of patients allergic to beta-lactam agents. For home therapy, teicoplanin has some advantages over vancomycin in that it requires only once-daily bolus administration, does not necessitate monitoring of serum concentrations and offers the choice of intravenous or intramuscular administration. Teicoplanin has been used to complete treatment of endocarditis at home in selected patients, streptococcal disease being the most suitable form of endocarditis for this treatment. In open trials, teicoplanin has been found effective in home therapy of osteomyelitis but, as with other agents, prolonged dosage can be associated with adverse effects. It has also been used for home treatment of infections of the respiratory tract, intravascular catheters and soft tissue. Despite its higher acquisition costs, teicoplanin is to be preferred over vancomycin because of the reduced administration and assay costs and fewer adverse effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7843174     DOI: 10.1007/bf02276052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0934-9723            Impact factor:   3.267


  42 in total

1.  Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in subjects with varying degrees of renal function.

Authors:  N Derbyshire; D B Webb; D Roberts; D Glew; J D Williams
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 5.790

Review 2.  Emergence of Enterococcus as a significant pathogen.

Authors:  R C Moellering
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 9.079

3.  Feasible and desirable future targets for reducing the costs of hospital infections.

Authors:  R P Wenzel; M A Pfaller
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.926

Review 4.  Dosage recommendations for teicoplanin.

Authors:  A P Wilson; R N Grüneberg; H Neu
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 5.790

5.  An office model of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy.

Authors:  A D Tice
Journal:  Rev Infect Dis       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb

6.  Home intravenous antibiotic therapy: a team approach.

Authors:  S J Rehm; A J Weinstein
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 25.391

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.  Teicoplanin in home therapy of the terminally ill child.

Authors:  L M Ball; S Siddal; H van Saenen
Journal:  Eur J Haematol Suppl       Date:  1993

9.  Comparison of intravenous teicoplanin with intramuscular amoxycillin for the prophylaxis of streptococcal bacteraemia in dental patients.

Authors:  D C Shanson; A Shehata; M Tadayon; M Harris
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 5.790

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
  10 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Successful single-dose teicoplanin prophylaxis against experimental streptococcal, enterococcal, and staphylococcal aortic valve endocarditis.

Authors:  G S Perdikaris; A Pefanis; H Giamarellou; A Nikolopoulos; E P Margaris; I Donta; A Tsitsika; P Karayiannakos
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 3.  Rational prescribing of antibacterials in hospitalised children.

Authors:  J E Hoppe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  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

6.  Management of serious staphylococcal infections in the outpatient setting.

Authors:  W Graninger; E Presterl; C Wenisch; E Schwameis; S Breyer; T Vukovich
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 7.  Methicillin-resistant staphylococci in clean surgery. Is there a role for prophylaxis?

Authors:  E Mini; S Nobili; P Periti
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 8.  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 9.  Place of parenteral cephalosporins in the ambulatory setting: clinical evidence.

Authors:  D Nathwani
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 10.  Ambulatory use of parenteral antibacterials: contemporary perspectives.

Authors:  J E Leggett
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 9.546

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.