Zeckel ML. A closer look at vancomycin, teicoplanin and antimicrobial resistance

References

• NCCLS. Performance standards for antimicrobial suscep-tibility testing. NCCLS Document M100-S3. Third Informational Supplement, December 1991, 11. Villanova: NCCLS: No. 17, Table 2.
   Google Scholar
• Baiocchi P, Capone A, Vendetti M. Changes in suscepti-bilities to teicoplanin, vancomycin and other antibiotics among Staphylococcus aureus isolates in a tertiary care university hospital. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1996; 7: 93–6.
   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: 1646–50.
   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: 103–8.
   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: 901–3.
   Google Scholar
• Tripodi MF, Attanasio V, Adinolfi LE. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance among clinical isolates of methicillin-resis-tant staphylococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 148–52.
   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: 361–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz M, Quinn EL, Saravolatz LD. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole compared with vancomycin for the treat-ment of Staphylococcus aureus infection. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 390–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campoli-Richards D, Brogden RN, Faulds D. Teicoplanin, a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1990; 40: 449–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis P, Garaud JJ, Parenti F. A multicentre open clini-cal trial of teicoplanin in infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21: (Suppl. A): 61-7.
   Google Scholar
• Lang E, Schafer V, Schaaf B, Dennhardt R. Comparison of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin in Gram-pos-itive infections: a multicentre study. Scand J Infect Dis 1990; 72 (Suppl.): 54-60.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson APR, Grtineberg 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-S30.
   Google Scholar
• Stille W, Sietzen W, Dieterich HA, Fell JJ. Clinical effi-cacy and safety of teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21 (Suppl. A) 69-79.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert DN, Wood CA, Kimbrough RC, The Infectious Disease Consortium of Oregon. Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 milligrams/kilogram/day in patients with Staphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 79–87.
   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
• 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
• Greenberg RN. Treatment of bone, joint and vascular-access-associated Gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 2392–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeFrock JL, Ristuccia AM, Ristuccia PA et al. Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections. Eur J Surg 1992; S567: 9-13.
   Google Scholar
• Rybak MJ, Capelletty DM, Kang SL, Levine DP, Levison ME. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of teicoplanin ver-sus vancomycin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacteremia and endocarditis. Program and Abstracts of the 36th Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996, Abstr. A36.
   Google Scholar
• Schmit JL. Efficacy of teicoplanin for enterococcal infec-tions: 63 cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: 302–6.
   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: 1329–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leport C, Perronne C, Massip P et al. Evaluation of teicoplanin for treatment of endocarditis caused by Gram-posi-tive cocci in 20 patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 871–6.
   Google Scholar
• Dykhuizen RS, Harvey G, Stephenson N, Nathwani D, Gould I. Protein binding and serum bactericidal activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1842–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremieux AC, Saleh-Mghir A, Vallois JM et al. Influence of the pre-treatment duration of infections on the efficacies of various antibiotic regimens in experimental strep-tococcal endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32: 843–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sma11 PM, Chambers HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1227-31.
   Google Scholar
• Menichetti F, Martino P, Bucaneve G et al and GIMEMA Infection Program. Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile, neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2041–6.
   Google Scholar
• Gelfand MS, Simmons BP, Threlkeld MG et al. Randomized double-blind study of teicoplanin and vancomycin in Gram positive bacteremia and endocarditis. Clin Res 1991; 39: 809A.
   Google Scholar
• Figuera AA, Tomas JF, Hernandez L et al. Imipenem combinado con teicoplanin o vancomicina en el tratmiento empirico inicial de la neutropenia febril. Analisis de la respues-ta primaria y de una estrategia secuencial global en 126 episo-dios. Revista Clinica Espanola 1996; 196: 512–22.
   Google Scholar
• Cony-Makhoul P, Brossard G, Marit G, Pellegrin JL, Texier-Maugein J, Reiffers J. A prospective study comparing vancomycin and teicoplanin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients. Br J Haematol 1990; 76 (Suppl. 2): 35-40.
   Google Scholar
• A1-Wali W, Baillod RA, Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT. Teicoplanin in the treatment of peritonitis in patients receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a compar-ative trial against vancomycin. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1992; l (Suppl. 1): 1-6.
   Google Scholar
• Klaus G, Schaefer F, Muller-Wiefel D, Mehls O. Treatment of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis with con-tinuous versus intermittent vancomycin/teicoplanin and cef-tazidime in children: preliminary results of a prospective ran-domized trial. Adv Pent Dialysis 1995; 11: 296–300.
   Google Scholar
• Goetz MB, Sayers J. Nephrotoxicity of vancomycin and aminoglycoside therapy separately and in combination. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32: 325–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rybak MJ, Albrecht LM, Boike SC, Chandrasekar PH. Nephrotoxicity of vancomycin, alone and with an aminoglyco-side. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25: 679–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MiHer R, Tausk HC. Anaphylactoid reaction to van-comycin during anesthesia: a case report. Anesth Analg 1977; 56: 870–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southorn PA, Plevak DJ, Wright AJ, Wilson WR. Adverse effects of vancomycin administered in the periopera-tive period. Mayo Clin Proc 1986; 61: 721–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar