Search

Warfarin (WF) shows a number of interactions with other drugs, which alter its anticoagulant effects. The albumin binding interaction is one such pharmacokinetic mechanism of drug interaction with WF, which induces a rise in the free WF concentration and thus increases the risk of WF toxicity. Teicoplanin (TEIC) is an anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus drug, which also binds strongly to albumin in the plasma. Therefore, co-administration of TEIC may displace WF from the albumin binding site, and possibly result in a toxicity. The present study was performed to investigate the drug-drug interaction between WF and TEIC in comparison with controls treated with vancomycin (VCM), which has the same spectrum of activity as TEIC but a lower albumin binding ratio.The records of 49 patients treated with WF and TEIC or VCM at Fukuoka University Hospital between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. These 49 patients consisted of 18 treated with TEIC in combination with WF, while 31 received VCM in combination with WF. Prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (PT-INR) showed a significant increase of 80.9 (52.0-155.3) % after co-administration of TEIC with WF. In contrast, the rate of PT-INR elevation associated with VCM plus WF was 30.6 (4.5-44.1) %. These observations suggested that TEIC can cause a rise in free WF concentration by albumin binding interaction. Therefore, careful monitoring of PT-INR elevation is necessary in patients receiving WF plus TEIC.

BACKGROUND Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a potentially life-threatening syndrome comprising severe skin eruption, fever, eosinophilia, lymphadenopathy, and involvement of internal organs. Here, we describe a case of DRESS syndrome caused by cross-reactivity between vancomycin and subsequent teicoplanin administration. CASE REPORT A 79-year-old male was admitted to our hospital for the treatment of injuries incurred in a traffic accident. Eosinophilia and lung dysfunction appeared after vancomycin administration. These symptoms were improved temporarily by withdrawal of vancomycin and administration of corticosteroid, but exacerbated by subsequent teicoplanin administration. These symptoms disappeared after discontinuation of teicoplanin. Based on comprehensive assessment of the overall clinical course, we judged that DRESS syndrome was induced by cross-reactivity between vancomycin and subsequent teicoplanin administration. Using the European Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (RegiSCAR) scoring system, we categorized DRESS syndrome related to vancomycin and teicoplanin as "probable." We describe, for the first time, DRESS syndrome (defined using the RegiSCAR scoring system) caused by cross-reactivity between vancomycin and subsequent teicoplanin administration. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians should be aware that DRESS syndrome can be induced by cross-reactivity between vancomycin and teicoplanin.

Background Target trough concentrations are recommended for teicoplanin (TEIC) to minimize its adverse effects and to maximize efficacy in sepsis caused by grampositive cocci, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. However, optimal doses to attain proper trough values in patients with sepsis have not yet been well established for TEIC. Objective This study investigated whether the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score could predict the pharmacokinetics of TEIC in patients with sepsis. Setting This study was conducted at Fukuoka University Hospital in Japan. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients using TEIC between April 2012 and March 2015. SIRS positive was defined as infection with a SIRS score ≥2. Estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a Bayesian method. Creatinine clearance rates were estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula (eCcr). Main outcome measure Change of TEIC loading dose requirement for incremental increases of SIRS score. Results In total, 133 patients were enrolled: 50 non-SIRS patients and 83 patients with SIRS. The TEIC plasma trough concentration was significantly lower in SIRS than non-SIRS patients (15.7 ± 7.1 vs. 20.1 ± 8.6 μg/mL; P < 0.01), although there was no significant difference in the loading dose administered. Moreover, SIRS scores were increasingly predictive of eCcr and TEIC clearance in a stepwise manner. To achieve the target trough concentration (15-30 μg/mL), the optimal doses required in non-SIRS versus SIRS patients were 12-24 versus 18-30 mg/kg/day, respectively, during the first 48 h. Conclusions These findings suggest that the pharmacokinetics of TEIC are altered in SIRS patients, who required higher doses than non-SIRS patients to achieve the target trough concentration. We suggest that the SIRS score can become a new modality to determine the initial TEIC loading dose.