Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Teicoplanin-based antimicrobial therapy in Staphylococcus aureus bone and joint infection: tolerance, efficacy and experience with subcutaneous administration

  • Olivier Peeters1, 2, 3,
  • Tristan Ferry1, 2, 4,
  • Florence Ader1, 2, 4,
  • André Boibieux1, 2,
  • Evelyne Braun1, 2,
  • Anissa Bouaziz5,
  • Judith Karsenty6,
  • Emmanuel Forestier7,
  • Frédéric Laurent1, 4, 8,
  • Sébastien Lustig1, 4, 9,
  • Christian Chidiac1, 2, 4,
  • Florent Valour1, 2, 4Email authorView ORCID ID profile and
  • on behalf of the Lyon BJI study group
BMC Infectious DiseasesBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:622

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1955-7

Received: 14 May 2016

Accepted: 25 October 2016

Published: 3 November 2016

Abstract

Background

Staphylococci represent the first etiologic agents of bone and joint infection (BJI), leading glycopeptides use, especially in case of methicillin-resistance or betalactam intolerance. Teicoplanin may represent an alternative to vancomycin because of its acceptable bone penetration and possible subcutaneous administration.

Methods

Adults receiving teicoplanin for S. aureus BJI were included in a retrospective cohort study investigating intravenous or subcutaneous teicoplanin safety and pharmacokinetics.

Results

Sixty-five S. aureus BJIs (orthopedic device-related infections, 69 %; methicillin-resistance, 17 %) were treated by teicoplanin at the initial dose of 5.7 mg/kg/day (IQR, 4.7–6.5) after a loading dose of 5 injections 12 h apart. The first trough teicoplanin level (Cmin) reached the therapeutic target (15 mg/L) in 26 % of patients, only. An overdose (Cmin >25 mg/L) was observed in 16 % patients, 50 % of which had chronic renal failure (p = 0.049). Seven adverse events occurred in 6 patients (10 %); no predictive factor could be highlighted. After a 91-week follow-up (IQR, 51–183), 27 treatment failures were observed (42 %), associated with diabetes (OR, 5.1; p = 0.057), systemic inflammatory disease (OR, 5.6; p = 0.043), and abscess (OR, 4.1; p < 10−3). A normal CRP-value at 1 month was protective (OR, 0.2; p = 0.029). Subcutaneous administration (n = 14) showed no difference in pharmacokinetics and tolerance compared to the intravenous route.

Conclusions

Teicoplanin constitutes a well-tolerated therapeutic alternative in S. aureus BJI, with a possible subcutaneous administration in outpatients. The loading dose might be increase to 9–12 mg/kg to quickly reach the therapeutic target, but tolerance of such higher doses remains to be evaluated, especially if using the subcutaneous route.

Keywords

Bone and joint infection Staphylococcus aureus Teicoplanin Subcutanous administration

Background

Staphylococci are the first etiologic agents of bone and joint infection (BJI). Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is predominant and antistaphylococcal penicillins such as nafcillin, oxacillin and cloxacillin are the backbone molecules for the initial antimicrobial therapy [1, 2]. Nevertheless, glycopeptide alternative, including vancomycin or teicoplanin, remains frequently used for several reasons: i) although hospital diffusion of methicillin-resistant clones of S. aureus (MRSA) is currently controlled in France, MRSA still accounts for 20 % of S. aureus isolates involved in BJI [3]; ii) half of staphylococcal BJI are caused by coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS), among which methicillin resistance has continuously increased in the past years to presently reach 50 % of isolates [3]; and iii) antistaphylococcal penicillins are the first cause of antimicrobial-related adverse events during long-term treatment of staphylococcal BJI [4], in case of which glycopeptides are the first alternative. If vancomycin is largely prescribed in this context, teicoplanin could theoretically represent an acceptable alternative in BJI as studies have shown a comparable efficacy compared to vancomycin in various other conditions [5] and an improved safety profile with fewer renal toxicity [6], as well as the possibility of daily subcutaneous injection, of particular interest for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). In addition, various studies have shown that teicoplanin pharmacodynamic profile was superior compared to vancomycin regarding bone diffusion [7, 8]. Few studies have investigated the use of teicoplanin in BJI, particularly through subcutaneous administration. The present study assesses the efficacy and tolerance of teicoplanin in S. aureus BJI, especially focusing on subcutaneous use.

Methods

Inclusion criteria and data collection

A retrospective single-center observational cohort study (2001 to 2011) was conducted including all consecutive patients managed at our institution receiving teicoplanin as part of S. aureus BJI treatment. Patients diagnosed with staphylococcal BJI were identified by cross-referencing the prospective maintained databases of the regional referral center for BJI and the bacteriology laboratory, which list exhaustively all strains isolated from osteoarticular samples since 2001. Patients with diabetic foot- and decubitus ulcer-related BJI were excluded, as they require a specific management [9]. If patients presented more than one osteoarticular infected site, they were considered as independent events for cohort description and outcome analysis, but pooled for tolerance and pharmacologic evaluation. For each patient, data were collected from medical records, nursing charts and biological software in an anonymous standardized case report form. All available trough teicoplanin plasmatic levels (Cmin) in the first 14 days of treatment were recorded.

Definitions

BJI diagnosis was based upon the existence of clinical and biological evidences of infection, and at least one reliable bacteriological sample positive for S. aureus (i.e., percutaneous joint fluid aspiration, surgical sample, and/or blood culture). BJI were classified according to: i) the existence of orthopedic implant (i.e. joint prosthesis, peripheral or vertebral osteosynthesis); and ii) progression of infection, differentiating acute (≤3 weeks) versus chronic (>3 weeks) infection, calculated from the presumed date of inoculation (i.e., date of device implantation for postoperative orthopaedic device-related infection (ODI), or date of symptom onset for native BJI) up to diagnosis.

The modified Charlson’s comorbidity index was calculated as previously described [10]. Immunosuppression was defined as: i) corticosteroid therapy >10 mg of prednisone per day or equivalent for at least 3 months; ii) immunosuppressive drug(s) during the two last months before BJI onset; or iii) chemotherapy for hematological malignancy or solid tumor.

A Cmin >15 mg/L was taken as an acceptable therapeutic target. Patients with a Cmin >25 mg/L were considered as overexposure.

Teicoplanin-related adverse events (AE) occurring during follow-up were notified and classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, National Cancer Institute, 2003). Teicoplanin accountability in the AE occurrence was left to the clinician appreciation, with the help of a pharmacovigilance specialist in doubtful cases.

Treatment failure was defined as persisting infection under appropriate antimicrobial therapy, relapse after the interruption of antimicrobial therapy, necessity of surgical revision on the account of persisting septic focus ≥5 days after the first intervention, superinfections, and/or fatal outcome if BJI-related.

Teicoplanin administration

For intravenous (IV) administration, each dose was diluted in 100 mL of isotonic saline solution and administrated over a 30-min period. For subcutaneous (SC) injections, each dose was diluted in 50 mL of isotonic saline solution and delivered by a nurse during a 30- to 60-min gravity infusion using a butterfly disposable needle.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the frequencies of the study variables, described as percentages (%) for dichotomous variables, and medians (interquartile range (IQR)) for continuous variables. For the percentage calculation of each variable, the number of missing values was excluded from the denominator. Non-parametric statistical methods were used to compare the study groups (Chi-squared test, Fisher exact test and Mann–Whitney U test), as appropriate. Determinants of teicoplanin-related AE and treatment failure were assessed using binary logistic regression, including the clinically relevant variables in each model, and expressed by their Odd ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). Clinically pertinent variables with a p-value <0.15 in the univariate analysis were included in the final multivariate models. A value of p <0.05 was considered as significant. All analyses were performed using SPSS software version 19.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).

Results

Population characteristics

Sixty patients were included (34 male, 56.7 %; median age, 62 years (interquartile range (IQR), 48-75), among who two and one presented three and two concomitant infected osteoarticular site, respectively. Consequently, a total of 65 episodes of BJI were analyzed, including 20 (30.8 %) native and 45 (69.2 %) orthopedic device-related (ODI) infections, and 23 (35.4 %) chronic infections. A MRSA was implicated in 11 (16.9 %) cases and 17 (26.2 %) infections were plurimicrobial. All staphylococcal isolates were susceptible to teicoplanin. A surgical procedure was performed in 50 (76.9 %) cases, predominantly in ODI (93.3 %). All patients were initially treated by a combination antimicrobial therapy. Median total duration of treatment was 26.8 (IQR, 17.7–42.8) weeks. Patients’ characteristics are described in Table 1.
Table 1

Description of the 65 included episodes of BJI and comparison between the intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration

 

Total population (n = 65)

Intravenous administration (n = 51)

Subcutaneous administration (n = 14)

p-value

Demographics

 Sex (male)

34 (52.3 %)

27 (52.9 %)

7 (50.0 %)

1.000

 Age (year-old)

61.8 (49.0–74.0)

61.8 (52.1–73.8)

59.1 (39.1–75.5)

0.678

Comorbidities

 Modified CCI

3 (1–5)

3 (2–5)

1.5 (0.3–5.8)

0.478

 BMI (kg/m2)

27.0 (21.6–29.7)

27.8 (22.0–31.6)

24.7 (20.7–28.0)

0.154

 Obesity (BMI > 30)

14 (22.2 %)

13 (26.5 %)

1 (7.1 %)

0.116

 Diabetes

8 (12.3 %)

7 (13.7 %)

1 (7.1 %)

0.447

 Immunosuppression

11 (16.9 %)

10 (19.6 %)

1 (7.1 %)

0.253

 Chronic renal failure

9 (14.8 %)

6 (12.8 %)

3 (21.4 %)

0.338

 Chronic hepatic disease

2 (3.3 %)

2 (4.3 %)

0 (0 %)

0.591

 Chronic pulmonary disease

15 (24.6 %)

10 (21.3 %)

5 (35.7 %)

0.223

 Congestive heart failure

5 (8.1 %)

3 (6.3 %)

2 (14.3 %)

0.314

 Cerebrovascular disease

4 (6.6 %)

1 (2.1 %)

3 (21.4 %)

0.035

 Peripheral artery disease

5 (8.2 %)

4 (8.5 %)

1 (7.1 %)

0.678

 Neoplasic disease

6 (9.8 %)

6 (12.8 %)

0 (0 %)

0.193

 Malignant hemopathy

1 (1.5 %)

1 (2.0 %)

0 (0 %)

0.785

 Inflammatory systemic disease

9 (14.8 %)

9 (19.1 %)

0 (0 %)

0.079

 Dementia

2 (3.1 %)

2 (3.9 %)

0 (0 %)

0.613

BJI types

 Native BJI

20 (30.8 %)

16 (31.4 %)

4 (28.6 %)

0.559

  Incl. arthritis

5 (25 %)

4 (25.0 %)

1 (25.0 %)

0.708

  Incl. osteomyelitis

5 (25 %)

5 (31.3 %)

0 (0 %)

0.284

  Incl. vertebral osteomyelitis

10 (50 %)

7 (43.8 %)

3 (75.0 %)

0.367

 ODI

45 (69.2 %)

35 (68.6 %)

10 (71.4 %)

0.559

  Incl. PJI

34 (75.6 %)

28 (80.0 %)

6 (60.0 %)

0.187

  Incl peripheral osteosynthesis

8 (17.8 %)

6 (17.1 %)

2 (20.0 %)

0.579

  Incl. vertebral osteosynthesis

3 (6.7 %)

1 (2.9 %)

2 (20.0 %)

0.119

BJI characteristics

 Evolution delay (weeks)

1.6 (0.1–6.7)

1.6 (0.4–9.2)

0.9 (0.2–3.1)

0.299

  Chronic BJI (> 3 weeks)

23 (35.4 %)

19 (37.3 %)

4 (28.6 %)

0.754

 Mechanism

  Hematogenous

30 (46.2 %)

24 (47.1 %)

6 (42.9 %)

1.000

  Inoculation

32 (49.2 %)

25 (49.0 %)

7 (50.0 %)

1.000

  Contiguity

3 (4.6 %)

2 (3.9 %)

1 (7.1 %)

0.523

 MRSA

11 (16.9 %)

9 (17.6 %)

2 (14.3 %)

1.000

 Plurimicrobial infection

17 (26.2 %)

16 (31.4 %)

1 (7.1 %)

0.062

Biological inflammatory syndrom

61 (95.3 %)

47 (91.0 %)

14 (100 %)

1.000

 Maximal CRP value (mg/L)

164 (92–234.3)

160.2 (86.8–300.0)

264.7 (143.2–332.0)

0.245

Local and general complications

 Abscess

26 (40.0 %)

22 (43.1 %)

4 (28.6 %)

0.252

 Sinus tract

23 (35.4 %)

21 (41.2 %)

2 (14.3 %)

0.056

 Infective endocarditis

2 (3.7 %)

2 (4.8 %)

0 (0 %)

1.000

Hospitalization

 Length of stay (weeks)

5.6 (1.9–8.9)

5.8 (2.3–8.9)

3.8 (1.6–8.1)

0.580

Surgical management

50 (76.9 %)

38 (74.5 %)

12 (85.7 %)

0.491

 Debridement (native BJI)

8 (40.0 %)

5 (31.3 %)

3 (75.0 %)

0.153

 Conservative procedurea

24 (53.3 %)

20 (57.1 %)

4 (40.0 %)

0.274

 One-stage exchangea

3 (6.7 %)

2 (5.7 %)

1 (10.0 %)

0.539

 Two-stage exchangea

15 (33.3 %)

11 (31.4 %)

4 (40.0 %)

0.440

Antimicrobial therapy

 Total duration (weeks)

26.8 (17.7–42.8)

26.2 (17.9–41.6)

28.4 (17.8–48.4)

0.406

 Parenteral treatment

64 (98.5 %)

50 (98.0 %)

14 (100 %)

1.000

  Duration (weeks)

9.4 (5.9–24.4)

9.4 (6.3–25.1)

10.4 (4.4–16.1)

0.790

 Combination therapy

65 (100 %)

51 (100 %)

14 (100 %)

NC

  Duration (weeks)

25.7 (16.4–45.1)

25.6 (15.9–44.3)

27.6 (21.3–43.2)

0.442

Teicoplanin use

 IV route

51 (78.5 %)

NA

NA

NA

 Loading dose

55 (85.9 %)

44 588.0 %)

11 (78.6 %)

0.521

  Loading dose (mg/kg/12 h)

5.7 (4.7–6.5)

5.6 (4.7–6.5)

6.0 (5.4–6.7)

0.218

  Number of injections

5 (5–5)

5 (5–5)

5 (5–5)

 

 Maintenance dose (mg/kg/24 h)

5.7 (4.7–6.5)

5.6 (4.7–6.5)

5.9 (5.1–6.8)

0.406

 Administration route switch

7 (10.8 %)

7 (13.7 %)

0 (0 %)

0.164

 Duration of treatment

  Total duration (weeks)

6.0 (2.7–9.9)

6.0 (2.9–9.7)

5.8 (3.0–11.6

0.750

  IV treatment duration (weeks)

5.0 (2.9–9.7)

5.0 (3.0–9.7)

NA

NA

  SC treatment duration (weeks)

6.2 (3.9–21.4)

NA

5.3 (2.8–11.6)

NA

 Pharmacological data

  Number of dosages

2.5 (2–3.3)

3 (2–3)

2 (2–3.8)

0.891

  Initial Cmin (day 3 to 5, mg/L)

11.7 (9.2–16.3)

10.8 (8.6–15.2)

13.8 (11.4–16.2)

0.130

   Initial Cmin >25 mg/L

0 (0 %)

0 (0 %)

0 (0 %)

NC

   Initial Cmin <15 mg/L

36 (73.5 %)

29 (74.4 %)

7 (70.0 %)

1.000

  Overdose (day 1 to 14)

10 (15.6 %)

8 (16.0 %)

2 (14.3 %)

1.000

  Delay for Cmin > 15 mg/L (days)

8.5 (6–13)

9 (6–13)

7 (4.5–9.5)

0.259

 Companion drugs

  Rifampicin

16 (24.6 %)

12 (23.5 %)

4 (28.6 %)

0.732

  Fluoroquinolone

29 (44.6 %)

20 (39.2 %)

9 (64.3 %)

0.131

  Pristinamycin

11 (16.9 %)

11 (21.6 %)

0 (0 %)

0.102

 Teicoplanin-related AE

6 (10 %)

4 (8.7 %)

2 (14.3 %)

0.617

Follow-up and outcome

 Follow-up period (weeks)

91.1 (50.6–182.6)

98.0 (58.3–194.9)

68.2 (40.7–100.3)

0.112

 One-month CRP level < 10 mg/L

17 (27.9 %)

14 (28.0 %)

3 (27.3 %)

1.000

 Treatment failure

27 (41.5 %)

21 (41.2 %)

6 (42.9 %)

1.000

  Persisting infection

18 (28.6 %)

14 (28.0 %)

4 (30.8 %)

1.000

  Relapse

6 (9.7 %)

6 (12.2 %)

0 (0 %)

0.328

  Iterative surgery

23 (35.9 %)

19 (38.0 %)

4 (28.6 %)

0.754

  BJI-related death

1 (1.6 %)

1 (2.0 %)

0 (0 %)

1.000

  Superinfection

13 (20.0 %)

10 (19.6 %)

3 (21.4 %)

1.000

AE adverse event, BJI bone and joint infection, BMI body mass index, CCI Charlson’s comorbidity index, C min plasmatic teicoplanin trough concentration, CRP C-reactive protein, Incl Including, IV Intravenous, MRSA Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, ODI orthopedic device-associated infection, PJI prosthetic joint infection, SC subcutaneous

a for orthopedic device-related infections

Teicoplanin prescription modalities

Teicoplanin was used at the median dose of 5.7 (IQR, 4.7–6.5) mg/kg administrated in a single daily injection, after a loading dose (n = 55, 85.9 %) of 5 (IQR, 5–5) injections of 5.7 (IQR, 4.7–6.5) mg/kg/12 h. Median total duration of teicoplanin therapy was 6.0 (IQR, 2.7–9.9) weeks. Teicoplanin was mostly administrated via IV route (n = 51, 78.5 %), but 14 (21.5 %) cases were treated by SC route with no difference regarding prescription modalities (median dose, loading dose, duration) compared with IV-treated patients (Table 1). The median number of SC injections per patient was 39.5 (IQR, 24.0–86.5), with a maximum of 600 mg of teicoplanin per injection. Seven switches in administration route were observed, all in patients initially receiving IV treatment. The main teicoplanin companion drugs were fluoroquinolones (44.6 %), rifampicin (24.6 %) and pristinamycin (16.9 %).

Pharmacological data

During the first 14 days of treatment, at least one Cmin value was available in 59 patients, in whom a median of 2 (IQR, 2─3) dosages was performed during this period. An early Cmin (on day 3, 4 or 5) was available in 44 patients and was under the therapeutic target of 15 mg/L in 73.5 % of them, with a median value of 11.7 mg/L. A Cmin >15 mg/L was finally obtained in only 39 (66.1 %) patients within the first 2 weeks of treatment, in a median delay of 9 (IQR, 6─13) days, without difference between the IV and SC routes of administration (Fig. 1). No difference was observed between patients who reached or not the therapeutic target of 15 mg/L (Additional file 1: Table S1).
Fig. 1

Comparison of median teicoplanin trough concentrations in intravenously- and subcutaneously-treated patients during the first 2 weeks of treatment. Data are presented as median and interquartile ranges of teicoplanin trough levels available each day after treatment initiation

During the first 2 weeks of treatment, an overexposure was observed in 8 patients who had a significantly older age (76.0 year-old, p = 0.007) and modified Charlson comorbidity index (7.5, p = 0.001) than those with no overexposure (Additional file 1: Table S1). Their baseline renal function was more frequently impaired (50.0 %, p = 0.049).

Tolerance

Seven adverse events occurred in 6 (10.0 %) of the 60 included patients, consisting in 5 cutaneous rashes, 1 episode of headache, and one pancytopenia (Table 2). IV and SC routes were implicated in four and one cases, respectively (p = 0.617). No difference was shown between patients presenting or not a teicoplanin-related AE, and no predictive factor could be highlighted and especially chronic renal failure, daily dose and early overdose (Additional file 2: Table S2). Of note, no severe AE was reported at the injection site in the SC group. The occurrence of an adverse event did not significantly impact outcome.
Table 2

Description of the seven teicoplanin-related adverse events observed in 6 of the 60 included patients

Case

Modified CCI

BJI type

AE subtype

CTCAE grade

Route

Dosage

Delay

Companion drug

Stop

Hospitalization (duration)

Resolution

1

5

Acute osteomyelitis

Rash maculo-papular

2

IV

12 mg/L

7 days

None

Yes

Yes (3 days)

Yes

2

4

Acute PJI

Rash maculo-papular

2

IV

No

10 days

Oxacillin

Clindamycin

Yes

No (17 days)

Yes

3

0

Acute VO

Rash maculo-papular

Pancytopenia

3

SC

No

11 days

Rifampicin

Yes

No

Yes

4

5

Chronic osteomyelitis

Headache

1

IV

27.8 mg/L

20 days

Rifampicin

Yes

No

Yes

5

2

Chronic VO

Rash maculo-papular

3

SC

No

22 days

Ofloxacin

Yes

Yes (4 days)

Yes

6

2

Acute VO

Rash maculo-papular

2

IV

No

14 days

Ofloxacin

Yes

No

Yes

AE adverse event, BJI bone and joint infection, CCI Charlson’s comorbidity index, CTCAE common terminology criteria for adverse events, IV Intravenous, PJI prosthetic joint infection, SC subcutaneous, VO vertebral osteomyelitis

Outcome

In a median follow-up of 91.1 (IQR, 50.6–182.6) weeks, 27 treatment failure were observed, including persisting infections (n = 18; 66.7 %), relapses (n = 6; 22.2 %) and/or superinfections (n = 13; 48.1 %), leading to iterative surgical procedure(s) in 23 (35.4 %) cases including two limb amputations. One sepsis-related death was observed.

In univariate analysis, pertinent variables associated with therapeutic failure with a p-value <0.15 were inflammatory systemic disease (OR, 5.600; 95 % CI, 1.056–29.683), diabetes mellitus (OR, 5.143; 95 % CI, 0.951–27.826), and abscess (OR, 4.073; 95 % CI, 1.420–11.684). The return to baseline C-reactive protein value at 1 month was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure (OR, 0.214; 95 % CI, 0.051–0.852). In multivariate analysis, in situ abscess was independently associated with treatment failure (OR, 3.641; 95 % CI, 1.110–11.944) (Additional file 3: Table S3). Of note, teicoplanin administration route did not influence the outcome.

Discussion

Although teicoplanin is among the drugs of choice for the treatment of staphylococcal BJI, efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics data in that specific setting are scarce. Thus, the present study provides relevant features with regards to staphylococcal BJI management. Our study is subjected to limitations BJI studies generally encounter such as the retrospective design coupled to the inherent lack of control patients. The limited patients’ recruitment, the variety of infection types, surgical management and medical treatment approaches also constitute a limitation to generalisation.

These current difficulties in the field of BJI explain the limited and controversial data available on the efficacy of teicoplanin in staphylococcal BJI. In past studies, treatment success rate ranged from 53 to 91 % [1114]. The low success rate observed in our study (60 %) may be explained by several factors. First, there is a significant selection bias as patients were recruited in a reference center dedicated to manage complex BJI with a high-risk of failure. In addition, most of past studies included native BJI with a relatively short follow-up (<1 year). Finally, pharmacodynamics parameters may impact the outcome [15, 16]. In our study, a Cmin reaching the therapeutic target of 15 mg/L was achieved in a quarter of cases at the first measurement (day 3 to 5) and in two thirds of patients within 2 weeks of treatment. The use of higher doses may improve these pharmacological parameters. In the study by LeFrock et al, the teicoplanin Cmin averaged 10 mg/L after 6 days in patients receiving 6 mg/kg/day after 5 loading doses of 6 mg/kg/12 h compared to 20 mg/L from the third day in patients receiving 12 mg/kg/day after 5 loading doses of 12 mg/kg/12 h [12]. If no difference was observed regarding osteomyelitis outcome, higher doses were associated with a better outcome among patients with native septic arthritis. Nevertheless, clinical outcome according to Cmin was not an intended end-point in the study. Greenberg et al reported a favorable outcome in patients with a Cmin > 30 mg/L, but with no comparative data [17]. It is our belief that the loading dose should be increased to 8 mg/kg/12 h to optimize trough concentrations, particularly in case when orthopedic implant is retained. Other determinants of therapeutic success had already been described, such as inflammatory systemic disease, diabetes and abscess [18, 19]. Conversely, our study was not associated with MRSA as a negative prognostic factor as found elsewhere [20]. This last prognostic factor probably relies on the benefit of receiving anti-staphylococcal penicillins for a MSSA compared to glycopeptides [21, 22], which could not be highlighted in our series as all patients received teicoplanin, including those with MSSA infection. Finally, although all S. aureus isolates included in our study were tested susceptible to teicoplanin [23], the exact MIC of each isolate was not available and could consequently not be challenged as an outcome predictor. As described with vancomycin, high teicoplanin MICs (i.e., > 1.5 mg/L) have been associated with unfavorable outcome and higher mortality rate among teicoplanin-treated MRSA bacteremia [24].

Regarding safety data, our results highlighted an excellent tolerance of teicoplanin with a 10 % incidence of AE, which is consistent with the toxicity rate of 9 to 18 % observed in other similar studies [11, 13, 25]. However, the incidence of AE was probably been underestimated due to the retrospective nature of our study (memory bias for non-severe AE). Indeed, in the prospective study of LeFrock et al, the rate of AE was 35 %, requiring discontinuation of treatment in 17 % of the cases [12]. Very few data support enhanced AE related to teicoplanin dose increase [26]. LeFrock et al reported fever in 5.6 and 13.1 % of patients receiving 6 and 12 mg/kg/day of teicoplanin, respectively, with similar data regarding cutaneous rashes (7.6 and 15.4 %, respectively) [12]. In our study, teicoplanin daily dose and overexposure within 2 weeks of treatment were not predictors of AE. In two other studies, a dose increase from 400 to 600 mg/day was not associated with an increased risk of toxicity [27, 28].

The description of subcutaneous administration of teicoplanin is another important highlight of our study, showing similar efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics characteristics compared to IV administration. The retrospective design may result in underestimating non-serious AE such as injection site reactions. In a recent prospective evaluation of SC teicoplanin in 30 patients, 90 % of patients presented moderate local AE (grades 1–2) and no severe local reaction (grade ≥3) [29]. Of note, none of our patients had SC teicoplanin infusion exceeding 600 mg, reported as an independent risk factor for local reaction in the study by El Samad et al [29]. Subcutaneous teicoplanin may be particularly useful in patients with BJI eligible for OPAT achieving efficacy and allowing cost reduction [30, 31]. Some authors have even proposed a 3-injections weekly regimen with a satisfactory success rate and an estimated saving of $60,000 per episode of BJI [32, 33]. However, a study has tempered this suggestion by showing a non-significant trend toward a higher risk of failure in patients treated by teicoplanin for BJI [34]. Further studies, optimally with a prospective and controlled design, are warranted to assess both the risk-benefit as well as the cost-benefit of teicoplanin in staphylococcal BJI.

Conclusion

At the dose of 6 mg/kg/24 h after a loading dose of 5 injections of 6 mg/kg/12 h, teicoplanin appeared as a well-tolerated option in the treatment of S. aureus BJI, and may be recommended as an alternative to vancomycin in patients with MRSA infection or with intolerance to betalactam antibiotics. The use of higher doses must be discussed in order to optimize pharmacokinetic parameters of which clinical pertinence remains to be demonstrated. However, we believe that the loading dose should be increased to more rapidly reach the therapeutic target, which can be crucial for outcome of acute ODI with implant retention. Furthermore, subcutaneous administration of teicoplanin showed similar results in terms of efficacy, tolerance and pharmacokinetics compared to the intravenous administration, which encourage its use in OPAT. However, the implication of a multidisciplinary referral center for the management of complex BJI is needed to ensure a successful outpatient management, as suggested by the need for a close clinical, biological and pharmacological monitoring, particularly during the first 2 weeks of treatment when the majority of side effects occur.

Abbreviations

95%CI: 

95 % confidence interval

AE: 

Adverse event

BJI: 

Bone and joint infection

BMI: 

Body mass index

CCI: 

Charlson’s comorbidity index

Cmin: 

Trough concentration

CNS: 

Coagulase negative Staphylococci

CRP: 

C-reactive protein

CTCAE: 

Common terminology criteria for adverse events

IQR: 

Interquartile range

IV: 

Intravenous

MRSA: 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

MSSA: 

Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus

ODI: 

Orthopaedic device-related infection

OPAT: 

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy

OR: 

Odd ratio

PJI: 

Prosthetic joint infection

SC: 

Subcutaneous

VO: 

Vertebral osteomyelitis

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Lyon Bone and Joint Infection Study Group: Coordinator: Tristan Ferry; Infectious Diseases SpecialistsTristan Ferry, Florent Valour, Thomas Perpoint, André Boibieux, François Biron, Patrick Miailhes, Florence Ader, Julien Saison, Sandrine Roux, Claire Philit, Fatiha Daoud, Johanna Lippman, Evelyne Braun, Christian Chidiac, Yves Gillet, Laure Hees; SurgeonsSébastien Lustig, Philippe Neyret, Olivier Reynaud, Adrien Peltier, Olivier Cantin, Michel-Henry Fessy, Anthony Viste, Philippe Chaudier, Romain Desmarchelier, Thibault Vermersch, Sébastien Martres, Franck Trouillet, Cédric Barrey, Francesco Signorelli, Emmanuel Jouanneau, Timothée Jacquesson, Ali Mojallal, Fabien Boucher, Hristo Shipkov, Mehdi Ismail, Joseph Chateau; MicrobiologistsFrederic Laurent, François Vandenesch, Jean-Philippe Rasigade, Céline Dupieux; Nuclear MedicineIsabelle Morelec, Marc Janier, Francesco Giammarile; PK/PD specialistsMichel Tod, Marie-Claude Gagnieu, Sylvain Goutelle; Clinical Research Assistant – Eugénie Mabrut

Funding

The study was founded by the Hospices Civils de Lyon and was carried out as part of our routine work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

All the data supporting the findings is contained within the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

OP participated in the design of the study, in the acquisition and interpretation of data, helped to statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. TF participated in the design of the study and in the acquisition and interpretation of data. André Boibieux, EB, Anissa Bouaziz, JK, SL, FL, EF, FA and CC participated in the interpretation of data and helped to draft the manuscript. FV conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, helped to statistical analysis and to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study received the approval of the French South-East ethics committee with the reference number CAL2011-021. In accordance with the French legislation, written informed patient consent was not required for any part of the study.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Regional Referral Center for Bone and Joint Infection, Hospices Civils de Lyon
(2)
Infectious Disease Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Nord
(3)
Department of General Medicine, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University
(4)
INSERM U1111, International Center for Research in Infectiology (CIRI), Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University
(5)
Department of Infectious Diseases, Lucien Hussel Hospital Center
(6)
Department of Infectious Diseases, William Morey Hospital Center
(7)
Department of Infectious Diseases, Centre Hospitalier Métropole Savoie
(8)
Laboratory of Bacteriology, National Reference Center for Staphylococci, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon
(9)
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Groupement Hospitalier Nord, Hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon

References

  1. Tong SYC, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, Holland TL, Fowler VG. Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28:603–61.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, Lew D, Zimmerli W, Steckelberg JM, Rao N, Hanssen A, Wilson WR. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:e1–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Titécat M, Senneville E, Wallet F, Dezèque H, Migaud H, Courcol RJ, Loïez C. Microbiologic profile of Staphylococci isolated from osteoarticular infections: evolution over ten years. Surg Infect. 2015;16:77–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Valour F, Karsenty J, Bouaziz A, Ader F, Tod M, Lustig S, Laurent F, Ecochard R, Chidiac C, Ferry T. Antimicrobial-related severe adverse events during treatment of bone and joint infection due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:746–55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Svetitsky S, Leibovici L, Paul M. Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:4069–79.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Wood MJ. Comparative safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Chemother. 2000;12 Suppl 5:21–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Landersdorfer CB, Bulitta JB, Kinzig M, Holzgrabe U, Sorgel F. Penetration of antibacterials into bone: pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and bioanalytical considerations. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2009;48:89–124.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. De Lalla F, Novelli A, Pellizzer G, Milocchi F, Viola R, Rigon A, Stecca C, Dal Pizzol V, Fallani S, Periti P. Regional and systemic prophylaxis with teicoplanin in monolateral and bilateral total knee replacement procedures: study of pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993;37:2693–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, Pile JC, Peters EJ, Armstrong DG, Deery HG, Embil JM, Joseph WS, Karchmer AW, Pinzur MS, Senneville E. Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;2012(54):e132–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1245–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dacquet V. Treatment of bone and joint infection with teicoplanin: a retrospective analysis of 50 cases. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1996;7:49–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. LeFrock J, Ristuccia A. Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections: an open study. J Infect Chemother. 1999;5:32–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Marone P, Concia E, Andreoni M, Suter F, Cruciani M. Treatment of bone and soft tissue infections with teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;25:435–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Weinberg WG. Safety and efficacy of teicoplanin for bone and joint infections: results of a community-based trial. South Med J. 1993;86:891–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Harding I, MacGowan AP, White LO, Darley ES, Reed V. Teicoplanin therapy for Staphylococcus aureus septicaemia: relationship between pre-dose serum concentrations and outcome. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;45:835–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilson AP. Clinical pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;39:167–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg RN. Treatment of bone, joint, and vascular-access-associated gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990;34:2392–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Senneville E, Joulie D, Legout L, Valette M, Dezeque H, Beltrand E, Roselé B, d’Escrivan T, Loïez C, Caillaux M, Yazdanpanah Y, Maynou C, Migaud H. Outcome and predictors of treatment failure in total hip/knee prosthetic joint infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:334–40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Marculescu CE, Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Steckelberg JM, Harmsen SW, Mandrekar JN, Osmon DR. Outcome of prosthetic joint infections treated with debridement and retention of components. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:471–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Salgado CD, Dash S, Cantey JR, Marculescu CE. Higher risk of failure of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:48–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim SH, Kim KH, Kim HB, Kim NJ, Kim EC, Oh MD, Choe KW. Outcome of vancomycin treatment in patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:192–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Tice AD, Hoaglund PA, Shoultz DA. Risk factors and treatment outcomes in osteomyelitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51:1261–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 6.0. 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Chang HJ, Hsu PC, Yang CC, Siu LK, Kuo AJ, Chia JH, Wu TL, Huang CT, Lee MH. Influence of teicoplanin MICs on treatment outcomes among patients with teicoplanin-treated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a hospital-based retrospective study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67:736–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pensotti C, Nacinovich F, Vidiella G, Carbone E, Marin M, Di Stéfano C, Stamboulian D. Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections due to methicillin resistant staphylococci. Experience in adult patients. Medicina. 2002;62 Suppl 2:40–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Senneville E, Legout L, Corroyer B, Yazdanpanah Y, Mouton Y. Adequate use of teicoplanin in bone and joint infections. Med Mal Infect. 2004;34 Suppl 1:S99–102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthews PC, Chue AL, Wyllie D, Barnett A, Isinkaye T, Jefferies L, Lovering A, Scarborough M. Increased teicoplanin doses are associated with improved serum levels but not drug toxicity. J Infect. 2014;68:43–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Matthews PC, Taylor A, Byren I, Atkins BL. Teicoplanin levels in bone and joint infections: are standard doses subtherapeutic? J Infect. 2007;55:408–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. El Samad Y, Lanoix JP, Bennis Y, Diouf M, Saroufim C, Brunschweiler B, Rousseau F, Joseph C, Hamdad F, Ait Amer Meziane M, Routier S, Schmit JL. Tolerability and plasma drug levels monitoring of prolonged subcutaneous teicoplanin treatment for bone and joint infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016. (ahead of print).Google Scholar
  30. Sims AL, Baker P, Bellamy R, McMurtry IA. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in primary hip and knee arthroplasty infection managed with debridement and retention of prosthesis: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Infect. 2013;14:293–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Nathwani D, Barlow GD, Ajdukiewicz K, Gray K, Morrison J, Clift B, France AJ, Davey P. Cost-minimization analysis and audit of antibiotic management of bone and joint infections with ambulatory teicoplanin, in-patient care or outpatient oral linezolid therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51:391–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lazzarini L, Tramarin A, Bragagnolo L, Tositti G, Manfrin V, de LF. Three-times weekly teicoplanin in the outpatient treatment of acute methicillin-resistant staphylococcal osteomyelitis: a pilot study. J Chemother. 2002;14:71–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Graninger W, Wenisch C, Wiesinger E, Menschik M, Karimi J, Presterl E. Experience with outpatient intravenous teicoplanin therapy for chronic osteomyelitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;14:643–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mackintosh CL, White HA, Seaton RA. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) for bone and joint infections: experience from a UK teaching hospital-based service. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:408–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement