| Abstrakt: |
The worldwide increase in the incidence of resistant Gram-positive infections has renewed interest in the glycopeptide class of antimicrobial agents. Two glycopeptides are available in many parts of the world--vancomycin and teicoplanin. These two agents appear to differ in several respects, including: potential for selecting microbial resistance, dosing convenience, safety, and efficacy in severe infection. Teicoplanin appears to have lower toxicity and greater convenience; however, its widespread acceptance has been plagued by concerns over antimicrobial resistance, efficacy, and appropriate dosing. A review of available studies suggests that teicoplanin, when dosed at 6 mg/kg/day, is better tolerated than vancomycin 15 mg/kg/q12h; however, at these doses, it appears to be somewhat less effective than vancomycin in serious Staphylococcus aureus infection, such as endocarditis. Although higher doses of teicoplanin, 12 mg/kg/day to 30 mg/kg/day, have been associated with efficacy comparable to that of vancomycin in serious S. aureus infections, such doses may eliminate some of the safety advantages conferred by lower teicoplanin doses. Teicoplanin has been associated with resistance among coagulase-negative staphylococci and the selection of resistance in S. aureus. There is some evidence that widespread use of teicoplanin might accelerate the development of S. aureus resistance to both teicoplanin and vancomycin. The selection of an appropriate glycopeptide in an individual patient should be based not only on convenience, but also on a determination of optimal efficacy, safety at an efficacious dose, and the potential for resistance. |
