COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ACTIVITY OF GLYCOPEPTIDES AND LINEZOLID AGAINST NOSOCOMIAL STRAINS OF GRAM-POSITIVE MICROORGANISMS ISOLATED FROM CANCER PATIENT

The purpose of the study: to compare the activity of vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid and to determine their place in the current treatment of nosocomial infections caused by gram-positive microflora.

Material and Methods. 640 gram-positive microorganisms (S. aureus, E. faecium, E. faecalis) isolated in 2018 from various pathological materials from cancer patients treated at N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology were studied. Literature data from 1982 to 2019, concerning efficacy of glycopeptides (vancomycin, teicoplanin) and linezolid against these pathogens were analyzed.

Results. Data analysis showed that percentage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was 89 % and percentage of vancomycinresistant enterococci (VRE) was 5.1 % among Enterococcus faecalis and 16.4 % among Enterococcus faecium. The susceptibility of the studied gram-positive microorganisms to teicoplanin, vancomycin and linezolid ranged from 83.3 to 98.8 % (p>0.5). In general, teicoplanin, vancomycin, and linezolid had equally high microbiological activity against nosocomial strains of S. aureus and Enterococcus spp. Also, according to the literature data, a comparative assessment of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of glycopeptides and linezolid was assessed.

Conclusion. Vancomycin and teicoplanin are still the main drugs for the treatment of various infections caused by resistant gram-positive microflora. However, teicoplanin, with an efficacy equal to that of vancomycin, has a number of significant advantages over the latter: better tolerability, lower frequency of adverse reactions, and pharmacokinetic features that make it possible to use it once a day both intravenously and intramuscularly. Both drugs, along with linezolid, can be used to treat infections caused by gram-positive microorganisms in cancer patients. 

1. Kahne D., Leimkuhler C., Lu W., Walsh C. Glycopeptide and lipoglycopeptide antibiotics. Chem Rev. 2005 Feb; 105(2): 425–48. doi: 10.1021/cr030103a.

2. Cynamon M.H., Granato P.A. Comparison of the in vitro activities of teichomycin A2 and vancomycin against staphylococci and enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Mar; 21(3): 504–5. doi: 10.1128/AAC.21.3.504.

3. Mackay J.P., Gerhard U., Beauregard D.A., Westwell M.S., Searle M.S., Williams D.H. Glycopeptide antibiotic activity and the possible role of dimerization: A model for biological signaling. J Am Chem Soc. 1994; 116: 4581–4590. doi: 10.1021/ja00090a006.

4. Ashford P.A., Bew S.P. Recent advances in the synthesis of new glycopeptide antibiotics. Chem Soc Rev. 2012; 41(3): 957–78. doi: 10.1039/c1cs15125h.

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Nosocomial enterococci resistant to vancomycin--United States, 1989–1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1993 Aug 6; 42(30): 597–9.

6. Van Bambeke F. Glycopeptides and glycodepsipeptides in clinical development: a comparative review of their antibacterial spectrum, pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2006 Aug; 7(8): 740–9.

7. Jeya M., Moon H.J., Lee K.M., Kim I.W., Lee J.K. Glycopeptide antibiotics and their novel semi-synthetic derivatives. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011 Aug; 12(8): 1194–204. doi: 10.2174/138920111796117382.

8. Yakovlev S.V. Tejkoplanin. New options for inpatient treatment of gram-positive infections. Antibiotics and Chemotherapy. 1999; 2: 3–8. (in Russian).

9. O’Grady F., Lambert H.P., Finch R. G., Greenwood D. Antibiotics and Chemotherapy. 7-th ed. New York. 1997; 363–368.

10. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [Internet]. URL: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en (cited 01.04.2020).

11. Jakovlev C.V., Suvorova M.P., Beloborodov V.B., Basin E.E., Eliseeva E.V., Kovelenov S.V., Portnjagina U.S., Rog A.A., Rudnov V.A., Barkanova O.N. The prevalence and clinical significance of nosocomial infections in medical institutions in Russia: JeRGINI. Antibiotics and Chemotherapy. 2016; 61: 5–6. (in Russian).

12. Spencer C.M., Bryson H.M. Teicoplanin. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of gram-positive infections. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7(4): 357–374.

13. Fomina I.P. The problem of antibiotic therapy for severe infections caused by multidrug-resistant gram-positive microorganisms. Teikoplanin (Targocid): comparative assessment of antimicrobial activity, clinical significance. Antibiotics and Chemotherapy. 1999; 8: 18–22. (in Russian).

14. Bennett J.E., Dolin R., Blaser M.J. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 8-th edition. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2014; 388–390.

15. Brogden R.N., Peters D.H. Teicoplanin. A reappraisal of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs. 1994 May; 47(5): 823–54. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199447050-00008.

16. Sidi V., Roilides E., Bibashi E., Gompakis N., Tsakiri A., Koliouskas D. Comparison of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin in children with antineoplastic therapy-associated febrile neutropenia and gram-positive bacteremia. J Chemother. 2000; 12(4): 326–31. doi: 10.1179/joc.2000.12.4.326.

17. Schaison G., Graninger W., Bouza E. Teicoplanin in the treatment of serious infection. J Chemother. 2000 Nov; 12 Suppl 5: 26–33. doi: 10.1080/1120009x.2000.11782315.

18. Kalil A.C., Murthy M.H., Hermsen E.D., Neto F.K., Sun J., Rupp M.E. Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2010 Sep; 38(9): 1802–8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181eb3b96.

19. Jiang H., Tang R.N., Wang J. Linezolid versus vancomycin or teicoplanin for nosocomial pneumonia: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013 Sep; 32(9): 1121–8. doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-1867-z.

20. Menichetti F. The role of teicoplanin in the treatment of febrile neutropenia. J Chemother. 2000 Nov; 12 Suppl 5: 34–9. doi: 10.1080/1120009x.2000.11782316.

21. Schaison G.S. Cost effectiveness of teicoplanin and ceftriaxone: a once-daily antibiotic regimen. Hosp Formul. 1993 Jan; 28 Suppl 1: 20–2.

22. Wilson A.P., Grüneberg R.N. Use of teicoplanin in community medicine. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994; 13(9): 701–10. doi: 10.1007/BF02276052.

23. Nathwani D. The management of skin and soft tissue infections: outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in the United Kingdom. Chemotherapy. 2001; 47 Suppl 1: 17–23. doi: 10.1159/000048564.

24. Stevens D.L. Teicoplanin for skin and soft tissue infections: An open study and a randomized, comparative trial versus cefazolin. J Infect Chemother. 1999 Mar; 5(1): 40–45. doi: 10.1007/s101560050006.

25. Zhang X., Wang D. The characteristics and impact indicator of vancomycin pharmacokinetics in cancer patients complicated with severe pneumonia. J Infect Chemother. 2020 May; 26(5): 492–497. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2019.12.019.