Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a relatively rare disease but with significant rates of morbidity and mortality. The goal of IE treatment is to eradicate the foci of infection, including antimicrobial therapy with or without surgery. The decision on the selection of an empirical therapy regimen is diverse and based on patient characteristics. Vancomycin and teicoplanin are bacteriostatic glycopeptide antibiotics used for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, including MRSA-IE, and patients allergic to penicillin who are infected with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.
Objective: The current study aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of vancomycin and teicoplanin in the treatment of patients with MRSA-IE.
Materials and Methods: This parallel, randomized, and controlled trial study was carried out on the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA endocarditis within August 2012 and April 2017. The present study recruited adult patients with a definite or possible diagnosis of IE based on the Modified Duke Criteria. A central computer-generated random number list was used to allocate the patients (1:1) to the treatment with teicoplanin or vancomycin. Vancomycin was intravenously administered at a dose of 30 mg/kg/day in two doses. Teicoplanin was administered at a loading dose of 6-12 mg/kg every 12 h in four doses and then continued once a day.
Results: Out of 86 patients screened with suspected IE, 66 patients were randomly assigned to the vancomycin (n=33) and teicoplanin (n=33) groups. The mean age values of the study subjects were 41±11.8 and 39±13.1 years in the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups, respectively. In addition, 27 patients (81.8%) in the vancomycin group met the criteria for microbiological cure, compared to 25 subjects (89.3%) in the teicoplanin group. In this regard, the observed difference was not statistically significant (P=0.41). Moreover, 26 (78.8%) and 23 (82.1%) patients in the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups achieved clinical cure, respectively (P=0.97). Overall, the patients in the vancomycin group experienced more adverse events in comparison to those of the teicoplanin group (P=0.04). The rate of acute kidney injury over time, especially in the first week of therapy, was higher in the vancomycin group than that reported for the teicoplanin group (P=0.05). Six and four patients in the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups required dialysis, respectively. The use of dialysis was not different between the two groups (P=0.88). Seven (21.3%) and five (17.9%) patients in the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups died, respectively, which was not statistically different between the two groups (P=0.74).
Conclusions: It was concluded that the administration of vancomycin or teicoplanin does not significantly change the outcome of patients undergoing empirical treatment for MRSA-IE. This finding indicates the patients are similar in clinical outcomes and mortalities despite some adverse effects, such as skin rashes; therefore, teicoplanin can be considered a treatment choice for these diseases.
Hidden Mode of Action of Glycopeptide Antibiotics: Inhibition of Wall Teichoic Acid Biosynthesis
