Soyoung Ha, Kyungmin Huh, Doo Ryeon Chung, Jae-Hoon Ko, Sun Young Cho, Hee Jae Huh, Nam Yong Lee, Cheol-In Kang, Kyong Ran Peck, Jae-Hoon Song
{"title":"Efficacy of teicoplanin in bloodstream infections caused by Enterococcus faecium: posthoc analysis of a nationwide surveillance.","authors":"Soyoung Ha, Kyungmin Huh, Doo Ryeon Chung, Jae-Hoon Ko, Sun Young Cho, Hee Jae Huh, Nam Yong Lee, Cheol-In Kang, Kyong Ran Peck, Jae-Hoon Song","doi":"10.1016/j.ijid.2022.06.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Vancomycin and teicoplanin are glycopeptides with activity against Enterococcus faecium. However, studies on the clinical efficacy of teicoplanin are limited. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of teicoplanin and vancomycin in E. faecium bacteremia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients with bloodstream infections prospectively from July 2015 to December 2016 in 14 hospitals as part of a multicenter nationwide surveillance. Patients with E. faecium monomicrobial bacteremia were selected. Teicoplanin and vancomycin groups included patients treated with either agent for ≥48 hours. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause in-hospital mortality. The Cox proportional hazards model with inverse probability weighting was used to account for the imbalance in baseline characteristics between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 97 patients with E. faecium bacteremia, 33 (34%) were treated with teicoplanin and 64 (66%) with vancomycin. There were no significant differences in 30-day in-hospital mortality (18.2% vs 26.6%, P = 0.358) and 7-day mortality (6.1% vs 15.6%, P = 0.212). Furthermore, multivariable analysis confirmed that the use of teicoplanin was not significantly associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.86; P = 0.494).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no significant differences in the clinical outcomes. These findings suggest teicoplanin as a useful alternative to vancomycin.</p>","PeriodicalId":505767,"journal":{"name":"International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"506-513"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2022.06.029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Objectives: Vancomycin and teicoplanin are glycopeptides with activity against Enterococcus faecium. However, studies on the clinical efficacy of teicoplanin are limited. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of teicoplanin and vancomycin in E. faecium bacteremia.
Methods: We identified patients with bloodstream infections prospectively from July 2015 to December 2016 in 14 hospitals as part of a multicenter nationwide surveillance. Patients with E. faecium monomicrobial bacteremia were selected. Teicoplanin and vancomycin groups included patients treated with either agent for ≥48 hours. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause in-hospital mortality. The Cox proportional hazards model with inverse probability weighting was used to account for the imbalance in baseline characteristics between the two groups.
Results: Among 97 patients with E. faecium bacteremia, 33 (34%) were treated with teicoplanin and 64 (66%) with vancomycin. There were no significant differences in 30-day in-hospital mortality (18.2% vs 26.6%, P = 0.358) and 7-day mortality (6.1% vs 15.6%, P = 0.212). Furthermore, multivariable analysis confirmed that the use of teicoplanin was not significantly associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.86; P = 0.494).
Conclusion: We found no significant differences in the clinical outcomes. These findings suggest teicoplanin as a useful alternative to vancomycin.
目的:万古霉素和替柯planin是具有抗屎肠球菌活性的糖肽。然而,对替柯planin临床疗效的研究有限。本研究旨在比较替柯planin和万古霉素治疗粪肠杆菌菌血症的疗效。方法:作为全国多中心监测的一部分,我们从2015年7月至2016年12月在14家医院前瞻性地确定了血液感染患者。选取单菌粪肠杆菌血症患者。替可普宁组和万古霉素组包括两种药物治疗≥48小时的患者。主要终点为30天全因住院死亡率。采用逆概率加权的Cox比例风险模型来解释两组之间基线特征的不平衡。结果:97例粪肠杆菌血症患者中,33例(34%)采用替柯planin治疗,64例(66%)采用万古霉素治疗。30天住院死亡率(18.2% vs 26.6%, P = 0.358)和7天死亡率(6.1% vs 15.6%, P = 0.212)无显著差异。此外,多变量分析证实,替柯planin的使用与死亡率无显著相关(校正优势比为0.72;95%置信区间为0.28-1.86;p = 0.494)。结论:两组临床疗效无明显差异。这些发现表明替柯普兰是万古霉素的有效替代品。