Off-label use of dalbavancin in children: a case series.

INTRODUCTION: Dalbavancin is an antibiotic active against most Gram-positive bacteria approved for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Owing to its long half-life, it is being increasingly used for other indications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We present a case series of children and adolescents treated with dalbavancin for osteoarticular, catheter-related and other non-ABSSSI infections. RESULTS: Dalbavancin was prescribed to 15 patients. Six (40%) were female and median age at prescription was 11.9 (IQR 1.3-18.0) years. Most of them (12/15) had significant comorbidities. Patients presented mainly with deep surgical site infections, osteoarticular infections and central-line-associated bloodstream infections. The most common isolate was Staphylococcus aureus followed by Staphylococcus epidermidis. Major reasons to prescribe dalbavancin were to ensure compliance and patients' convenience. Two patients discontinued the drug due to adverse events possibly related to it. The rest of the patients completed the treatment with dalbavancin, with a median duration of 56 days (IQR 17.5, 115.5). All achieved complete resolution and present no relapse after a median follow-up of 9.9 months (IQR 4.8, 16.6). CONCLUSIONS: Dalbavancin was a safe, effective and convenient alternative in selected paediatric patients with complicated non-ABSSSI infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria.

Experience with dalbavancin use in various gram-positive infections within Aberdeen Royal Infirmary OPAT service.

PURPOSE: Dalbavancin, approved in 2014 for Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), has pharmacokinetics enabling treatment with one or two doses. Dalbavancin might be useful in outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) of deep-seated infections, otherwise requiring inpatient admission. We documented our experience with pragmatic dalbavancin use to assess its effectiveness for varied indications, on- and off-label, as primary or sequential consolidation therapy. METHODS: Patients prescribed dalbavancin between 1 December 2021 and 1 October 2022 were screened for demographics of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), allergies, pathogens, doses of dalbavancin, other antibiotics administered and surgery. Where available, infection markers were recorded. The primary outcome was a cure at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included any adverse events and for those with treatment failures, response to salvage antibiotics. RESULTS: Sixty-seven per cent of patients were cured. Cure rates by indication were 93% for ABSSSI, 100% for bacteraemia, 90% for acute osteomyelitis, 0% for chronic osteomyelitis, 75% for native joint septic arthritis and 33% for prosthetic joint infection. Most bone and joint infections that were not cured did not have source control, and the goal of treatment was suppressive. Successful suppression rates were greater at 48% for chronic osteomyelitis and 66% for prosthetic joint infections. Adverse events occurred in 14 of 102 patients. CONCLUSION: This report adds to clinical experience with dalbavancin for off-label indications whilst further validating its role in ABSSSI. Dalbavancin as primary therapy in deep-seated infections merits investigation in formal clinical trials.

In-label, off-label prescription, efficacy and tolerability of dalbavancin: report from a National Registry.

PURPOSE: Although dalbavancin is currently approved for the treatment of ABSSIs, several studies suggest its efficacy and tolerance as long-term therapy for other off-label indications requiring prolonged intravenous antibiotic administration. METHODS: We conducted a prospective nationwide study of dalbavancin use in real-life settings for both approved and off-label indications analysing for each case the clinical and microbiological characteristics of infection the efficacy and safety of treatments. RESULTS: During the study period (from December 2018 to July 2021), the ID specialists from 14 different centres enrolled 223 patients treated with dalbavancin [141 males (63%) and 82 females (37%); male/female ratio 1.72; mean age 59 (SD 17.2) years, (range 15-96). Most patients in the study population (136/223; 61.0%) came from community rather than health care facilities and most of them were visited in Infectious Diseases wards (93/223; 41.7%) and clinics (55/223; 24.7%) even though some patients were cured in other settings, such as surgery wards (18/223; 8.1%), orthopaedic wards (11/223; 4.9%), Emergency Rooms (7/223; 3.1%) and non-surgical other than ID wards (6/223; 2.7%). The most common ID diagnoses were osteomyelitis (44 cases/223; 19.7%; of which 29 acute and 15 chronic osteomyelitis), cellulitis (28/223; 12.5%), cutaneous abscess (23/223; 10.3%), orthopaedic prosthesis-associated infection (22/223; 9.9%), surgical site infection (20/223; 9.0%) and septic arthritis (15/223; 6.7%). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, by virtue of its PK/PD properties, dalbavancin represents a valuable option to daily in-hospital intravenous or outpatient antimicrobial regimens also for off-label indications requiring a long-term treatment of Gram-positive infections.

Risk Factors for Teicoplanin-Associated Acute Kidney Injury in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: Focusing on Concomitant Use of Tazobactam/Piperacillin.

Patients with hematological malignancies (HM) often receive tazobactam/piperacillin (TAZ/PIPC) and glycopeptide antibiotics for febrile neutropenia. The effect of concomitant use of TAZ/PIPC on risk of teicoplanin (TEIC)-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) remains unclear. We investigated the impact of concomitant TAZ/PIPC use on TEIC-associated AKI in HM patients and identified the risk factors. In this retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study, 203 patients received TEIC, 176 of whom satisfied the selection criteria and were divided into TEIC cohort (no TAZ/PIPC; n = 118) and TEIC + TAZ/PIPC cohort (n = 58). AKI was defined as serum creatinine increase ≥0.3 mg/dL within 48 h or ≥50% from baseline. Incidence of AKI in TEIC cohort before and after propensity score matching was 9.3 and 5.9%, respectively, and that in TEIC + TAZ/PIPC cohort was 10.3 and 11.8%. AKI incidence and risk were not significantly different between two cohorts before (p = 0.829; odds ratio (OR) 1.122, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.393-3.202) and after matching (p = 0.244; OR 2.133, 95% CI 0.503-9.043). Logistic regression analysis with factors clinically or mechanistically potentially related to TEIC-associated AKI, including concomitant TAZ/PIPC use, as independent variables identified baseline hemoglobin level as the only significant risk factor for TEIC-associated AKI (p = 0.011; OR 0.484, 95% CI 0.276-0.848). In HM patients treated with TEIC, concomitant TAZ/PIPC use did not increase AKI risk whereas lower hemoglobin levels had higher risk for TEIC-associated AKI development, suggesting the necessity to monitor serum creatinine when using TEIC in patients with anemia.

Necessity for higher teicoplanin doses in older adults: a multicenter prospective observational study in China.

BACKGROUND: Many older adult patients receive low-dose teicoplanin with varied regimens, leading to a lack of clarity on its optimal regimens and toxicity profiles in China. This study aimed to clarify these aspects by analyzing teicoplanin treatment concentrations and toxicities. METHODS: We included older adult patients administered teicoplanin at four tertiary hospitals in Beijing from June 2021 to July 2023, targeting a trough concentration (Cmin) ≥ 10 mg/L. Teicoplanin concentrations and toxicities were monitored dynamically. RESULTS: From 204 patients, we obtained 632 teicoplanin concentrations. Most patients (83.3%) received low-dose regimens. Suboptimal concentrations were found in 66.4% of patients within 7 days of treatment and 17.0% after 15 days. Cmin gradually increased with treatment duration and was influenced initially by creatinine and by both body weight and creatinine from days 8 to 14. The target concentration was achieved in 53.1%, 33.9%, 15.6%, and 5.5% of patients at 3, ≤ 7, 8-14, and ≥ 15 days after withdrawal, respectively. Slow elimination was associated with average Cmin and eGFR. Nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 12.5%, 4.1%, and 31.5% of patients, respectively, without significant differences between concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Most older adult patients were underdosed, indicating a need for dose adjustment. Given the varied risk factors for suboptimal concentrations in different treatment stages, a one-size-fits-all regimen was ineffective. We recommend an initial dose of 400 mg at 12-h intervals for the first three days, with subsequent doses from days 4 to 14 adjusted based on creatinine and body weight; after day 14, a maintenance dose of 200 mg daily is advised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2100046811; 28/05/2021.

Teicoplanin and vancomycin as treatment for glycopeptide-susceptible Enterococcus faecium bacteraemia: a propensity score-adjusted non-inferior comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence is available regarding alternative therapeutic agents to vancomycin in treating glycopeptide-susceptible Enterococcus faecium (GSEF) bacteraemia. This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of teicoplanin compared with vancomycin for treating GSEF bacteraemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, non-inferiority cohort study. Patients aged ≥18 years who developed GSEF bacteraemia and received either teicoplanin or vancomycin were included. The primary effectiveness outcome was the clinical success at the end of treatment, with a generalized linear model using the propensity score for selecting the agent as a covariate. We used an absolute difference of 20% in clinical success as the non-inferiority margin. Using multivariable logistic regression, the primary safety outcome was the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). RESULTS: In total, 164 patients (74 and 90 in the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively) were included. Overall, 64.9% (48/74) and 48.9% (44/90) of patients in the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively, achieved the primary effectiveness outcome. A generalized linear analysis showed an adjusted effectiveness difference of 9.9% (95% CI, -0.9% to 20.0%; P = 0.07), indicating non-inferiority of teicoplanin versus vancomycin. The incidence of AKI was 8.1% (6/74) and 24.4% (22/90) in the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, respectively, with an adjusted OR of 0.242 (95% CI, 0.068 to 0.864; P = 0.029), indicating significantly lower AKI risk in the teicoplanin than in the vancomycin group. CONCLUSIONS: Teicoplanin is a safe and useful alternative therapeutic agent for treating GSEF bacteraemia.

Cefotaxime-induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom in a child with cross-reactivity to other cephalosporins and cosensitization to teicoplanin.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS) is a severe adverse drug-induced reaction. Commonly related to anticonvulsant and allopurinol, DRESS can affect both adults and children. Cefotaxime is rarely associated with DRESS, especially with children. We report a cefotaxime-induced DRESS in a child and emphasize the role of allergological work-up to point out the culprit drug in exploring cross-reactivity and identifying a possible cosensitization. A 2-year-old boy was treated with cefotaxime, vancomycin and metronidazole for acute otomastoiditis. Metronidazole was withdrawn and vancomycin was changed by teicoplanin 10 and 15 days later, respectively. Nineteen days after ongoing cefotaxime and 4 days after teicoplanin intake, the patient developed hyperthermia, a widespread exanthema, facial oedema with neither mucosal involvement nor palpable lymphadenopathy. Biological tests revealed eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytes, mild cytolysis and a high lactate dehydrogenase level. Serological tests for viral and bacterial infections were negative. DRESS was suspected and the 2 antibiotics were withdrawn. Intradermal tests (IDT) were carried out 2 months later with cefotaxime and teicoplanin. They revealed a positive result at 48-hour reading. To assess cross-reactivity among ß-lactams, IDT to penicillins (benzylpenicillin, amoxicillin and oxacillin) was performed showing negative results at 48-hour reading. Nevertheless, IDT to cephalosporins (cefazolin, cefuroxime, ceftazidime and ceftriaxone) displayed positive results at 48-hour reading. As a result, IDT are of great interest and should be performed to confirm the role of cefotaxime and detect a potential cross-reactivity with chemically similar drugs and drugs taken before and during the episode of DRESS.

Ototoxicity associated with extended dalbavancin treatment for a shoulder prosthetic joint infection.

BACKGROUND: Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic approved for treatment of skin and soft tissue infections, administered as a single or two-dose treatment. The extended half-life, good penetration into bone and synovial fluid, and bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria, including those in biofilm, make dalbavancin an appealing choice for treatment of bone and joint infections in outpatient settings. However, we present a rare case of ototoxicity associated with off-label extended dalbavancin treatment of a prosthetic joint infection. CASE PRESENTATION: A 55-year-old man with a prosthetic joint infection of the shoulder underwent off-label extended dalbavancin treatment, receiving a cumulative dose of 2500 mg. The patient experienced a gradual onset of hearing loss following the first dose, leading to a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss that persisted 1 year after dalbavancin was discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: This case report highlights the importance of exercising caution when administering dalbavancin beyond approved dosing guidelines, and emphasizes the need for vigilance regarding the potential for ototoxicity.

Effective use of a two-dose regimen of dalbavancin to treat prosthetic joint infections and spinal hardware infections.

PURPOSE: Dalbavancin is an attractive antibiotic for the treatment of Gram-positive musculoskeletal infections given its long half-life and prolonged duration in cortical bones. For certain patient populations compliance with antibiotic regimens can be problematic. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness, tolerance, and compliance of treating prosthetic joint and spinal hardware infections with a unique two-dose regimen of dalbavancin. METHODS: Identification of patients that had prosthetic joint infections and spinal hardware infections from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021, that had received a two-dose regimen of dalbavancin for these infections was conducted. Patient demographics, infection recurrence, compliance and adverse drug reactions to the two-dose regimen of dalbavancin were recorded. Furthermore, preserved clinical isolates from these infections were assessed for susceptibility to dalbavancin with microbroth dilutions. RESULTS: All patients were fully compliant with the two dose dalbavancin regimen and no patient had any adverse reactions to the two-dose dalbavancin regimen. Thirteen of fifteen patients (85.7%) have not had any recurrence of their infections and all preserved clinical isolates showed susceptibility to dalbavancin. DISCUSSION: The two-dose regimen of dalbavancin is an effective and attractive option in treating prosthetic joint and spinal hardware infections to forgo long term central venous access and ensure compliance. However, the use of rifampin and suppression antibiotics still needs to be considered when treating these infections. Nonetheless this study supports that a two-dose dalbavancin regimen is a viable alternative in certain clinical settings and consideration for a randomized controlled clinical trial should be entertained to prove its non-inferiority to conventional treatments.

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.

BACKGROUND: Owing to its low risk of adverse effects, teicoplanin has been extensively used in patients with infections caused by MRSA. To promote the better management of patients receiving teicoplanin, we have updated the guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). METHODS: The guidelines were developed by a committee following the methodology handbook published by the Japanese Medical Information Distribution Service. Nine clinical questions were selected. The committee conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish evidence-based recommendations for the target trough concentration (Cmin). An initial electronic database search returned 515 articles, and 97 articles qualified for a full review. Four and five studies were included for the efficacy evaluation of cut-off Cmin values of 15 and 20 mg/L, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with Cmin < 15 mg/L, a target Cmin value of 15-30 mg/L resulted in increased clinical efficacy in patients with non-complicated MRSA infections (OR = 2.68; 95% CI = 1.14-6.32) without an increase in adverse effects. Although there was insufficient evidence, target Cmin values of 20-40 mg/L were suggested in patients with complicated or serious MRSA infections. A 3 day loading regimen followed by maintenance treatment according to renal function was recommended to achieve the target trough concentrations. Because of the prolonged half-life of teicoplanin, measurement of the Cmin value on Day 4 before reaching steady state was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: The new guideline recommendations indicate the target Cmin value for TDM and the dosage regimen to achieve this concentration and suggest practices for specific subpopulations.

Dalbavancin in Gram-positive periprosthetic joint infections.

OBJECTIVES: The unique properties of dalbavancin (DAL) emphasize the need to explore its clinical benefits to treat periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The present study aimed to compare the treatment outcome of dalbavancin with Standard of Care (SoC) in hip and knee PJIs. METHODS: Eighty-nine patients were selected for each group of this study based on our prospectively maintained PJI database. A 1:1 propensity score-matching was performed between patients who received at least two doses of dalbavancin and those who received SoC. Patients were matched based on demographics, joint, patient risk factors, Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, surgical management and type of infection. Treatment outcome was evaluated considering re-infection and re-revision rates, safety and tolerability of dalbavancin after a minimum of 1 year follow-up. RESULTS: Infection eradication was achieved in 69 (77.5%) and 66 (74.2%) patients of the DAL and SoC groups, respectively. Thirteen (14.6%) patients in the DAL group and 12 (13.5%) patients in the SoC group had an infection-related re-revision. The most prevalent microorganisms among the two groups were Staphylococcus epidermidis (32.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (13.8%) and Cutibacterium spp. (11.3%). There were significantly less Gram-positive bacteria (P = 0.03) detected in patients who received dalbavancin (17.4%) treatment compared with those treated with SoC (48.0%) in culture-positive re-revisions. CONCLUSIONS: Dalbavancin treatment for Gram-positive PJIs resulted in a similar outcome to SoC, with excellent safety and low rate of adverse effects. Dalbavancin seems to be a promising antimicrobial against PJIs by reducing the risk of Gram-positive re-infections and allowing a less frequent dosage with potential outpatient IV treatment.

Dalbavancin in clinical practice: a particular place for the elderly?

We investigate dalbavancin efficiency and tolerance among elderly in Grenoble-Alpes 32 university hospital. Among the 65 patients who received dalbavancin, 51% (33) were considered as old. Patients presented mainly bones and joint infections (52%), surgical site infection 34 (31%), and infective endocarditis (IE) (8%). Clinical cure was confirmed for 79% of old 35 patients at 1, 3, and 6 months. Six adverse events (9%) were reported after 36 dalbavancin's administration, but each time in combination with other antibiotics. 37 Dalbavancin had a significant effectiveness and safety profile and represents a real 38 therapeutic option in the management of deep and complex infections of elderly patients.

Comparison of mortality and clinical failure rates between vancomycin and teicoplanin in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Very few studies have compared the effects and side effects of vancomycin and teicoplanin in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of vancomycin and teicoplanin in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. METHODS: This study examined 116 patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia who met the inclusion criteria and were treated with either vancomycin (n = 54) or teicoplanin (n = 62). The primary (i.e., clinical failure during treatment) and secondary outcomes (i.e., mortality rates, discontinuation of study drugs due to treatment failure, side effects, and clinical cure) were evaluated. RESULTS: The vancomycin group presented lower clinical failure rates (25.9% vs. 61.3%, p < 0.001), discontinuation due to treatment failure (22.2% vs. 41.9%, p = 0.024), and mortality rates (3.7% vs 19.4%, p = 0.010). The Cox proportional hazard model revealed that teicoplanin was a significant clinical failure predictor compared with vancomycin (adjusted odds ratio, 2.198; 95% confidence interval 1.163-4.154). The rates of drug change due to side effects were higher in the vancomycin group than in the teicoplanin group (24.1% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Vancomycin presented favorable treatment outcomes and more side effects compared with teicoplanin, which suggests that clinicians would need to consider the efficacy and potential side effects of these drugs before prescription.

Clinical failure of dalbavancin for MRSA bacteremia in patient with severe obesity and history of IVDU.

Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic used off-label to treat serious gram-positive infections, including infections secondary to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Dalbavancin has unique pharmacokinetic parameters and has a role in therapy for treating vulnerable patients, including intravenous drug users, who have challenges complying with typical care plans for serious infections. While there is data indicating successful clinical use of dalbavancin in patients with history of intravenous drug use as well as pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data assessing dalbavancin in obesity, there is a lack of information regarding clinical effects of dalbavancin in patients with extreme obesity, especially in patients with concomitant drug use. This case report describes a 40-year-old morbidly obese female actively using intravenous drugs who developed prolonged MRSA bacteremia without a recognizable focus. Despite partial treatment with dalbavancin, the patient developed osteomyelitis and discitis of the spine with associated epidural phlegmon, likely complications of the MRSA bacteremia.

Comparison of risk of acute kidney injury between patients receiving the combination of teicoplanin and piperacillin/tazobactam versus vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To compare the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) among patients receiving teicoplanin (TA) plus piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP) versus vancomycin (VAN) plus TZP. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. Patients were included if a combination of glycopeptide and TZP or other selected ß-lactams were used during hospitalization. In the main analysis, two study groups were identified: TA + TZP and VAN + TZP. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to control for potential confounders, and hazard ratio (HR) of AKI between study groups was calculated. We further compared the risk of AKI between patients receiving VAN + TZP and VAN + ß-lactams as an auxiliary analysis to verify the validity of the study design. RESULTS: The final sample contained 211 pairs of patients receiving either TA + TZP or VAN + TZP. The median dosage of TA and VAN were 10.3 and 26.7 mg/kg/day, respectively. The median trough level of VAN was 12.3 mg/L. The AKI risk in the TA + TZP group was similar to that in the VAN + TZP group (12.3% vs. 11.4%; HR = 1.25 [0.72-2.18], p = 0.44). The auxiliary analysis showed a higher risk of AKI in the VAN + TZP group than in the VAN + ß-lactam group (13.2% vs. 9.6%; HR = 1.63 [1.04-2.55], p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our study results showed that the risk of AKI were similar for patients receiving TA + TZP and VAN + TZP. However, low VAN and high TA dose may play a role in this finding. Further investigation on the association between AKI and TA + TZP is required.

Nephrotoxicity of concomitant piperacillin/tazobactam and teicoplanin compared with monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Piperacillin/tazobactam combined with vancomycin has been associated with a decline in renal function when compared with monotherapy. Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide similar to vancomycin. We investigated whether piperacillin/tazobactam combined with teicoplanin is associated with a decline in renal function as well. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort study with data from our electronic health records from 9 August 2013 to 15 November 2019, including all adult patients that received either piperacillin/tazobactam, teicoplanin or piperacillin/tazobactam + teicoplanin. The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) at 48-72 h served as the primary outcome, whereas change in serum creatinine served as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 4202 included patients, 3188 (75.9%) received piperacillin/tazobactam, 791 (18.8%) received teicoplanin and 223 (5.3%) received piperacillin/tazobactam + teicoplanin. The incidence of AKI at 48-72 h after commencement of antibiotic therapy was 5.4% for piperacillin/tazobactam, 3.4% for teicoplanin and 11.7% for piperacillin/tazobactam + teicoplanin (P < 0.001). However, mean serum creatinine at 48-72 h was slightly higher in the piperacillin/tazobactam + teicoplanin group therapy compared with baseline [+1.61% (95% CI -2.25 to 5.70)], indicating a slight decrease in renal function, and decreased for piperacillin/tazobactam [-1.98% (95% CI -2.73 to -1.22)] and teicoplanin [-8.01% (95% CI -9.54 to -6.45)]. After correcting for significant confounders in a multivariate linear regression analysis, these patterns remained. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that piperacillin/tazobactam + teicoplanin is associated with a higher prevalence of AKI compared with monotherapy. However, as the overall decline in renal function with piperacillin/tazobactam + teicoplanin is very small, its clinical relevance is likely limited. Therefore, piperacillin/tazobactam + teicoplanin can probably be safely combined.

Nephrotoxicity of teicoplanin-based combination therapy: focus on piperacillin/tazobactam and other anti-pseudomonal ß-lactams.

BACKGROUND: The concurrent use of vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam increases the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with vancomycin use with other anti-pseudomonal ß-lactams (OAPBs). Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic with lower nephrotoxicity than that of vancomycin. Whether the concomitant use of teicoplanin and piperacillin/tazobactam also increases the risk of AKI remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the AKI risk between teicoplanin-piperacillin/tazobactam and teicoplanin-OAPBs. METHODS: This was a retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study. Adult patients receiving teicoplanin-based combination therapy were included. OAPBs included cefepime, cefoperazone/sulbactam, ceftazidime, doripenem, imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem. Propensity score matching was performed to balance demographic and confounding factors. The primary endpoint was AKI during combination therapy. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 954 patients (teicoplanin-piperacillin/tazobactam: teicoplanin-OAPBs, 1:3 matched, 243 pairs in total) were included for analysis. The mean age was 66.3 years in the matched cohort and 17.1% of patients had shock. Use of nephrotoxic medications (45.7% versus 48.7%) and baseline renal function (78.88 ± 31.26 versus 81.05 ± 31.53 mL/min/1.73 m2) were similar in the two groups. The median teicoplanin dose was 10.7 mg/kg in both groups. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of AKI risk (14.8% versus 14.2%, P = 0.815). However, the time to AKI appeared shorter in the teicoplanin-piperacillin/tazobactam group (4.64 ± 2.33 versus 6.29 ± 4.72 days, P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of teicoplanin and piperacillin/tazobactam was not associated with an increased risk of AKI compared with teicoplanin and OAPBs.

Comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem for the risk of acute kidney injury.

We compared the rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), 7-day and 30-day mortalities, and resolution of AKI at discharge in combination therapies involving either teicoplanin (TEI) or vancomycin (VAN) with piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) or meropenem (MER). In a single-center, retrospective cohort study, adult patients (>18 years) who had a baseline serum creatinine level within 24 h of admission and who received study antibiotics for at least 48 h were included. The primary outcome was AKI incidence after therapy per RIFLE criteria. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity score match analyses were employed for statistical comparisons. Data from 379 patients were evaluated. In multivariate analysis (MVA) of the whole cohort, TZP-VAN combination was associated with significantly higher rate of AKI as compared with TZP-TEI (aOR: 3.21, 95% CI, 1.36-7.57; p = 0.008) or with MER-VAN (aOR: 2.28, 95% CI, 1.008-5.18; p = 0.048). In MVA of the matched cohorts, TZP-VAN as compared with TZP-TEI and MER-VAN was associated with 3.96 times (95% CI, 1.48-10.63, p = 0.006) and 3.11 times (95% CI, 1.12-8.62; p = 0.028) increased risk of AKI, respectively. No differences between MER-TEI and MER-VAN combinations were detected. Seven-day and 30-day mortalities and resolution rates of AKI were similar in all comparisons. Teicoplanin can be preferred instead of VAN when combination with TZP is used particularly for patients with high AKI risk.

Optimal trough concentration of teicoplanin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: It has been recommended that the trough concentration (Cmin ) of teicoplanin should be maintained at ≥20 µg/ml for difficult-to-treat complicated infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Conversely, Cmin of teicoplanin of at least 10 µg/ml is required for non-complicated MRSA infections. Considering the low incidence of nephrotoxicity for teicoplanin, Cmin  = 15-30 µg/ml has been suggested for most MRSA infections. Thus, we assessed the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of teicoplanin at this target Cmin . METHODS: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Ichushi-Web) to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they provided the incidence of treatment success, mortality in patients with MRSA infection, and/or hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity according to the Cmin range. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Four trials assessing clinical success (n = 299) and three studies assessing adverse effects (n = 546) were included. Cmin  = 15-30 µg/ml significantly increased the probability of treatment success compared with Cmin  < 15 µg/ml (odds ratio [OR] = 2.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-6.32, p = 0.02). The all-cause mortality rate did not differ between the groups (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.13-1.61, p = 0.22). Cmin  = 15-30 µg/ml did not increase the risks of nephrotoxicity (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.49-1.69, p = 0.76) or hepatotoxicity (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.18-2.44, p = 0.54). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Teicoplanin therapy using a Cmin target of 15-30 µg/ml is likely to be associated with better clinical responses than Cmin  < 15 µg/ml without increasing the risk of adverse effects.

Graded Dalbavancin Challenge in a Patient With Severe Vancomycin Hypersensitivity Reaction.

Cross-reactivity should be considered when treating patients with a previous hypersensitivity reaction within the same class of antibiotics that share similar chemical structures. This case report describes a patient with severe hypersensitivity reaction to vancomycin who successfully tolerated a dalbavancin graded challenge.