Teicoplanin vs. vancomycin for the treatment of serious infections: a randomised trial.
A prospective, randomised study of 56 patients comparing teicoplanin with vancomycin for suspected or proven severe Grampositive infection was conducted. The majority of infections were soft tissue infections (8 teicoplanin; 16 vancomycin) and by chance a significantly higher number of Hickman catheter-related infections occurred in the vancomycin arm (4 vs. 14, P < 0.01). Teicoplanin was administered as a single daily dose of 400 mg iv or im; 5 patients received 200 mg following the initial dose of 400 mg. Vancomycin was given 1 g every 12 h. Fifty-four patients were evaluable for efficacy (26 teicoplanin, 28 vancomycin). Of these, 18 episodes in 17 patients (teicoplanin) and 19 episodes in 18 patients (vancomycin) gave an evaluable clinical response, the success rates being similar (76% teicoplanin; 68% vancomycin). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen isolated; all pathogens were susceptible to both glycopeptides with MICs < 4 mg/l. Bacteriological elimination rates were similar in both groups (71% teicoplanin; 78% vancomycin). Significantly more patients given vancomycin experienced adverse events (7 teicoplanin; 16 vancomycin; P = 0.03). This caused treatment to be discontinued in 4 cases, compared with only one receiving teicoplanin. The most common vancomycin-related events were histamine-associated reactions (15 patients), including 2 cases of Red Man Syndrome, and nephrotoxicity (5 patients). There were no histamine-mediated events and only one case of nephrotoxicity with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin and vancomycin show similar clinical and bacteriological efficacy and teicoplanin is significantly less toxic and easier to use in patients with severe infection.
Neville
L O
LO
Department of Medical Microbiology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Pond Street, London NW3 2QG, UK.
Brumfitt
W
W
Hamilton-Miller
J M
JM
Harding
I
I