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.

Teicoplanin for treating enterococcal infective endocarditis: A retrospective observational study from a referral centre in Spain.

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of teicoplanin for treating enterococcal infective endocarditis (EIE). A retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of definite EIE patients treated with teicoplanin in a Spanish referral centre (2000-2017) was performed. The primary outcome was mortality during treatment. Secondary outcomes were mortality during 3-month follow-up, adverse effects and relapse. A total of 22 patients received teicoplanin, 9 (40.9%) as first-line (8 Enterococcus faecium and 1 Enterococcus faecalis) and 13 (59.1%) as salvage therapy (13 E. faecalis). Median (IQR) age was 71.5 (58.3-78) years and Charlson comorbidity index was 4.5 (3-7). Five (22.7%) affected prosthetic valves. Median duration of treatment in survivors was 53 (42.5-61) days for antibiotics and 27 (17-41.5) days for teicoplanin [median dose 10 (10-10.8) mg/kg/day]. Reasons for teicoplanin use were resistance to ß-lactams (40.9%), adverse events with previous regimens (31.8%) and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) (27.3%). Teicoplanin was withdrawn due to adverse events in 2 patients (9.1%). Five patients (22.7%) died during treatment: four in the first-line (three with surgery indicated but not performed) and one in the salvage therapy group (surgery indicated but not performed). Two deaths (11.8%) occurred over the 3-month follow-up. There were no relapses during a median of 43.2 (22.1-69.1) months. Teicoplanin can be used as an alternative treatment for susceptible E. faecium IE and as a salvage therapy in selected patients with E. faecalis IE when adverse events develop with standard regimens or to allow OPAT.

Dalbavancin in the treatment of different gram-positive infections: a real-life experience.

Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with a very prolonged half-life enabling treatment with a single intravenous administration that has been approved to treat complicated skin and soft-tissue infections. Information on the efficacy and safety of dalbavancin in other situations is very scarce. This retrospective study included adult patients who received at least one dose of dalbavancin between 2016 and 2017 in 29 institutions in Spain. The primary objective was to report the use of dalbavancin in clinical practice, including its efficacy and tolerability. The potential impact of dalbavancin on reducing the length of hospital stay and hospital costs was also evaluated. A total of 69 patients received dalbavancin during the study period (58.0% male; median age 63.5 years). Dalbavancin was used to treat prosthetic joint infection (29.0%), acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection (21.7%), osteomyelitis (17.4%) and catheter-related bacteraemia (11.6%). These infections were mainly caused by Staphylococcus aureus (27 isolates), coagulase-negative staphylococci (24 isolates) and Enterococcus spp. (11 isolates). All but two patients received previous antibiotics for a median of 18 days. Dalbavancin was administered for a median of 21 days (range 7-168 days), and concomitant antimicrobial therapy was prescribed to 25 patients (36.2%). The overall clinical success rate of dalbavancin was 84.1%. Adverse events, mainly mild in intensity, were reported in nine patients. Overall, dalbavancin was estimated to reduce hospitalisation by 1160 days, with an estimated overall cost reduction of €211 481 (€3064 per patient). Dalbavancin appears to be an effective therapy for many serious Gram-positive infections.

Variability in Trough Total and Unbound Teicoplanin Concentrations and Achievement of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Targets in Adult Patients with Hematological Malignancy.

The objective of this study was to explore the following aspects of teicoplanin use in patients with hematological malignancy: early attainment of target trough concentrations with current high-dose teicoplanin regimens, variability in unbound teicoplanin fractions, factors associated with observed total and unbound trough concentrations, efficacy and toxicity, and renal function estimation. This was a single-center, prospective study. Samples for determination of trough concentrations were taken on days 3, 4, 7, and 10. Total and unbound teicoplanin concentrations were determined using validated high-performance liquid chromatography methods. Regression analyses were used to identify the factors associated with the trough concentration. Thirty teicoplanin-treated adults with hematological malignancy were recruited. Despite the use of dosages higher than the conventional dosages, the proportions of patients with a trough concentration of ≥20 mg/liter at 48 h and at 72 h were 16.7% and 37.9%, respectively. Renal function was significantly negatively associated with total trough concentrations at 48 h and 72 h (P < 0.05). For an average hematological malignancy patient (creatinine clearance = 70 ml/min), sequential loading doses of at least 12 mg/kg of body weight may be needed to achieve early adequate exposure. In the absence of measured creatinine clearance, estimates obtained using the Cockcroft-Gault (total body weight) equation could prove to be an acceptable surrogate. The unbound fractions of teicoplanin were highly variable (3.4 to 18.8%). Higher unbound fractions were observed in patients with low serum albumin concentrations. Teicoplanin was well tolerated. Teicoplanin loading doses higher than those in current use appear to be necessary. Increased dosing is needed in patients with increased renal function. The high variability in protein binding supports the contention for therapeutic drug monitoring of unbound teicoplanin concentrations. (This study has been registered with EudraCT under registration no. 2013-004535-72.).

Dalbavancin and Oritavancin: An Innovative Approach to the Treatment of Gram-Positive Infections.

Health care-associated infections, especially those caused by multidrug-resistant gram-positive organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), are a growing public health threat. In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved two new lipoglycopeptides, oritavancin and dalbavancin, for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. The rationale for the development of these antimicrobials was partly to aid in the battle against vancomycin resistance in both Staphylococcus and Enterococcus. Considered a subclass of the glycopeptide antibiotics, the new lipoglycopeptides have similar mechanisms of action of binding to the carboxyl terminal d-alanyl-d-alanine residue of the growing peptide chains but differ from their parent glycopeptides by the addition of lipophilic tails. This addition allows for these agents to have prolonged half-lives, giving them unique dosing profiles. In addition, by concentrating at the site of action, they have increased potency against MRSA compared with vancomycin, the current mainstay of therapy. In this review, we focus on comparing and contrasting these two new agents with regard to their pharmacology, mechanisms of action, spectrum of activity, safety profiles, dosage and administration, and drug and laboratory interactions, and we review the clinical trials evaluating their use.

New lipoglycopeptides: a comparative review of dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin.

Dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin are semisynthetic lipoglycopeptides that demonstrate promise for the treatment of patients with infections caused by multi-drug-resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Each of these agents contains a heptapeptide core, common to all glycopeptides, which enables them to inhibit transglycosylation and transpeptidation (cell wall synthesis). Modifications to the heptapeptide core result in different in vitro activities for the three semisynthetic lipoglycopeptides. All three lipoglycopeptides contain lipophilic side chains, which prolong their half-life, help to anchor the agents to the cell membrane and increase their activity against Gram-positive cocci. In addition to inhibiting cell wall synthesis, telavancin and oritavancin are also able to disrupt bacterial membrane integrity and increase membrane permeability; oritavancin also inhibits RNA synthesis. Enterococci exhibiting the VanA phenotype (resistance to both vancomycin and teicoplanin) are resistant to both dalbavancin and telavancin, while oritavancin retains activity. Dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin exhibit activity against VanB vancomycin-resistant enterococci. All three lipoglycopeptides demonstrate potent in vitro activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis regardless of their susceptibility to meticillin, as well as Streptococcus spp. Both dalbavancin and telavancin are active against vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA), but display poor activity versus vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA). Oritavancin is active against both VISA and VRSA. Telavancin displays greater activity against Clostridium spp. than dalbavancin, oritavancin or vancomycin. The half-life of dalbavancin ranges from 147 to 258 hours, which allows for once-weekly dosing, the half-life of oritavancin of 393 hours may allow for one dose per treatment course, while telavancin requires daily administration. Dalbavancin and telavancin exhibit concentration-dependent activity and AUC/MIC (area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio) is the pharmacodynamic parameter that best describes their activities. Oritavancin's activity is also considered concentration-dependent in vitro, while in vivo its activity has been described by both concentration and time-dependent models; however, AUC/MIC is the pharmacodynamic parameter that best describes its activity. Clinical trials involving patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs) have demonstrated that all three agents are as efficacious as comparators. The most common adverse effects reported with dalbavancin use included nausea, diarrhoea and constipation, while injection site reactions, fever and diarrhoea were commonly observed with oritavancin therapy. Patients administered telavancin frequently reported nausea, taste disturbance and insomnia. To date, no drug-drug interactions have been identified for dalbavancin, oritavancin or telavancin. All three of these agents are promising alternatives for the treatment of cSSSIs in cases where more economical options such as vancomycin have been ineffective, in cases of reduced vancomycin susceptibility or resistance, or where vancomycin use has been associated with adverse events.

Dalbavancin.

Dalbavancin is a semisynthetic glycopeptide antibacterial agent that is active against Gram-positive bacteria associated with complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs). It is administered as a two-dose regimen intravenously infused over 30 minutes once weekly. The efficacy of dalbavancin (1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg on day 8) has been examined in two randomized controlled trials in adults with cSSSIs. In each study, the primary efficacy measure was clinical success at the test-of-cure or follow-up visit in clinically evaluable patients. In a randomized, controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase III trial, dalbavancin was noninferior to linezolid, with clinical success rates of 88.9% and 91.2%. In a randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase II trial, clinical success rates were 94% with dalbavancin and 76% with comparator antibacterials. Dalbavancin was generally well tolerated by adult patients with cSSSIs, with most adverse events being of mild or moderate severity.

Dalbavancin, a long-acting lipoglycopeptide for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria.

Dalbavancin is a new lipoglycopeptide antibiotic in late-stage clinical development as a once-weekly treatment for serious infections including skin and skin structure infections. Its in vitro potency is greater than that of vancomycin, with a MIC(90) of 0.06 mg/l for Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci (irrespective of oxacillin susceptibility), 0.06-0.12 mg/l for vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus spp. and 0.003 mg/l or less for Streptococcus pneumoniae or beta-hemolytic streptococci. Dalbavancin has dual routes of elimination. The results of Phase II/III studies show clinical efficiency in complicated skin and skin structure infection. During clinical trials, dalbavancin was as effective as linezolid or vancomycin in the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infection, including those with methicillin-resistant S. aureus. An additional Phase II study demonstrated efficacy in catheter-related bacteremia. Other preliminary in vitro and in vivo data have identified putative interest of dalbavancin in endocarditis, osteitis, diabetic foot, respiratory tract or joint infection.

Dalbavancin: a new option for the treatment of gram-positive infections.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, microbiology, chemistry, in vitro susceptibility, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety, tolerability, dosage, and administration of dalbavancin, a new semisynthetic lipoglycopeptide. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search, restricted to the English language, was conducted from 1966 through January 2006. Supplementary sources included program abstracts from the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, American Society of Microbiology, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America from 2000 to 2005 and information available from the manufacturer's Web site. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: In vitro and preclinical studies, as well as Phase I, II, and III clinical trials, were evaluated to summarize the microbiology, pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety of dalbavancin. All published trials and abstracts citing dalbavancin were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: Dalbavancin, a novel lipoglycopeptide, has a mechanism of action similar to that of other glycopeptides. It has in vitro activity against a variety of gram-positive organisms, but no activity against gram-negative or vancomycin-resistant enterococci that possess VanA gene. Due to its prolonged half-life (6-10 days), dalbavancin can be administered intravenously once weekly. In Phase II and III clinical trials, dalbavancin was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections, catheter-related bloodstream infections, and skin and skin-structure infections. To date, adverse events are mild and limited; the most common include pyrexia, headache, nausea, oral candidiasis, diarrhea, and constipation. CONCLUSIONS: Dalbavancin appears to be a promising antimicrobial agent for the treatment of gram-positive infections. A new drug application was filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2004. The FDA issued an approvable letter in 2005 for dalbavancin. If approved, dalbavancin is expected to be launched in the first quarter of 2006.

Experience with teicoplanin in the treatment of neonatal staphylococcal sepsis.

We aimed to evaluate retrospectively the clinical and bacteriological efficacy and potential side-effects of teicoplanin treatment in neonates with proven staphylococcal infection. There were 37 episodes of staphylococcal septicaemia in neonates with a mean gestational age of 34.2 +/- 2.3 weeks; 26 were caused by coagulase-negative staphylococcal (CoNS) sepsis and 11 by Staphylococcus aureus sepsis. All episodes were treated with teicoplanin (intravenous loading dose 16 mg/kg followed by a maintenance dose of 8 mg/kg daily). The methicillin resistance and antibiotic susceptibilities of both micro-organisms were evaluated. Bacterial eradication was achieved in 89.1% of cases and mortality was 16.2%. The mean duration of treatment of the survivors was 11.6 +/- 2.3 days. There were no drug-related adverse events and the biochemical and haematological tests showed no clinically significant changes in relation to teicoplanin therapy. Our results suggest that teicoplanin is highly effective in neonatal staphylococcal sepsis.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin in children with antineoplastic therapy-associated febrile neutropenia and gram-positive bacteremia.

To compare their efficacy and safety, teicoplanin and vancomycin were randomly administered to 32 children for 52 gram-positive bacteremias during malignancy-associated neutropenia (<1000/microl). Patients mainly suffered from hematological malignancies. Twenty-five episodes were treated with teicoplanin (10 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1)) and 21 with vancomycin (40 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1)) plus ceftazidime and netilmicin. Six episodes were treated with teicoplanin because of previous "red man" reaction to vancomycin. Staphylococci (12% Staphylococcus aureus) were isolated from 50 episodes and viridans streptococci from 2. Defervescence on 3rd-4th day occurred in 29/31 (93.5%) teicoplanin-treated and 18/21 (85.7%) vancomycin-treated episodes. All 12 teicoplanin-treated and 13/13 vancomycin-treated episodes with repeat blood cultures on 3rd-4th day showed microbiological response. Two teicoplanin-treated and 3 vancomycin-treated patients required antifungals. Mild renal insufficiency appeared in 5 vancomycin-treated patients that was corrected without drug discontinuation. While both glycopeptides exhibit equal clinical and microbiological efficacy, teicoplanin is less likely to induce allergic reactions or nephrotoxicity in children.

Ceftazidime in combination with glycopeptide antibiotic is an effective first-line therapy for patients undergoing high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood stem cell support.

It was the objective of this study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of an empirical antibiotic therapy consisting in ceftazidime and a glycopeptide antibiotic. All patients enrolled in the study had hematological malignancies and underwent high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support. In this retrospective study, 183 of 207 patients who had received a PBSC-supported high-dose therapy were evaluable. Any patients who had fever higher than 38.5 degrees C received ceftazidime in combination with vancomycin (105 patients) or teicoplanin (69 patients). In 80 of 174 patients with fever (45%) the fever resolved within 72 h as a result of the treatment with ceftazidime and the glycopeptide antibiotic. In nonresponding patients, the changes included the replacement of ceftazidime by imipenem/cilastin (94 patients) and the addition of erythromycin (12 patients) or metronidazole (3 patients). Amphotericin B was administered in 29 patients. Following hematological reconstitution, the fever and clinical signs, including radiographic findings, resolved in 20 primarily nonresponding patients. In blood cultures, a significantly higher incidence of gram-positive than of gram-negative bacteria was observed (26 vs 7). The toxicity of the first-line antibiotic therapy was limited to allergic skin reactions in 12 patients. Ceftazidime in combination with a glycopeptide antibiotic provides an effective and safe first-line therapy for patients with neutropenic fever following PBSC-supported high-dose therapy.

Efficacy and safety of teicoplanin plus rifampicin in the treatment of bacteraemic infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

An open study was carried out on 16 patients with hospital-acquired, bacteraemic Staphylococcus aureus infections to evaluate the safety and efficacy of teicoplanin plus rifampicin. Patients received teicoplanin 400 mg bd for the first 24 h followed by 400 mg od thereafter, and rifampicin 600 mg bd. Both agents were given intravenously. Serum samples were collected to determine trough and peak antibiotic concentrations. The MIC of teicoplanin and rifampicin and the MBC of teicoplanin were determined for all S. aureus isolates. Time-kill curves were performed for the drugs individually and in combination. Clinical efficacy was assessed by the APACHE II scoring system. Bacteriological success was evaluated by elimination, persistence or recurrence of S. aureus. Safety was carefully monitored by regular biochemical and haematological testing and recording of adverse events. Fifteen patients were evaluable, of whom 13 (86.7%) were clinically cured with elimination of S. aureus. One patient died, but death was not attributed to the study drugs. Treatment failed in another patient who relapsed with a high fever. S. aureus was recovered from blood cultures from this patient, and resistance to rifampicin had developed. Time-kill curves all showed adequate killing of S. aureus at the drug concentrations measured in vivo. Neither synergy nor antagonism between teicoplanin and rifampicin was demonstrated. The combination of teicoplanin and rifampicin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for bacteraemic S. aureus infections, but in deep-seated foci of infection resistance to rifampicin may develop.

Treatment of endocarditis with teicoplanin: a retrospective analysis of 104 cases.

Infective endocarditis is an uncommon disease but retains a high mortality. Glycopeptides are used for patients with resistant pathogens, those allergic to penicillins or for those outside the hospital. The once daily administration of teicoplanin and its low toxicity suggest that it would be suitable for use in the long courses required for endocarditis. However, the dosage and combinations to be used require further study. A retrospective review has been made of 104 episodes of endocarditis treated with teicoplanin in 101 patients seen over 7 years. Most patients had been referred to major London hospitals following failure of medical treatment. After three loading doses of 400 mg, teicoplanin was given at a dose of 400 mg/day in combination with other antibiotics such as gentamicin. Follow up was for one year. The most common pathogens were Streptococcus sanguis (15 cases), Staphylococcus aureus (13 cases) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (10 cases). Of 80 patients febrile at the start of treatment with teicoplanin, 63 (79%) lost their fever within a median of 2 days (1-35 days). Cure without surgery was effected in 50 (48%) and 75% of patients survived. Other antibiotics, usually gentamicin or rifampicin, were used in 92 (90%) of patients. Two strains of Streptococcus spp. were said to be resistant but there was no relationship between MIC of teicoplanin and outcome. Pathogens with a high MBC tended to be more likely to resist treatment. Adverse effects resulted in the withdrawal of teicoplanin in 20 cases (19%) but most events were mild and renal deterioration occurred in only five patients. Teicoplanin was effective in the treatment of endocarditis and appeared to be safe given the severity of disease in the patients treated.

Safety and efficacy of teicoplanin for bone and joint infections: results of a community-based trial.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in the treatment of gram-positive bone and joint infections, parenteral teicoplanin was used once daily in an average dose of 10.1 mg/kg (range 6 to 12 mg/kg) after loading to treat patients with acute or chronic osteomyelitis and septic arthritis. From the 66 patients who met criteria for initial enrollment, 60 gram-positive isolates were recovered from bone and joint fluid, and each was sensitive to teicoplanin at < or = 2 micrograms/mL (median 0.25 microgram/mL). Teicoplanin was more active in vitro against these isolates than either vancomycin or oxacillin. Among the 43 patients in whom microbiologic efficacy could be assessed, the initial pathogen was eradicated in 37 (86%). Clinically, 45 patients infected with staphylococci (including oxacillin-susceptible and oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci) met predetermined criteria for completed adequate therapy. Of these, 39 (87%) responded favorably and became free of all signs of infection; 6 (13%) failed to respond or suffered relapse. Overall, 36 patients completed teicoplanin therapy at home. Adverse reactions necessitated discontinuance of therapy in 12 patients and included fever, rash, hepatic function test abnormalities, and renal insufficiency. We found teicoplanin to be effective and generally well tolerated for treatment of bone and joint infections by gram-positive organisms in a community setting.