Y. Wang, et al
The aim of this study was to observe clinical efficacy and safety of linezolid,teicoplanin and vancomycin in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
120 patients diagnosed as hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia were divided into linezolid group,teicoplanin group and vancomycin group according to therapeutic regimen,with 40 cases in each group. Linezolid group received Linezolid injection 600 mg,ivgtt,bid;teicoplanin group received Teicoplanin injection 0.4 g,ivgtt,bid;vancomycin group received Vancomycin injection 1 000 mg,bid,ivgtt. 3 groups received 2 weeks of treatment. Clinical efficacy and bacterial clearance effective rate of 3 groups were observed as well as serum levels of inflammatory factors before and after treatment. ADR of 3 groups were compared.
The clinical effective rates of linezolid group,teicoplanin group and vancomycin group were 90.0%,72.5% and 67.5%;the effective bacterial clearance rates were 85.0%,60.0% and 57.5%,respectively. There was no statistical significance in serum inflammatory factors between teicoplanin group and vancomycin group before and after treatment (P>0.05).
There was no statistical significance in the incidence of ADR among 3 groups (P>0.05).
H. Kato‐Hayashi, et al.
Vancomycin and teicoplanin, a glycopeptide antibiotic, are widely used in clinical practice to treat acute, life‐threatening infections caused by beta‐lactam‐resistant Gram‐positive bacteria. They have a similar spectrum of coverage, except for vanB vancomycin‐resistant enterococci, which are susceptible to teicoplanin.1,2 However, vancomycin may provoke a number of adverse events including nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity, and serum concentrations should be monitored during treatment. In contrast, teicoplanin has a longer half‐life than vancomycin, can be administered as an intravenous bolus, and nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity are relatively uncommon. Treatment with teicoplanin might therefore offer advantages over treatment with vancomycin, provided that they have similar clinical efficacy. To sum up, Administration of teicoplanin resulted in early elevation to the effective concentration with a lower rate of clinical failure and incidence of nephrotoxicity compared to vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving HSCT.
G. Maria Pacifici, et al.
Teicoplanin is a glycoside antibiotic which consists of five closely related glycopeptide antibiotics with similar antibacterial properties to vancomycin that were first isolated in 1976. Teicoplanin is active against many gram-positive anaerobe microorganisms and is particularly potent against clostridium species. It is also active against most Listeria, enterococci and staphylococci including methicillin-resistant strains. Nonviridans and viridans streptococci, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and enterococci are inhibited by teicoplanin. Teicoplanin has been used to treat a wide variety of infections, including osteomyelitis and endocarditis caused by methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci. Teicoplanin has a spectrum of antimicrobial action similar to vancomycin, but teicoplanin has some advantages in that it only needs to be given once a day, does not need to be given as slowly as vancomycin and can be given by intramuscular injection.
N. Popovic, et al.
The aim of this study was to compare clinical cure rate, recurrence rate and time to resolution of diarrhea in patients with severe and severe-complicated Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) treated with teicoplanin or vancomycin. This two-year prospective observational study included patients with first episode or first recurrence of CDI who had severe or severe-complicated CDI and were treated with teicoplanin or vancomycin. There was no statistically significant difference in time to resolution of diarrhea between two treatment arms (6.0 ± 3.4 vs 6.2 ± 3.1 days, p = 0.672). Treatment with teicoplanin resulted in significantly higher clinical cure rate compared to vancomycin [90.7% vs 79.4%). Recurrence rates were significantly lower in patients treated with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin might be a good treatment option for patients with severe CDI.
Patients treated with teicoplanin experienced remarkably lower recurrence rates compared to vancomycin-treated patients.
T. De Nadaï
Teicoplanin is often used in Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis as a relay in case of penicillin side effects, or in outpatients. We assessed the efficacy of teicoplanin used as continuation therapy after initial standard treatment of E. faecalis endocarditis. In conclusion; the switch to teicoplanin after an initial 2-week phase of amoxicillin combined with gentamicin or ceftriaxone appears to be effective in selected patients with less severe E. faecalis IE. Caution should, however, be exercised to date in prosthetic valve IE and with reference to the optimal dosage regimen required to achieve effective teicoplanin trough concentrations.
T. Ferry, et al.
Staphylococci represent the first etiologic agents of BJIs, leading to a wild use of glycopeptides, especially in case of methicillin-resistance or beta-lactam intolerance. We concluded that teicoplanin constitutes a well-tolerated therapeutic alternative in S. aureus BJI. The loading dose might necessitate an increase up to 9–12 mg/kg in order to quickly reach the therapeutic target, but the tolerance of such higher doses remains to be evaluated, especially if using the SC route. The SC administration may facilitate teicoplanin use in outpatients, without enhancing the risk of adverse events.
H. Chen, et al.
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of serious infections.
Linezolid and teicoplanin are widely used in the treatment of infections caused by MRSA. However, the efficacy and safety of linezolid compared with teicoplanin remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of MRSA infections. The results suggest that linezolid may be a better choice for the treatment of patients with MRSA infections. However, our recommendation is that the decision about treating MRSA infections with linezolid or with teicoplanin should depend on local availability, patient population, dosage regimens, costs and safety, rather than presumed differences in efficacy.
Montali, et al.
Glycopeptide antibiotics (GPAs) are drugs of last resort for treating infections by Gram-positive bacteria. They inhibit bacterial cell wall assembly by binding to the d-Ala-d-Ala terminus of peptidoglycan precursors, leading to cell lysis. Vancomycin and teicoplanin are first generation GPAs, while dalbavancin is one of the few, recently approved, second generation GPAs. In this paper, we developed an in vivo insect model to compare, for the first time, the efficacy of these three GPAs in curing Staphylococcus aureus infection. Differently from previous reports, Bombyx mori larvae were reared at 37 ◦C, and the course of infection was monitored, following not only larval survival, but also bacterial load in the insect body, hemocyte activity, phenoloxidase activity, and antimicrobial peptide expression. We demonstrated that the injection of S. aureus into the hemolymph of B. mori larvae led to a marked reduction of their survival rate within 24–48 h. GPAs were not toxic to the larvae and cured S. aureus infection. Dalbavancin was more effective than first generation GPAs. Due to its great advantages (i.e., easy and safe handling, low rearing costs, low antibiotic amount needed for the tests, no restrictions imposed by ethical and regulatory issues), this silkworm infection model could be introduced in preclinical phases—prior to the use of mice—accelerating the discovery/development rate of novel GPAs.
Address: No. 22, Orfi Shirazi St, North Sheikh Bahaee St, Mollasadra St, Tehran, Iran
View on map
Rastagene © 2024 - All rights reserved