• Hao Li, Lan Gao, Linjing Zhou, Yang Wang, Qi Li, Jin Wang, Tianjun Chen, Yongjian Zhang, Taotao Wang, and Qindong Shi.
• Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
• Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2020 Mar 1; 126 (3): 277-288.

AbstractTeicoplanin is used for the treatment of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. It has been demonstrated that conventional loading regimen was insufficient for teicoplanin to achieve target trough plasma concentration (Cmin  > 10 mg/L). Therefore, a Chinese expert group recommended an optimal loading dose regimen of teicoplanin to treat severe Gram-positive infection. However, there was no report about the teicoplanin concentration, and the safety and efficacy of teicoplanin therapy in Chinese patients since the consensus was published. The objective of this study was to compare the teicoplanin Cmin and clinical response in critically ill Chinese patients after the administration of conventional or optimal loading regimen, and to reveal the potential factors that may affect teicoplanin Cmin in addition to loading regimen. Fifty-five patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on teicoplanin loading regimen: (a) CD group (conventional loading dose group, n = 18, loading dose was 400 mg); (b) OD group (optimal loading dose group, n = 37, loading dose was 800 mg). Initially, three loading doses were administered every 12 hours, while the fourth loading dose was injected 24 hours after the third dose. The maintenance dose was 400 mg (CD group) or 800 mg (OD group), respectively. The mean teicoplanin Cmin on day 2 and day 4 in the OD group was significantly higher than those in the CD group, which were 14.75 ± 5.93 mg/L vs 8.26 ± 4.87 mg/L (P < .001) and 14.90 ± 5.20 mg/L vs 9.13 ± 4.75 mg/L (P = .019), respectively. The percentages of patients in the OD group achieving the target teicoplanin Cmin on day 2 and day 4 were also significantly higher than those in the CD group, which were 83.7% vs 33.3% (P < .001) and 82.4% vs 28.6% (P = .0013), respectively. Furthermore, multivariate linear regression analysis showed that body-weight exerted significant effect on teicoplanin Cmin in the OD group. The percentage of favourable clinical response in the OD group was significantly higher than that in the CD group (83.8% vs 55.6%, P = .025). There was no difference between teicoplanin adverse effects in the two groups. The study demonstrated that the optimal loading dose regimen of teicoplanin can rapidly reach target Cmin , and result in a good clinical efficacy and low adverse effect in critically ill Chinese patients.© 2019 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).

27 keywords...

hide…