JAC Advance Access originally published online on February 25, 2003
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2003) 51, 971-975
© 2003 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Teicoplanin therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill patients: a retrospective study emphasizing the importance of a loading dose
1 Institute of Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Pathology and Medicine, Medical School, University of Udine, P.le S. Maria della Misericordia 3, 33100 Udine; 2 Institute of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medical and Morphological Research, Medical School, University of Udine, Udine, Italy
Received 18 September 2002; returned 5 November 2002; revised 2 January 2003; accepted 11 January 2003
Data obtained as part of our routine drug monitoring of teicoplanin therapy (therapeutic drug monitoring, TDM) in adult critically ill patients being treated for suspected or documented Gram-positive multiresistant infections were assessed, retrospectively. Data were available for 202 patients (146 male, 56 female; age 58 ± 16 years) with a total number of 829 teicoplanin trough plasma levels (Cmin) assessed. The percentage of patients with adequate teicoplanin concentrations (Cmin 
10 mg/L) during the treatment period substantially increased from 3.2% on day 2, to 35%, 70%, 90% and 
95% on days 4, 7, 11 and 15, respectively. The findings suggest that optimal teicoplanin therapy was achieved only after at least 4, and probably 7, days of therapy in most cases, mainly because of a failure to use an appropriate loading dose. Among the possible causes for the reluctance to use a loading dose, concern over the potential nephrotoxicity of teicoplanin was a major factor. We conclude that loading doses of teicoplanin (6 mg/kg every 12 h for at least three doses) must be considered mandatory in all patients, regardless of their renal function, to enable optimal drug concentrations to be achieved early in the treatment period. Subsequently, TDM is important to ensure that dose regimens are optimized to the individual requirements of the patients.
Keywords: teicoplanin, TDM, loading dose, renal function, hypoalbuminaemia
* Corresponding author. Tel/Fax: +39-432-559833; E-mail: federico.pea{at}med.uniud.it
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. C. Matthews, C. P. Conlon, A. R. Berendt, J. Kayley, L. Jefferies, B. L. Atkins, and I. Byren Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT): is it safe for selected patients to self-administer at home? A retrospective analysis of a large cohort over 13 years J. Antimicrob. Chemother., August 1, 2007; 60(2): 356 - 362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Whitehouse, J. A. Cepeda, R. Shulman, L. Aarons, R. Nalda-Molina, C. Tobin, A. MacGowan, S. Shaw, C. Kibbler, M. Singer, et al. Pharmacokinetic studies of linezolid and teicoplanin in the critically ill J. Antimicrob. Chemother., March 1, 2005; 55(3): 333 - 340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Rouveix, F. Jehl, H. Drugeon, I. Brumpt, and E. Caulin Randomized Comparison of Serum Teicoplanin Concentrations following Daily or Alternate Daily Dosing in Healthy Adults Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., July 1, 2004; 48(7): 2394 - 2399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Wilcox, D. Nathwani, and M. Dryden Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections J. Antimicrob. Chemother., February 1, 2004; 53(2): 335 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|