Prospective study of oral teicoplanin versus oral vancomycin for therapy of pseudomembranous colitis and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea

F de Lalla, R Nicolin, E Rinaldi, P Scarpellini, R Rigoli, V Manfrin, A Tramarin, F de Lalla, R Nicolin, E Rinaldi, P Scarpellini, R Rigoli, V Manfrin, A Tramarin

Abstract

A prospective, randomized study comparing oral teicoplanin with oral vancomycin in the treatment of pseudomembranous colitis (PMC) and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) was performed. Teicoplanin was administered at a dosage of 100 mg twice a day for 10 days, and vancomycin was administered at a dosage of 500 mg four times a day for 10 days. CDAD was diagnosed by demonstrating both C. difficile and cytotoxin in the feces of symptomatic patients (more than three loose stools per day). The diagnosis of PMC was also based on colonoscopy. Cytotoxin assay and cultures were checked in all patients 7 to 10 days after discontinuation of therapy and 25 to 30 days thereafter. Of the 51 patients enrolled, 46 were judged to be assessable. Among these, 26 received teicoplanin and 20 received vancomycin. At enrollment, both groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, occurrence of PMC or CDAD, and previous antibiotic treatment. Eighteen of the 20 patients in the vancomycin group and 10 of the 26 patients in the teicoplanin group had previously undergone surgery (P = 0.0004). Treatment resulted in the clinical cure of 20 (100%) vancomycin and 25 (96.2%) teicoplanin patients (P = 0.56). After discontinuation of therapy, clinical symptoms recurred in four (20%) vancomycin patients and two (7.7%) teicoplanin patients (P = 0.21). Posttherapy asymptomatic C. difficile carriage (positive follow-up cultures without any clinical symptoms) occurred in five (25%) vancomycin patients and two (7.7%) teicoplanin patients (P = 0.11).Overall, 9 of 20 (45%) vancomycin patients and 5 of 26 (19.2%) teicoplanin patients (P=0.059) appeared not to be cleared of C. difficile after treatment. No adverse effects related to vancomycin or teicoplanin therapy were observed.

References

    1. Br Med J. 1978 Dec 16;2(6153):1667-9
    1. Rev Infect Dis. 1979 Mar-Apr;1(2):386-97
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jan;35(1):195-7
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jun;35(6):1108-11
    1. JAMA. 1990 Feb 16;263(7):979-82
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989 Jan;23(1):131-42
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Jul;33(7):1125-7
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Feb 15;110(4):255-7
    1. J Infect Dis. 1988 Oct;158(4):731-6
    1. Lancet. 1986 Jul 5;2(8497):11-3
    1. N Engl J Med. 1989 Jan 26;320(4):204-10
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Dec;28(6):847-8
    1. Clin Chem. 1987 Sep;33(9):1615-8
    1. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Jan 25;292(6515):238-9
    1. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1988 Jan;1(1):1-18
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985 May;15(5):648-9
    1. Eur J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Dec;6(6):623-7
    1. J Infect. 1986 Jul;13(1):5-9
    1. J Infect Dis. 1986 Jan;153(1):159-62
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Mar;21(3):323-7
    1. Lancet. 1984 Apr 28;1(8383):935-8
    1. Rev Infect Dis. 1984 Mar-Apr;6 Suppl 1:S208-13
    1. Rev Infect Dis. 1983 Mar-Apr;5(2):246-57
    1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1984 Dec;14 Suppl D:97-102
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1984 Jul;20(1):74-6
    1. J Clin Pathol. 1983 Jan;36(1):88-92
    1. Gastroenterology. 1980 Mar;78(3):431-4
    1. Am J Med. 1981 Apr;70(4):906-8
    1. J Infect Dis. 1981 Jan;143(1):42-50
    1. Am J Med. 1981 Nov;71(5):815-22
    1. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 Nov;33(11 Suppl):2533-8

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren