Abstract
Objective
To define the optimal dosage regimen of teicoplanin that ensures early therapeutically relevant trough concentrations (Cmin) [>10 mg/L at 24 hours and possibly close to 20 mg/L at 48 hours] in patients with acute leukaemia who develop febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy.
Design
Prospective observational pharmacokinetic study.
Participants
Adult patients (n = 33) with normal renal function previously treated with antineoplastic chemotherapy because of acute lymphocytic or acute nonlymphocytic leukaemia, and subsequently developing febrile neutropenia treated with empirical antimicrobial therapy.
Design
First, the standard dosage group (n= 11) was administered standard loading and maintenance doses of teicoplanin (400mg every 12 hours for three doses followed by 400mg once daily). Blood samples were collected at defined times as part of routine monitoring and assessed for teicoplanin plasma concentration by fluorescence polarisation immunoassay. Secondly, the high dosage group (n = 22) received a high loading regimen (800 + 400mg 12 hours apart on day 1, 600 + 400mg 12 hours apart on day 2) followed by a high maintenance regimen (400mg every 12 hours) from day 3 on.
Results
In the standard dosage group, no patient had the recommended teicoplanin Cmin of ≥10 mg/L within the first 72 hours, and only five of the 11 patients (45%) had a Cmin of ≥10 mg/L after 120 hours. No patient had a Cmin of ≥20 mg/L. In the high dosage group, teicoplanin Cmin averaged ≥10 mg/L within 24 hours, and this value was achieved within 48 hours in all but one patient. Of note, Cmin at 72 hours exceeded 20 mg/L in ten of the 22 patients (45%). No patient experienced significant impairment of renal function.
Conclusions
In this patient group, therapeutically relevant Cmin may be achieved very early in the treatment period with loading doses of 12 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg 12 hours apart on day 1, and 9 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg 12 hours apart on day 2, regardless of renal function. Subsequently, in patients with normal renal function a maintenance dosage of 6 mg/kg every 12 hours may be helpful in ensuring Cmin close to 20 mg/L. Assessment of Cmin after 48–72 hours may be useful to individualise teicoplanin therapy. Factors increasing volume of distribution and/or renal clearance of teicoplanin (fluid load, hypoalbuminaemia, leukaemic status) may explain the need for higher dosages.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Viscoli C, Castagnola E. Treatment of febrile neutropenia: what is new?. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2002; 15(4): 377–82
Horvathova Z, Spanik S, Sufliarsky J, et al. Bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant staphylococci occurs more frequently in neutropenic patients who received antimicrobial prophylaxis and is associated with higher mortality in comparison to methicillin-sensitive bacteriemia. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1998; 10(1): 55–8
Pagano L, Tacconelli E, Tumbarello M, et al. Bacteremia in patients with hematological malignancies: analysis of risk factors, etiological agents and prognostic indicators. Haematologica 1997; 82(4): 415–9
Davies JM. A review of the use of teicoplanin in haematological malignancy. Eur J Haematol Suppl 1998; 62: 2–5
Egerer G, Goldschmidt H, Streich N, et al. 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. Support Care Cancer 1999; 7(5): 336–42
Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP, et al. 2002 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34(6): 730–51
Gonzalez-Barca E, Carratala J, Mykietiuk A, et al. Predisposing factors and outcome of staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in neutropenic patients with cancer. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2001; 20(2): 117–9
Kaojarern S, Maoleekoonpairoj S, Atichartakarn V. Pharmacokinetics of amikacin in hematologic malignancies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33(8): 1406–8
Tod M, Lortholary O, Seytre D, et al. Population pharmacokinetic study of amikacin administered once or twice daily to febrile, severely neutropenic adults. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42(4): 849–56
Romano S, Fernandez de Gatta MM, Calvo MV, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of amikacin in patients with haematological malignancies. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44(2): 235–42
Zeitany RG, el Saghir NS, Santhosh-Kumar CR, et al. Increased aminoglycoside dosage requirements in hematologic malignancy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34(5): 702–8
Nyhlen A, Ljungberg B, Nilsson-Ehle I. Pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime in febrile neutropenic patients. Scand J Infect Dis 2001; 33(3): 222–6
Fernandez de Gatta MM, Fruns I, Hernandez JM, et al. Vancomycin pharmacokinetics and dosage requirements in hematologic malignancies. Clin Pharm 1993; 12(7): 515–20
Lortholary O, Tod M, Rizzo N, et al. Population pharmacokinetic study of teicoplanin in severely neutropenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996; 40(5): 1242–7
Pea F, Brollo L, Viale P, et al. Teicoplanin therapeutic drug monitoring in the critically ill patients: a retrospective study emphasizing the importance of a loading-dose. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51(4): 971–5
Wilson APR, Gruneberg 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
Begg EJ, Barclay ML, Kirkpatrick CM. The therapeutic monitoring of antimicrobial agents. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52 Suppl. 1: 35S–43S
Schaison G, Graninger W, Bouza E. Teicoplanin in the treatment of serious infection. J Chemother 2000; 12 Suppl. 5: 26–33
Wilson AP. Clinical pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000; 39(3): 167–83
Wilson AP, Gruneberg RN, Neu H. Dosage recommendations for teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32(6): 792–6
MacGowan AP, White LO, Reeves DS, et al. A retrospective review of serum teicoplanin concentrations in clinical trials and their relationship to clinical outcome. J Infect Chemother 1998; 2: 197–208
MacGowan AP, Bowker KE. Pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial agents and rationale for their dosing. J Chemother 1997; 9 Suppl. 1: 64–73
Weinbren M, Struthers K. Emergence of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with reduced susceptibility to teicoplanin during therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50(2): 306–7
Cercenado E, Garcia-Leoni ME, Diaz MD, et al. Emergence of teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 34(7): 1765–8
Cunningham R, Gurnell M, Bayston R, et al. Teicoplanin resistance in Staphylococcus haemolyticus, developing during treatment. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39(3): 438–9
Pagano L, Tacconelli E, Tumbarello M, et al. Teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteraemia in patients with haematological malignancies: a problem of increasing importance. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 40(5): 738–40
Sloos JH, Dijkshoorn L, van Boven CP. Septicaemias caused by a strain of staphylococcus haemolyticus exhibiting intermediate susceptibility to teicoplanin in multiple intensive care unit patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 45(3): 410–1
Torney HL, Balistreri FJ, Kenny MT, et al. Comparative therapeutic efficacy of teicoplanin and vancomycin in normal and in neutropenic mice infected with staphylococcus haemolyticus. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 28(2): 261–9
Gimenez F, Leblond V, Nguyen J, et al. Variations of teicoplanin concentrations in neutropenic patients. J Clin Pharm Ther 1997; 22(3): 187–90
Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 1976; 16(1): 31–41
Yamaoka K, Nakagawa T, Uno T. Application of Akaike’s information criterion ( AIC) in the evaluation of linear pharmacokinetic equations. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1978; 6(2): 165–75
Dykhuizen RS, Harvey G, Stephenson N, et al. Protein binding and serum bactericidal activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39(8): 1842–7
Eriksson KM, Cederholm T, Palmblad JE. Nutrition and acute leukemia in adults: relation between nutritional status and infectious complications during remission induction. Cancer 1998; 82(6): 1071–7
MacGowan AP. Pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and therapeutic drug monitoring of glycopeptides. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20(5): 473–7
Awni WM, St Peter WL, Guay DR, et al. Teicoplanin measurement in patients with renal failure: comparison of fluorescence polarization immunoassay, microbiological assay, and high-performance liquid chromatographic assay. Ther Drug Monit 1991; 13(6): 511–7
Cox H, Whitby M, Nimmo G, et al. Evaluation of a novel fluorescence polarization immunoassay for teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37(9): 1924–6
Outman WR, Nightingale CH, Sweeney KR, et al. Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers after administration of intravenous loading and maintenance doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34(11): 2114–7
Pea F, Furlanut M, Poz D, et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of two different administration schemes of teicoplanin: single 400mg intravenous dose vs double-refracted 200mg intramuscular doses in healthy volunteers. Clin Drug Invest 1999; 18: 47–55
Collin BA, Leather HL, Wingard JR, et al. Evolution, incidence, and susceptibility of bacterial bloodstream isolates from 519 bone marrow transplant patients. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33(7): 947–53
Sparrelid E, Hagglund H, Remberger M, et al. Bacteraemia during the aplastic phase after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation is associated with early death from invasive fungal infection. Bone Marrow Transplant 1998; 22(8): 795–800
Tunkel AR, Sepkowitz KA. Infections caused by viridans streptococci in patients with neutropenia. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34(11): 1524–9
Schentag JJ. Antimicrobial management strategies for Grampositive bacterial resistance in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2001; 29 (4 Suppl.): N100–7
Elsaghier AA, Aucken HM, Hamilton-Miller JM, et al. Resistance to teicoplanin developing during treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 49(2): 423–4
Hassan IA, Chadwick PR, Johnson AP. Clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with reduced susceptibility to teicoplanin in Northwest England. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48(3): 454–5
Fridkin SK. Vancomycin-intermediate and -resistant staphylococcus aureus: what the infectious disease specialist needs to know. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32(1): 108–15
Spanik S, Trupl J, Studena M, et al. Breakthrough nosocomial bacteraemia due to teicoplanin-resistant staphylococcus haemolyticus in five patients with acute leukaemia. J Hosp Infect 1997; 35(2): 155–9
Ronchera-Oms CL, Tormo C, Ordovas JP, et al. Expanded gentamicin volume of distribution in critically ill adult patients receiving total parenteral nutrition. J Clin Pharm Ther 1995; 20(5): 253–8
Nyhlen A, Ljungberg B, Nilsson-Ehle I. Pharmacokinetics of meropenem in febrile neutropenic patients: Swedish Study Group. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1997; 16(11): 797–802
Rowland M. Clinical pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Clin Pharmacokinet 1990; 18(3): 184–209
Pea F, Furlanut M. Pharmacokinetic aspects of treating infections in the intensive care unit: focus on drug interactions. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40(11): 833–68
Pea F, Brollo L, Lugano M, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoringguided high teicoplanin dosage regimen required to treat a hypoalbuminemic renal transplant patient undergoing continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23(5): 587–8
Le Normand Y, Milpied N, Kergueris MF, et al. Pharmacokinetic parameters of vancomycin for therapeutic regimens in neutropenic adult patients. Int J Biomed Comput 1994; 36 (1–2): 121–5
Chang D. Influence of malignancy on the pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in infants and children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995; 14(8): 667–73
Cirillo M, Anastasio P, Spitali L, et al. Effects of a meat meal on renal sodium handling and sodium balance. Miner Electrolyte Metab 1998; 24(4): 279–84
Charbonneau P, Harding I, Garaud JJ, et al. Teicoplanin: a well-tolerated and easily administered alternative to vancomycin for gram-positive infections in intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 1994; 20 Suppl. 4: S35–42
Wood MJ. Comparative safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Chemother 2000; 12 Suppl. 5: 21–5
Fanos V, Mussap M, Khoory BJ, et al. Renal tolerability of teicoplanin in a case of neonatal overdose. J Chemother 1998; 10(5): 381–4
Sidi V, Roilides E, Bibashi E, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin in children with antineoplastic therapy-associated febrile neutropenia and gram-positive bacteremia. J Chemother 2000; 12(4): 326–31
Acknowledgements
The authors have provided no information on sources of funding or on conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pea, F., Viale, P., Candoni, A. et al. Teicoplanin in Patients with Acute Leukaemia and Febrile Neutropenia. Clin Pharmacokinet 43, 405–415 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200443060-00004
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200443060-00004