A Closer Look at Vancomycin, Teicoplanin, and Antimicrobial Resistance

References

• Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, et al. The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe. Results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) Study. EPIC International Advisory Committee. JAMA 1995 Aug 23-30; 274 (8): 639-44.
   Google Scholar
• Voiriot P. Infections a Staphylocoque resistants a la methicilline. Ann Med 1989; 28: 567–572.
   Google Scholar
• Maple PAC, Hamilton-Miller JMT, Brumfitt W. World-wide antibiotic resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet 1989;537–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aspock C, Koller W, Rotter M. Resistenzverhalten von Staphylokokken am Allgemeinen Krankenhous der Stadt Wien (Juli bis Dezember 1991). Wien Klin Wochenschr 1994; 106: 20–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Venditti M, Baiocchi P, Brandimarte C. Oxacillin-resis-tant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in an Italian university hospital. J Chemother 1994; 6: 25–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehtar-S. The continuing problem of ‘hospital staphylo-cocci’: why? J Chemother 1994; 6 (Suppl 4):25-31.
   Google Scholar
• Marton A, Gulyas M, Munoz R, Tomasz A. Extremely high incidence of antibiotic resistance in clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae in Hungary. J Infect Dis 1991; 163: 542–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer RC, Goering R. A critical review of the in-vitro activity of teicoplanin. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1995; 5: 169–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brogden RN, Peters DH. Teicoplanin: a reappraisal of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1994; 47: 823–854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campoli-Richards D, Brogden RN, Faulds D. Teicoplanin. a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacoki-netic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1990; 40: 449–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein FW, Coutrot A, Seiffer A, Acar JF. Percentages and distributions of teicoplanin- and van-comycin- resistant strains among coagulase-negative staphylo-cocci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34 (5): 899–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maugein J, Pellegrin JL, Brossard G, Fourche J, Leng B, Reiffers J. In vitro activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin against coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from neu-tropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;35 (5 ):901–903 .
   Google Scholar
• Low DE, McGeer A, Poon R, Activities of daptomycin and teicoplanin against Staphylococcus haemolyticus and Staphylococcus epidermic/is, including evaluation of suscepti-bility testing recommendations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 585–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore EP, Speller DC. In-vitro teicoplanin-resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci from patients with endo-carditis and from a cardiac surgery unit. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21: 417–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vedel G, Leruez M, Lemann F, Hraoui E, Ratovohery D. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci with decreased sensitivity to glycopeptides as assessed by determination of MICs. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990; 9: 820–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein FW, Geslin P, Acar JF, and the French Study Group. Comparative activity of teicoplanin and van-comycin against 400 penicillin susceptible and resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 33–34.
   Google Scholar
• Lindholm DD, Murray JS. Persistence of vancomycin in the blood during renal failure and its treatment by hemodialy-sis. N Engl J Med 1966; 274: 1047–1051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krogstad DJ, Moellering RC, Greenblatt DJ. Single-dose kinetics of intravenous vancomycin. J Clin Pharmacol 1980; 20: 197–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrecht LM, Rybak MJ, Warbasse LH, Edwards DJ. Vancomycin protein binding in patients with infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Pharmacother 1990; 25: 713–715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan CC, Lee HS, Ti TY, Lee EJC. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous vancomycin in patients with end-stage renal fail-ure. Ther Drug Monit 1990; 12: 29–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morita K, Yamaji A. Changes in serum protein binding of vancomycin in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: The role of serum al-acid glycoprotein levels. Ther Drug Monit 1995; 17: 107–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman BH, Taylor EH, Olsen KM, et al. Vancomycin serum protein binding determined by ultrafiltra-tion. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1988; 22: 300–303.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wittendorf RW, Swagzdis JE, Gifford R, et al. Protein binding of glycopeptide antibiotics with diverse physical-chemical properties in mouse, rat, and human serum. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1987; 15: 5–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cantu TG, Dick JD, Elliott DE, Humphrey RL, et al. Protein binding of vancomycin in a patient with immunoglob-ulin A myeloma. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1459–1461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison MW, Vance-Bryan K, Larson TA, Toscano JP, Rotschafer JC. Assessment of effects of protein binding on daptomycin and vancomycin killing of Staphylococcus aureus by using an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1925–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley D, McGrath BJ, Lamp KC, Rybak MJ. Effect of human serum on killing activity of vancomycin and teicoplanin against Staphylococcus aureus. Pharmacotherapy 1994 Jan-Feb; 14 (1): 35-9.
   Google Scholar
• Bernareggi A, Borgonovi M, Del Favero A, Rosina R, Gavanaghi L. Teicoplanin binding in plasma following administration of increasing doses to healthy volunteers. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 1991; 3: 256–260.
   Google Scholar
• Dykhuizen RS, Harvey G, Stephenson N, Nathwani D, Gould IM. Protein binding and serum bactericidal activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1842–1847.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauemfeind A. Bactericidal activity of antibiotics alone and in combination against Enterococcus faecalis in a pharma-codynamic model. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: 481–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamp KC, Rybak MJ, Bailey EM, Kaatz GW. In vitro pharmacodynamic effects of concentration, pH, and growth phase on serum bactericidal activities of daptomycin and van-comycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2709–2714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey EM, Rybak MJ, Kaatz GW. Comparative effect of protein binding on the killing activities of teicoplanin and vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 1089–1092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy HF, Seal DV. Influence of inoculum, medium and serum on the in-vitro susceptibility of coagulase-negative staphylococci to teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 1103–1109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers HF, Kennedy S. Effects of dosage, peak and trough concentrations in serum, protein binding, and bacteri-cidal rate on efficacy of teicoplanin in a rabbit model of endo-carditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 510–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traub WH, Spohr M, Bauer D. Teicoplanin combined with various antibiotics and human blood against a multiple-drug-resistant strain of Staphylococcus aureus. Chemotherapy 1991; 37 (3 ):1 86-95.
   Google Scholar
• Arrieta AC, Stutman HR, Akaniro JC, Vargus OM. In vitro activity of teicoplanin compared with vancomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus derived from cystic fibrosis sputum. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 15: 247–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg RN, Benes CA. Time-kill studies with oxacillin, vancomycin, and teicoplanin versus Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 1990;161;1036–1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peetermans WE, Hoogeterp JJ, Hazekamp-van-Dokkum AM, van-den-Broek P, Mattie H. Antistaphylococcal activities of teicoplanin and vancomycin in vitro and in an experimental infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1869–74.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen R, Barre J, Varon E. A comparative microbio-logical and pharmacokinetic activity of vancomycin and teicoplanin (published erratum appears in Pathol Biol (Paris) 1992 Nov;40 (9): 894. Pathol Biol Paris.1992 Oct; 40 (8): 831–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McGrath BJ, Kang SL, Kaatz GW, Rybak MJ. Bactericidal activities of teicoplanin, vancomycin, and gen-tamicin alone and in combination against Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model of endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2034–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldridge KE, Gelfand MS, Schiro DD, Barg NL. The rapid emergence of fluoroquinolone-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in a community hospital. An in vitro look at alternative antimicrobial agents. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 15: 601–8.
   Google Scholar
• Aldridge KE, Janney A, Sanders CV. Comparison of the activities of coumermycin, ciprofloxacin, teicoplanin, and other non-beta-lactam antibiotics against clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from various geo-graphical locations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 28: 634–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lentino JR, Strodthman R. Comparison of in vitro activity of daptomycin, vancomycin and fluoroquinolones in broth and serum against Staphylococcus epidermidis as deter-mined by time-kill kinetics. Chemotherapy 1989; 35: 168–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallanza R, Scotti R, Arioli V. Bactericidal activity of teicoplanin in an in-vitro two-compartment kinetic model. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21 (Suppl A):15-21.
   Google Scholar
• Doit CP, Bonacorsi SP, Fremaux AJ. In vitro killing activities of antibiotics at clinically achievable concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid against penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated from children with meningitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2655–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felmingham D, Foxall P, O'Hare M, Gruneberg R. The bactericidal activity of vancomycin and teicoplanin against Streptococcus pneumoniae. Scand J Infect Dis 1990; 72 (Suppl):20-5.
   Google Scholar
• Wiland AM, Plaisance KI, Schwalbe RS. In vitro evalu-ation of high-level, gentamicin-resistant enterococci isolated from bacteremic patients. Pharmacotherapy 1994; 14: 89–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traub WH, Leonhard B, Bauer D. Enterococcus faeci-urn: in vitro activity of antimicrobial drugs, singly and com-bined, with and without defibrinated human blood, against multiple-antibiotic-resistant strains. Chemotherapy 1993; 39: 254–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small PM, Chambers HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34 (6): 1227–1231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishii T, Takayama Y, Takase Y, Orikasa Y. Antibacteriological activities of arbekacin and vancomycin against strains of MRSA. Jpn J Antibiot 1994; 47: 647–54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thabaut A, Meyran M. Comparative bactericidal activi-ty of fourteen antibiotics against Staphylococcus aureus. Pathol Biol (Paris) 1989; 37: 321–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maple PA, Hamilton-Miller JM, Brumfitt W. Differing activities of quinolones against ciprofloxacin-susceptible and ciprofloxacin-resistant, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 345–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagast H, Dodion P, Klastersky J. Comparison of phar-macokinetics and bactericidal activity of teicoplanin and van-comycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 18: 513–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watanakunakom C. In-vitro selection of resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25: 69–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serazin V, Mougeot C, Libert IM. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and glycopeptides: in vitro selection of resistance. Path Biol 1994; 42: 323–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shlaes DM, Shlaes JH, Vincent S, et al. Teicoplanin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus expresses a novel membrane protein and increases expression of penicillin-binding protein 2 complex. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 2432–2437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaatz GW, Seo SM, Dorman NJ, Lerner SA. Emergence of teicoplanin resistance during therapy of Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. J Infect Dis 1990; 162: 103–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheel 0, Lyon DJ, Cheng AFB. In-vitro susceptibility of isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 1988-1993. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 243-251.
   Google Scholar
• Baiocchi P, Capone A, Vendetti M. Changes in suscep-tibilities to teicoplanin, vancomycin and other antibiotics among Staphylococcus aureus isolates in a tertiary-care univer-sity hospital. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1996; 7: 93–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shlaes DM, Shlaes JH. Teicoplanin selects for Staphylococcus aureus that is resistant to vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 20: 1071–1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reduced susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus to vancomycin-Japan, 1996. Morb Mort VC/kly Rep 1997; 46: 624–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hiramatsu K, Hanaki H, Ino T, Yabuta K, Oguri T, Tenover FC. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clini-cal strain with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 40: 135–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: Staphylococcus aureus with reduced susceptibility to van-comycin-United States. Morb Mort VC/kly Rep 1997; 46: 813–814.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Noble WC Virani Z Cree RG. Co-transfer of van-comycin and other resistance genes from Enterococcus faecalis NCTC 12201 to Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1992; 72: 195–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Daum RS, Gupta S, Sabbagh R, Milewski WM. Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates with decreased susceptibility to vancomycin and teicoplanin: isola-tion and purification of a constitutively produced protein associated with decreased susceptibility. J Infect Dis 1992; 166: 1066–1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieradzki K,Tomasz A. Inhibition of cell wall turnover and autolysis by vancomycin in a highly vancomycin-resistant mutant of Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol 1997; 179: 2557–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eloy C, Lagel R, Croix JC. Clinical failure of teicoplanin in a patient with nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus lower respiratory infection. Sem Hop Paris 1991; 67: 1427–1428.
   Google Scholar
• Goering RW, Fey PD, Goldstein FW. Usefulness of pulse-field gel electrophoresis in the epidemiological analysis of Staphylococcus aureus isolates with decreased susceptibility to teicoplanin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 14 (Supp11):3-5.
   Google Scholar
• Brunet F, Vedel G, Dreyfus F, et al. Failure of teicoplanin therapy in two neutropenic patients with staphy-lococcal septicemia who recovered after administration of vancomycin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990; 9: 145–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manquat G, Croize J, Stahl JP Meyran M, Hirtz P, Micoud M. Failure of teicoplanin treatment associated with an increase in MIC during therapy of Staphylococcus aureus septicaemia. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 29: 731–732.
   Google Scholar
• Cunney RJ, McNamara E, Al Ansari N, et al. Failure of teicoplanin therapy in Staphylococus aureus septicaemia. J Hosp Infect 1994; 28: 324–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainardi JL, Shlaes DM, Goering RV, Shlaes JH, Acar JF, Goldstein FW. Decreased teicoplanin susceptibility of methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 1995: 171:1646–1650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quincampoix JC, Carbonne A, Loyer D, et al. Follow-up of a nosocomial outbreak of methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with decreased susceptibility to teicoplanin. Abstract C-167. In Program and Abstracts of the 37th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Toronto, Canada. September 28, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eldere J, Hoefnagels-Schuermans A, Peetermans WE, Van Lierde S, Verwaest C. Nosocomial transmission of a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain with reduced teicoplanin susceptibility. Abstract J-122. In Program and Abstracts of the 37th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Toronto, Canada. September 28, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Rupp ME, Archer GL. Coagulase-negative staphylococ-ci: Pathogens associated with medical progress. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 19: 231–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kloos WE, Bannerman TL. Update on clinical signifi-cance of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin Microbiol Rev 1994; 7: 117–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer RC. Epidemiology of infection in ICUs. Intensive Care Med 1994;20 (Suppl 4):S2–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gaynes RP, Edwards JR, Jarvis WR, et al. Nosocomial infections among neonates in high-risk nurseries in the United States. Pediatrics 1996; 98: 357–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacharyya N, Kosloske AM,. Macarthur C. Nosocomial infection in pediatric surgical patients: a study of 608 infants and children. J Ped Surg 1993; 28: 338–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwalbe RS, Stapleton JT, Gilligan PH. Emergence of vancomycin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci. N Engl J Med 1987; 16: 927–931.
   Google Scholar
• Veach LA, Pfaller MA, Barrett M, Koontz FP, Wenzel RP. Vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus haemolyticus causing colonization and bloodstream infection. J Clin Microbiol 1990; 28: 2064–2068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanyal D, Johnson AP, George RC, Cookson BD, Williams AJ. Peritonitis due to vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (letter). Lancet 1990; 337: 54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitz FJ, Kitzrow M, Heinz HP. Antimicrobial sus-ceptibility and typing of coagulase negative staphylococci from different intensive care units. KIM Labor 1996; 42: 403–410.
   Google Scholar
• Cavallo JD, Talarmin A, Fabre R, et al. Susceptibility of nosocomial gram-positive cocci to teicoplanin and other antibiotics. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1995; 14: 923–924.
   Google Scholar
• Desroys Du Roure F, Herrmann JL, Lagrange PH, Bouvet A. Action of teicoplanin on coagulase negative staphy-lococci in hospital units of the hospital Hotel-Dieu in Paris. Pathol Biol 1993; 41: 302–6.
   Google Scholar
• Cercenado E, Garcia-Leoni ME, Bouza E. Emergence of teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 34: 1765–1768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tripodi MF, Attanasio V, Adinolfi LE. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance among clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 148–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwalbe RS, Ritz WJ, Verma PR, Barranco EA, Gilligan PH. Selection for vancomycin resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus haemolyticus. J Infect Dis 1990; 161: 45–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biavasco F, Giovanetti E, Montanan i MP, Lupidi R, Varaldo PE. Development of in-vitro resistance to glycopep-tide antibiotics: assessment in staphylococci of different species. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27: 71–79.
   Google Scholar
• Watanakunakom C. In-vitro induction of resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci to vancomycin and teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 22: 321–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goessens WHF, Den Hollender JG, Lemmens-Den toom N, Mouton JW, Verbrugh HA. Selection of glycopep-tide resistant coagulase negative staphylococci in an in-vitro pharmacokinetic model. Abstract C-163. In Program and Abstracts of the 37th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Toronto, Canada. September 28, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Krcmery V Jr, Trupl J, Drgona L, Lacka J, Kukuckova E, Oravcova E. Nosocomial bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis in four patients with can-cer, neutropenia, and previous treatment with vancomycin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1996; 15: 259–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomarat M, Espinouse D, Flandrois J-P. Coagulase-negative staphylococci emerging during teicoplanin therapy and problems in the determination of their sensitivity. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27: 475–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinouse D, Chomarat M. Evaluation of teicoplanin in neutropenic patients: advantages and limits. Path Biol 1990; 38: 552–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones RL. Coagulase-negative staphylococci emerging during teicoplanin therapy and the determination of their sen-sitivity. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 29: 725–726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomarat M, Espinouse D, Flandrois J-P. Reply: Coagulase-negative staphylococci emerging during teicoplanin therapy and the determination of their sensitivity. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 29: 726–727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones RN, Erwin ME, Anderson SC. Emerging multiply resistant enterocci among clinical isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 21: 95–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HIPAC). Morb Mort VC/kly Rep 1995; 44: 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Arthur M, Courvalin P. Genetics and mechanisms of glycopeptide resistance in enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1563–1571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon S, Swenson JM, Hill BC, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of common and unusual species of enterococci causing infections in the United States. J Clin Microbiol 1992; 30: 2373–2378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial enterococci resistant to vancomycin-United States, 1989-1993. Morb Mort VC/1dy Rep 1993; 42: 597-599.
   Google Scholar
• Livornese LL, Dias S, Samel C, et al. Hospital-acquired infection with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus fae-cium transmitted by electronic thermometers. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 112–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan AH, Gilligan PH, Facklam RR. Recovery of resistant enterococci during vancomycin prophylaxis. J Clin Microbiol 1988; 26: 1216–1218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karanfil LV, Murphy M, Josephson A, et al. A cluster of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992; 13: 195–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peetermans WE, Sebens FW, Guiot HFL. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis in a bone-marrow transplant recipient. Scand J Infect Dis 1991; 23: 105–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arduino RC, Murray BE. Vancomycin resistance in Gram-positive organisms. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1993; 6: 715–724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venditti M, Fimiani C, Baiocchi P, et al. Infections by ampicillin-resistant Enterococci: a case control study. J Chemother 1994; 6: 121–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zervos MF, Dembinski D, Mikesell T, Schaberg D. High-level resistance to gentamicin in Streptococcus faecalis: risk factors and evidence for exogenous acquisition of infec-tion. J Infect Dis 1986; 153: 1075–1083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraimow HS, Jungkind DL. Vancomycin-dependent enterococci: a clinical and laboratory assessment. Adv Exp Med Biol 1995; 390: 97–107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Green M, Shlaes JH, Barbadora K, Shlaes DM. Bacteremia due to vancomycin-dependent Enterococcus faeci-urn. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 20 (3): 712–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moellering RC, Gibbs M, Harding I. Successful treat-ment of vancomycin resistant enterococcal (VRE) infections with teicoplanin. Abstract 5309. In Abstracts of the 20th International Congress of Chemotherapy. Sydney, Australia, June 29, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Levine DP, Cushing RD, Jui J, Brown WJ. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in the Detroit Medical Center. Ann Intern Med 1982; 92: 330–338.
   Google Scholar
• Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resis-tant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Int Med 1991; 119: 674–680.
   Google Scholar
• Sorrell TC, Packham DR, Shanker S, Foldes M, Munro R. Vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97: 344–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers JP, Linnemann CC. Bacteremia due to methi-cillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 1982; 145: 532–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cafferkey MT, Hone R, Keane CT. Severe staphylo-coccal infections treated with vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 9: 69–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craven DE, Kollisch N, Hsieh C., Connolly MG, McCabe WR. Vancomycin treatment of bacteremia caused by oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Comparison with - lactam antibiotic treatment of bacteremia caused by oxacillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 1983; 147: 137–143.
   Google Scholar
• Coppens L, Hanson B, Klastersky J. Therapy of staphylococcal infections with cefamandole or vancomycin alone or with a combination of cefamandole and tobramycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 23: 36–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klastersky J, Coppens L, van der Auwera P, Meunier-Carpentier F. Vancomycin therapy of oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1983; 11: 361–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French GL, Cheng AFB, Ling ML, Mo P, Donnan S. Hong Kong strains of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus have similar virulence. J Hosp Infect 1990; 15: 117–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheftel TG, Mader JT, Pennick JJ, Cierny G. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis. Clin Orthoped Related Res 1985; 198: 231–239.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ish-Horowicz MR, McIntyre P, Nade S. Bone and joint infections caused by multiply resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1992; 11: 82–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz M, Quinn EL, Saravolatz LD. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole compared with vancomycin for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infection. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 390–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartstein AT, Mulligan ME, Morthland VH, Kwok RYY. Recurrent Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 1992; 30: 670–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers HF, Miller RT, Newman MD. Right-sided Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers: two-week combination therapy. Ann Intern Med 1988; 109 (8): 619–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson MA, Hicks RA. Vancomycin failure in staphy-lococcal endocarditis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1987; 6 (8): 750–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantu TG, Yamanaka-Yuen NA, Lietman PS. Serum vancomycin concentrations: Reappraisal of their clinical value. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18: 533–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moellering Jr RC. Editorial: Monitoring serum van-comycin levels: climbing the mountain because it is there? Clin Infect Dis 1994: 18:544–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards DJ, Pancorbo S. Routine monitoring of serum vancomycin concentrations: waiting for proof of its value. Clin Pharmacol 1987; 6: 652–654.
   Google Scholar
• Rodvold KA, Zofuka H, Rotschafer JC. Routine moni-toring of serum vancomycin concentrations: can waiting be justified? Clin Pharacol 1987; 6: 655–658.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman CD, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH. Vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring: Is it necessary? Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27: 594–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaad UB, McCracken Jr GH, Nelson JD. Clinical pharmacology and efficacy of vancomycin in pediatric patients. J Pediatr 1980; 96: 119–26.
   Google Scholar
• Louria DB, Kaminski T, Buchman J. Vancomycin in severe staphylococcal infections. Arch Intern Med 1961; 107: 225–240.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Venditti M, Baiocchi P, Santini C, et al. Potential of clindamycin in addition to vancomycin for the treatment of oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus septicemia persisting under vancomycin therapy. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1995; 5: 123–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman BH, Vannier AM. Necessity of a loading dose when using vancomycin in critically ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 29: 460–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duff SB, Begg EJ. Vancomycin toxicity. What is the evidence for dose dependency. Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev 1994; 13: 103–114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Conil JM, Favarel H, Laguerre J, et al. Continuous administration of vancomycin in patients with severe burns. Presse Med 1994; 23: 1554–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barois A, Estoumet B, Moranne JB, et al. Ventricular staphylococcal infections. Treatment with vancomycin by continuous venous infusion. Presse Med 1986; 15 (36): 1805–8.
   Google Scholar
• Longuet P, Vallee E, Michel M, et al. Vancomycin in meningitis caused by penicillin G resistant Streptococcus pneu-moniae. Presse Med 1993; 22: 1818–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wysocki M, Thomas F, Wolff MA, et al. Comparison of continuous with discontinuous intravenous infusion of van-comycin in severe MRSA infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 352–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouffet E, Fuhrmann C, Frappaz D, et al. Once daily antibiotic regimen in paediatric oncology. Arch Dis Child 1994; 70: 484–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert C, Meisenberg B, Vredenburgh J, et al. Sequential prophylactic oral and empiric once-daily parenter-al antibiotics for neutropenia and fever after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow support. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 1005–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruciani M, Concia E, DiPerri G, et al. Teicoplanin in the treatment of gram-positive bacteremia and endocarditis. Curr Ther Res 1992; 51: 704–714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson APR, Griineberg RN, Neu H. A critical review of the dosage of teicoplanin in Europe and the USA. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1994;4 (Suppl 1):S1–530.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stille W, Sietzen W, Dieterich H-A, Fell JJ. Clinical efficacy and safety of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21 (suppl A):69-79.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert DN, Wood CA, Kimbrough RC, and The Infectious Disease Consortium of Oregon. Failure of treat-ment with teicoplanin at 6 milligrams/kilogram/day in patients with Staphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 79–87.
   Google Scholar
• Calain P, Krause K-H, Vaudaux P, et al. Early termi-nation of a prospective, randomized trial comparing teicoplanin and fludoxacillin for treating severe staphylococ-cal infections. J Infect Dis 1987; 155: 187–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galanakis N, Giamarellou H, Vlachogiannis N, Dendrinos C, Daikos GK. Poor efficacy of teicoplanin in treatment of deep-seated staphylococcal infection. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1988; 7: 130–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glupczinski Y, Lagast H, Van der Auwera et al. Clinical evaluation of teicoplanin for therapy of severe infec-tions caused by gram positive bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29: 52–57.
   Google Scholar
• Lang E, Foldes M, Marghescu S. Teicoplanin in der Behandlung von Haut- und Weichteilinfektionen: Ergebnisse einer Multicenter-Studie. Fortschritte der antimikrobiellen und antineoplastischen. Chemotherapy 1992; 11: 625–633.
   Google Scholar
• Fortun J, Perez-Molina JA, Anon MT, Martinez-Beltran J, Loza E, Guerrero A. Right-sided endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus in drug abusers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 525–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg RN. Treatment of bone, joint, and vascular-access-associated Gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 2392–2397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rybak MJ, Cappelletty DM, Kang SL, Levine DP, Levison ME. Pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluation of teicoplanin (T) versus vancomycin (V) in the treatment of Gram-positive bacteremia (B) and endocarditis (E). Abstract A36. In Program and Abstracts of the 36th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, New Orleans, Louisiana. September 16, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Marone P, Concia E, Andreoni M, Suter F, Cruciani M. Treatment of bone and soft tissue infections with teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25: 435–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graninger W, Wenisch C, Wiesinger E, Menschik M, Karimi J, Presterl E. Experience with outpatient intravenous teicoplanin therapy for chronic osteomyelitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 14: 643–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberg WG. Safety and efficacy of teicoplanin for bone and joint infections: results of a community-based trial. Southern Med J 1993; 86: 891–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmit JL. Efficacy of teicoplanin for enterococcal infections. 63 cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: 302–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martino P, Venditti M, Micozzi A, et al. Teicoplanin in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 1329–1334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leport C, Perronne C, Massip P, et al. Evaluation of teicoplanin for treatment of endocarditis caused by gram-pos-itive cocci in 20 patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33 (6): 871–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyatt JM, McKinnon PS, Zimmer GS, Schentag JJ. Clinical pharmacokinetic concepts. The importance of phar-macokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to out-come. Focus on antibacterial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 28: 143–160.
   Google Scholar
• Cremieux AC, Carbon C. Pharmacokinetic and phar-macodynamic requirements for antibiotic therapy of experi-mental endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2069–2074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson APR, Gruneberg RN, Neu HC. Dosage recom-mendations for teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32: 792–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner S. Perspectives on teicoplanin: discussion. Scand J Infect Dis 1991; 22 (Suppl.):61-67.
   Google Scholar
• Rybak MJ, Lerner SA, Levine DP, et al. Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in intravenous drug abusers being treated for bacterial endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 696–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremieux AC, Maziere B, Vallois JM, et al. Evaluation of antibiotic diffusion into cardiac vegetations by quantitative autoradiography. J Infect Dis 1989; 159: 938–944.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin SC. Sample size for therapeutic equivalence based on confidence interval. Drug Information J 1995; 29: 45–50.
   Google Scholar
• Makuch A, Simon R. Sample size requirements for evaluating a conservative therapy. Cancer Treat Rep 1978; 7: 1037–1040.
   Google Scholar
• Marchant CD, Carlin SA, Johnson CE, Shurin PA. Measuring the comparative efficacy of antibacterial agents for acute otitis media: The “Pollyanna phenomenon.” J Pediatr 1992; 120: 72–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood MJ. Review: The comparative efficacy and safe-ty of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 209–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Smith GD, Song F, Sheldon TA. Review: Making sense of meta-analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety 1992; 2: 65–72.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TG. Special Article: Meta-analyses of of random-ized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 450–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobo J, Fortun J. The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38: 1113–1114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow AW, Jewesson PJ, Kureishi A, Phillips GL. Teicoplanin versus vancomycin in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. Eur J Haematol 1993; 51: suppl. 54: 18-24.
   Google Scholar
• Rolston KVI, Nguyen H, Amos G, et al. A randomized double-blind trial of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of Gram-positive bacteremia in patients with can-cer. J Infect Dis 1994; 169: 350–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedstrom SA, Nordic Teicoplanin Study Group. Teicoplanin vs vancomycin in severe gram-positive infection: a multicentre Scandinavian trial. Abstract 760. In: Abstracts of the Seventh European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Vienna Austria, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Schlech WF, and the Teicoplanin Study Group of North America. A randomized, blinded, comparative study of teicoplanin vs vancomycin in the treatment of vascular-access associated bacteremia caused by Gram-positive bacteria. In Programs and Abstracts of the 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Anaheim, California, 1992. October 11, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Van Laethem Y, Hermans P, De Wit S, Goosens H, Clumeck N. Teicoplanin compared with vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: prelimi-nary results. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21 (Suppl. A):81-87.
   Google Scholar
• Liu C-Y, Lee W-S, Fung C-F, et al. Comparative study of teicoplanin versus vancomycin for the treatment of methi-cillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 12: 80–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charbonneau P, Harding I, Garraud JJ, et al. Teicoplanin: a safe and easily administered alternative to van-comycin for Gram-positive infections in intensive care patients. Eur J Intensive Care 1994;20(Suppl 4):S35–42.
   Google Scholar
• Hung C-C, Chang S-C, Chen Y-C, Hsieh W-C. A ran-domized trial of teicoplanin versus vancomycin for the treat-ment of serious gram-positive infections. J Infect Dis Soc ROC 1995; 6: 97–103.
   Google Scholar
• Neville LO, Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT, Harding I. Teicoplanin vs. vancomycin for the treatment of serious infections: a randomised trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1995; 5: 187–193.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Auwera P, Aoun M, Meunier F. Randomized study of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections in immunocompromised hosts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35;451–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfand MS, Simmons BP, Threlkeld MG, et al. Randomized double-blind study of teicoplanin and van-comycin in gram-positive bacteremia (GPB) and endocarditis (GPE). Clin Res 1991; 39: 809A.
   Google Scholar
• Menichetti F, Martino P, Bucaneve G, et al. Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2041–2046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figuera A, Tomas JF, Hernandez ML, et al. Imipenem combined with teicoplanin or vanocmycin in the initial empir-ic therapy of fevbrile neutropenia. Analysis of the primary response and of an overall sequential strategy in 126 episodes. Rev Chin Esp 1966; 196: 512–522.
   Google Scholar
• Cony-Makhoul P, Brossard G, Marit G, et al. A prospective study comparing vanocmycin and teicoplanin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients. Br J Haematol. 1990;76(Suppl 2):35–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith SR, Cheesbrough J, Spearing R, Davies JM. Randomized prospective study comparing vanocmycin with teicoplanin in the treatment of infections associated with Hickman catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 1193–1197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kureishi A, Jewesson PJ, Rubinger M, et al. Double blind comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving concomitant tobramycin and piperacillin-effect on cyclosporin A-associated nephrotoxici-ty. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2246–2252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Wali W, Baillod RA, Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT. Teicoplanin in the treatment of peritonitis in patients receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a com-parative trial against vancomycin. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1992; 1: S1–S6.
   Google Scholar
• AI Wali W, Baillod RA, Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT. Intraperitoneal teicoplanin in CAPD peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 1990; 10 (1): 107–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schinella D, de Bas H, Franceschin A. Intraperitoneal teicoplanin in CAPD peritonitis. Perit Dial Int 1989; 8: 145.
   Google Scholar
• Meunier F, van der Auwera P, Aoun M, Piccart M, Sculier JP. Therapy of infections related to intraperitoneal catheters in patients with ovarian cancer. Scand J Infect Dis 1990; 72 (Suppl):26-8.
   Google Scholar
• Williams AH. Comparative safety of teicoplanin and other gram-positive agents. In Gruneberg, RN, ed., Teicoplanin: Further European Experience. London: Royal Society of Medicine. 1990: 75-79.
   Google Scholar
• Terol MJ, Sierra J, Gatell JM, Rozman C. Thrombocytopenia due to use of teicoplanin. Chin Infect Dis 1993; 17: 927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pachon J, Prados D, Palomino J, et al. Efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in infections caused by methicillin-resis-tant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 198–200.
   Google Scholar
• Walker RW, Heaton A. Thrombocytopenia due to vancomycin. Lancet 1985; 1: 932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zenon GJ, Cadle RM, Hamill RJ. Vancomycin-induced thrombocytopenia. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151: 995–996.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chow AW, Azar RM. Glycopeptides and nephrotoxic-ity. Intensive Care Med 1994; 20 (Suppl):523-529.
   Google Scholar
• Appel GB, Neu HC. The nephrotoxicity of antimicro-bial agents (second of three parts). N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 722–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waisbren BA, Kleinerman L, Skemp J, Bratcher G. Comparative clinical effectiveness and toxicity of vanocmycin, ristocetin, and kanamycin. Arch Int Med 1960; 106: 179–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rybak MJ., Albrecht LM, Boike SC, Chandresekar PH. Nephrotoxicity of vancomycin, alone and with an amino-glycoside. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25: 679–687.
   Google Scholar
• Mellor JA, Kingdom J, Cafferkey M, Keane CT. Vancomycin toxicity: a prospective study. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15: 773–780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eng RHK., Wynn L, Smith SM, Tecson-Tumang F. Effect of intravenous vancomycin on renal function. Chemotherapy 1989; 35: 320–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs NJ, Neihart RE, Dolezal JM, Hodges GR. Mild nephrotoxicity associated with vancomycin use. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 1777–1781.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cimino MA, Rotstein C, Slaughter RL, Emrich U. Relationship of serum antibiotic concentrations to nephrotox-icity in cancer patients receiving concurrent aminoglycoside and vancomycin therapy. Am J Med 1987; 83: 1091–1097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farber BF, Moellering RC. Retrospective study of the toxicity of preparations of vancomycin from 1974-1981. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother 1983; 23: 138–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davey PG, Williams AH. A review of the safety profile of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 (Suppl B) 69-73.
   Google Scholar
• Sahai J, Healy DP, Shelton MJ, Miller JS, Ruberg SJ, Polk R. Comparison of vancomycin- and teicoplanin-induced histamine release and “red man syndrome”. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 765–769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubettier S, Boibieux A, Lagable M, et al. Red man syndrome with teicoplanin. Rev Infect Dis 1991; 13: 770.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grek V, Andrien F, Collignon J, Fillet G. Allergic cross-reaction of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 28: 476–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy JH, Kettlekamp N, Goertz P, Hermens J, Hirshman CA. Histamine release by vancomycin: a mecha-nism for hypotension in man. Anesthesiology 1987; 67: 122–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polk RE, Healy DP, Schwartz LB, Rock DT, Garson ML, Roller K. Vancomycin and the red-man syndrome: phar-macodynamics of histamine release. J Infect Dis 1988; 157: 502–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healy DP, Sahai JV, Fuller SH, Polk RE. Vancomycin-induced histamine release and “red man syndrome": compari-son of 1- and 2-hour infusions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34 (4): 550–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahai J, Healy DP, Garris R, Berry A, Polk RE. Influence of antihistamine pretreatment on vancomycin-induced red-man syndrome. J Infect Dis 1989; 160 (5): 867–881.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace MR, Mascola JR, Oldfield EC. Red man syn-drome: incidence, etiology and prophylaxis. J Infect Dis 1991; 164: 1180–1185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlemmer B, Falkman H, Boudadja A, Jacob L, Le Gall JR. Teicoplanin for patients allergic to vancomycin. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1127–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood G, Whitby M. Teicoplanin in patients who are allergic to vancomycin (letter). Med J Australia 1989; 150: 668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith SR, Cheesbrough JS, Makris M, Davies J.M. Teicoplanin administration in patients experiencing reactions to vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 23: 810–812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElrath JJ, Goldberg D, Neu HC. Allergic cross-reactivity of teicoplanin and vancomycin (letter). Lancet 1986; 1: 47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis EW, Gibson CB, Heilman CJ, et al. Teicoplanin administration in patients with vancomycin hypersensitivity. Abstract 1672. In Programs and Abstracts of the 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Anaheim California. October 11, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Del Favero A, Patoia L, Rosina R. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of teicoplanin in healthy volunteers after sin-gle increasing doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2551–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charbonneau P, Harding I, Garaud JJ, et al. Teicoplanin: A well-tolerated and easily administered alterna-tive to vancomycin for Gram-positive infections in intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 1994; 20 (Suppl):535-542.
   Google Scholar
• De Lalla F, Nicolin R, Rinaldi E, et al. Prospective study of oral teicoplanin versus oral vancomycin for therapy of pseudomembranous colitis and Clostridium diflicile-associ-ated diarrhea. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2192–2196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenisch C, Parschalk B, Hassenhundl M, Hirschl AM, Graninger W. Comparison of vancomycin, teicoplanin, metronidazole, and fusidic acid for the treatment of Clostridium diffici/e-associated diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 22: 813–818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Periti P, Donati L. Survival and therapy of burn patients at the threshold of the twenty-first century: a review. J Chemother 1995; 7 (6): 475–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donati L, Periti P. Antibiotic treatment of burned patients: an Italian multicentre study. Intensive Care Med 1994; 20:S30–S34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Periti P, Donati L. Ruolo attuale della vancomicina nella chemioterapia antimicrobica delle gravi ustioni. Farm Ter 1995; XII (suppl 2): 5-36.
   Google Scholar
• Boucher BA, Kuhl DA; Hickerson WL. Pharmacokinetics of systemically administered antibiotics in patients with thermal injury. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 14: 458–463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steer JA, Papini RPG, Wilson APR et al. Pharmacokinetics of a single dose of teicoplanin in burn patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 545–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrelts JC, Peterie JD: Altered vancomycin dose vs. serum concentration relationship in burn patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1988; 44: 9–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rybak MJ, Albrecht LM, Berman JR, Warbasse LH, Svensson CK. Vancomycin pharmacokinetics in burn patients and intravenous drug abusers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34 (5): 792–795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson APR, Gruneberg RN, Neu H. Dosage recom-mendations for teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32: 792–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young EJ. Prevention of infection in prosthetic joints. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1990; 3: 666–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Periti P, Mini E, Mosconi G. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery: the role of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother, in press, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Kresken, Hafner. Chemother J 1996; 5: 225-230.
   Google Scholar
• Cormican, Jones. Drugs 1996; 51, suppl 1: 6-12.
   Google Scholar
• Hiramatsu et al. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997, in press.
   Google Scholar