Wu W, Liu M, Geng JJ, Wang M. Teicoplanin combined with conventional vancomycin therapy for the treatment of pulmonary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(34): 10549-10556 [PMID: 35004986 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10549]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Mei Wang, MHSc, Attending Doctor, Laboratory Medicine, Bejing Tongren Hosptial, Capital Medical University, No. 2 West Ring South Road, Beijing 100176, China. wmeimeiw@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Respiratory System
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Dec 6, 2021; 9(34): 10549-10556 Published online Dec 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10549
Table 1 Average symptom relief time for patients treated with either vancomycin only or vancomycin and teicoplanin (mean ± SD)
Vancomycin only
Vancomycin + teicoplanin
P value
Patients (n)
43
43
Cough and expectoration resolution (d)
8.29 ± 2.15
6.12 ± 1.56
0.000
WBC normalization (d)
8.68 ± 2.44
6.77 ± 2.13
0.000
Body temperature normalization (d)
5.68 ± 1.18
4.07 ± 1.09
0.000
Rales resolution (d)
8.89 ± 2.02
6.64 ± 1.43
0.000
Table 2 Treatment effects for patients treated with vancomycin (only) or vancomycin and teicoplanin, n (%)
Group
Number of cases
Markedly effective
Effective
Ineffective
Total efficiency
Study group
43
26 (60.47)
14 (32.56)
3 (6.98)
40 (93.02)
Control group
43
18 (41.86)
15 (34.88)
10 (23.26)
33 (76.74)
χ2 value
4.441
P value
0.035
Table 3 Inflammation marker levels in patients treated with vancomycin (only) or vancomycin and teicoplanin
Group
Number of cases
PCT (ng/mL)
IL-1β (pg/mL)
TNF-α (pg/mL)
CRP (mg/L)
CPIS (point)
Before treatment
Study group
43
0.86 ± 0.23
223.37 ± 36.25
139.74 ± 23.65
91.39 ± 10.68
7.69 ± 2.88
Control group
43
0.91 ± 0.20
219.29 ± 35.56
142.91 ± 20.88
89.24 ± 12.29
8.01 ± 3.04
t value
1.076
0.527
0.659
0.866
0.501
P value
0.285
0.600
0.512
0.389
0.618
After treatment
Study group
43
0.28 ± 0.03
141.18 ± 18.62
41.46 ± 9.08
11.76 ± 4.43
2.19 ± 0.79
Control group
43
0.34 ± 0.05
163.53 ± 23.84
50.96 ± 10.35
18.25 ± 5.39
3.87 ± 1.01
t value
6.748
4.845
4.525
6.100
8.591
P value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 4 Adverse events experienced by patients treated with vancomycin (only) or with vancomycin and teicoplanin, n (%)
Group
Number of cases
Gastrointestinal reaction
Dizziness and headache
Vomiting and nausea
Total incidence
Study group
43
2 (4.65)
1 (2.33)
2 (4.65)
5 (11.63)
Control group
43
0 (0.00)
2 (4.65)
1 (2.33)
3 (6.98)
χ2 value
0.551
P value
0.458
Citation: Wu W, Liu M, Geng JJ, Wang M. Teicoplanin combined with conventional vancomycin therapy for the treatment of pulmonary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(34): 10549-10556