We present a case series of patients undergoing OPAT care being treated by either teicoplanin-based (n = 107) or ceftriaxone-based (n = 191) antibiotic regimens” Dabrowski et al (2020).
Teicoplanin possesses several convenient properties for use in the delivery of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services. However, its use is not widespread and data on its efficacy in the OPAT setting are limited. We present a case series of patients undergoing OPAT care being treated by either teicoplanin-based (n = 107) or ceftriaxone-based (n = 191) antibiotic regimens. Clinical failure with teicoplanin occurred in 5 episodes of care (4.7%), whereas clinical failure occurred in 2 episodes of ceftriaxone-based OPAT care (1.0%). Teicoplanin-associated clinical failure was observed in 2 of 6 (33%) patients with Enterococcus infections, compared to 3 of 101 (3.1%) of patient with non-Enterococcus infections. Overall there were 4 (2.9%) drug-related adverse events for teicoplanin and 4 (1.8%) for ceftriaxone, prompting a switch to teicoplanin in 3 patients. Our findings support the continued use of teicoplanin in OPAT and its consideration in centres where it is not currently being offered.
Dabrowski, H., Wickham, H., De, S., Underwood, J., Morris-Jones, S., Logan, S., Marks, M. and Pollara, G. (2020) Clinical outcomes of teicoplanin use in the OPAT setting. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. January 7th. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105888. .