Display options
Share it on

Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2007 Jan;68(1):49-66. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2007.03.001.

A review of the current place of glycopeptides in turkish medical practice.

Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental

Hakan Erdem, Oral Oncul

Affiliations

  1. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Gulhane Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey.
  2. Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Gulhane Haydarpasa Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

PMID: 24678118 PMCID: PMC3965998 DOI: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2007.03.001

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Glycopeptide antibiotics are considered by many investigators to be the last resort in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to assess the place of glycopeptides in the treatment of common gram-positive bacteria in accordance with the current epidemiologic data in Turkey.

METHODS: A search of both the English- and Turkish-language literature indexed on MEDLINE, Ulakbim (Turkey), and Pleksus (Turkey) was performed using the terms: vancomycin, teicoplanin, and glycopeptides, or their Turkish-language counterparts. The complete texts of the articles found in these databases were obtained from the electronic library of Gulhane Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey. Articles from regional journals, without the support of an electronic format, were obtained by direct communication. Articles of interest were those based on studies occurring in Turkish populations, with special consideration given to publications in press after 2002.

RESULTS: Staphylococci were the most frequent gram-positive pathogens encountered in Turkish hospitals. Studies have found that ∼74% of strains were Staphylococcus aureus and the remaining strains were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). Overall methicillin resistance in staphylococci was reported as ∼60%. In Turkey, S aureus was one of the most common infectious agents found inside hospitals and is deemed a growing threat in the community. While the rate of methicillin resistance in community-acquired isolates is ∼4%, the data from hospitals suggest that reduced resistance comprises most of the isolates. In the studies reviewed, older quinolones like ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin seem to be ineffective in nearly half of the S aureus isolates. Alternatives like rifampicin, gentamicin, tetracycline, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), clindamycin, and erythromycin have had substantial resistance profiles in >50% of the strains. In recent Turkish studies, in vitro profiles of linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin (QD), and daptomycin have had positive results. As in the S aureus isolates, resistance trends have been observed in the CoNS group of pathogens. The possible use of β-lactams seems restricted, and alternative approaches have become necessary. Quinolones, gentamicin, tetracycline, TMP/SMX, clindamycin, and erythromycin have resistance profiles of >50%. Although glycopeptide resistance was not detected, the frequency of heterogenous vancomycin-intermediate S aureus, a precursor to future resistance, was 13% in 1 study. Current studies in Turkey have found that Enterococcus faecalis comprises three quarters of enterococci while the rest are comprised of Enterococcus faecium. Initial studies performed with linezolid, QD, and daptomycin suggest that these drugs might be effective alternatives for future enterococcal infections that may have high glycopeptide resistance. Approximately 8% of the Streptococcus pneumoniae strains had high-level resistance in Turkey. However, 10 million units of crystallized penicillin or 3 g of oral amoxicillin maintains the optimum treatment of pneumococcal infections outside the central nervous system (CNS). Resistance profiles in third-generation cephalosporins in Turkey range between 2% and 2.5%.

CONCLUSIONS: In Turkey, a review of the existing literature found that the current use of glycopeptides in pneumococcal infections is restricted to CNS infections facing therapeutic failure in due course. However, the belief that these drugs are the last resort, either in staphylococcal or enterococcal infections, is no longer valid. If a patient has a critical status due to probable gram-positive microorganisms, clinicians should consider the empiric use of glycopeptides. However, new molecules such as linezolid, QD, and daptomycin, offered for use in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial diseases, should be reserved for the future, when glycopeptides eventually become obsolete.

Keywords: Turkey; glycopeptides

References

  1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Sep;33(9):1588-91 - PubMed
  2. Am J Med. 1991 Sep 16;91(3B):72S-75S - PubMed
  3. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002 Nov;2(11):677-85 - PubMed
  4. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Sep;11(9):1491-2 - PubMed
  5. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1988;42:441-64 - PubMed
  6. N Engl J Med. 1996 Nov 7;335(19):1445-53 - PubMed
  7. Lancet. 1968 Oct 5;2(7571):741-4 - PubMed
  8. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000 Oct;13(4):513-22 - PubMed
  9. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000 Oct;13(4):686-707 - PubMed
  10. Am J Med. 2003 Jun 15;114(9):723-8 - PubMed
  11. Microbes Infect. 2002 Feb;4(2):215-24 - PubMed
  12. BMC Infect Dis. 2005 May 05;5:31 - PubMed
  13. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005 Dec;26(6):508-10 - PubMed
  14. N Engl J Med. 2003 Apr 3;348(14):1342-7 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Nov;44(11):3883-6 - PubMed
  16. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Aug 14;98(17):9865-70 - PubMed
  17. Clin Infect Dis. 1999 Nov;29(5):1171-7 - PubMed
  18. Lancet. 1977 Nov 12;2(8046):995-7 - PubMed
  19. East Afr Med J. 2005 Jul;82(7):331-6 - PubMed
  20. Science. 1993 Jan 8;259(5092):227-30 - PubMed
  21. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006 Feb;25(2):135-7 - PubMed
  22. Epidemiol Infect. 2002 Oct;129(2):421-4 - PubMed
  23. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000 Aug;21(8):520-4 - PubMed
  24. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1988 Jul;1(3):281-99 - PubMed
  25. Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Dec 1;37(11):1405-33 - PubMed
  26. Ann Intern Med. 1992 Sep 1;117(5):390-8 - PubMed
  27. Med Sci Monit. 2006 Feb;12(2):CR81-5 - PubMed
  28. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Oct 1;33(7):990-6 - PubMed
  29. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007 Mar;59(3):478-86 - PubMed
  30. Clin Ther. 2005 Jun;27(6):674-83 - PubMed
  31. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992 Aug;36(8):1766-9 - PubMed
  32. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Sep 1;33 Suppl 2:S94-106 - PubMed
  33. Trends Microbiol. 1994 Oct;2(10):343-7 - PubMed
  34. N Engl J Med. 1998 Aug 20;339(8):520-32 - PubMed
  35. Nat Prod Rep. 2002 Feb;19(1):100-7 - PubMed
  36. J Chemother. 2005 Feb;17(1):25-30 - PubMed
  37. Acta Microbiol Pol. 2003;52(2):143-8 - PubMed
  38. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005 Jun;25(6):535-8 - PubMed
  39. J Bacteriol. 1984 May;158(2):513-6 - PubMed
  40. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997 Oct;10(4):781-91 - PubMed
  41. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006 Dec;28(6):586 - PubMed
  42. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2006 Apr;15(4):417-29 - PubMed
  43. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004 Aug;10(8):718-23 - PubMed
  44. Microb Drug Resist. 2005 Spring;11(1):48-52 - PubMed
  45. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Apr;81(4):529-36 - PubMed
  46. Arch Intern Med. 2000 May 22;160(10):1399-408 - PubMed
  47. Biochem Pharmacol. 2006 Mar 30;71(7):968-80 - PubMed
  48. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 May 28;99(11):7687-92 - PubMed
  49. Am J Infect Control. 1999 Dec;27(6):520-32 - PubMed
  50. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Aug;37(8):1563-71 - PubMed
  51. J Gen Microbiol. 1988 Jun;134(6):1465-9 - PubMed
  52. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005 Sep;56(3):519-23 - PubMed
  53. Lancet. 1997 Jun 28;349(9069):1901-6 - PubMed
  54. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007 Jan;13(1):106-8 - PubMed
  55. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Aug;37(8):1630-6 - PubMed
  56. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1992 Jun 1;72(2):195-8 - PubMed
  57. N Engl J Med. 1999 Feb 18;340(7):517-23 - PubMed
  58. Int J Infect Dis. 2006 May;10(3):262-3 - PubMed
  59. Lancet. 1997 Dec 6;350(9092):1670-3 - PubMed
  60. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004 May;23(5):510-2 - PubMed
  61. Curr Med Chem. 2001 Dec;8(14):1759-73 - PubMed

Publication Types