Therapeutic efficacy of teicoplanin in experimental enterococcal endocarditis

Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis Infective Endocarditis: A Continuing Challenge

Today, Enterococcus faecalis is one of the main causes of infective endocarditis in the world, generally affecting an elderly and fragile population, with a high mortality rate. Enterococci are partially resistant to many commonly used antimicrobial agents such as penicillin and ampicillin, as well as high-level resistance to most cephalosporins and sometimes carbapenems, because of low-affinity penicillin-binding proteins, that lead to an unacceptable number of therapeutic failures with monotherapy. For many years, the synergistic combination of penicillins and aminoglycosides has been the cornerstone of treatment, but the emergence of strains with high resistance to aminoglycosides led to the search for new alternatives, like dual beta-lactam therapy. The development of multi-drug resistant strains of Enterococcus faecium is a matter of considerable concern due to its probable spread to E. faecalis and have necessitated the search of new guidelines with the combination of daptomycin, fosfomycin or tigecycline. Some of them have scarce clinical experience and others are still under investigation and will be analyzed in this review. In addition, the need for prolonged treatment (6–8 weeks) to avoid relapses has forced to the consideration of other viable options as outpatient parenteral strategies, long-acting administrations with the new lipoglycopeptides (dalbavancin or oritavancin), and sequential oral treatments, which will also be discussed.

Efficacy of teicoplanin monotherapy following initial standard therapy in Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Teicoplanin is often used in Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis as a relay in case of penicillin side effects, or in outpatients. We assessed the efficacy of teicoplanin used as continuation therapy after initial standard treatment of E. faecalis endocarditis.

METHODS

All adult patients consecutively diagnosed between 1997 and 2016 for E. faecalis endocarditis were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received standard therapy (ST) were compared to those switched to teicoplanin to complete the treatment (teicoplanin therapy, TT).

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were enrolled: 34 in the ST group and 37 in the TT group. Amoxicillin was replaced by teicoplanin after a median duration of 18 days (IQ_25 - 75 12-21). Teicoplanin (5.8 ± 2.3 mg/kg) was administered for a median duration of 29 days (IQ_25 - 75 25-34). Gentamicin therapy was similar. Overall duration of antimicrobial therapy was 42 days (IQ_25 - 75 35-43) in the ST group, and 46 days (IQ_25 - 75 43-49) in the TT group (p = 0.001). Global and endocarditis-related mortality rates were 22/34 (65%) and 13/34 (38%) in the ST group, and 14/37 (38%) and 3/37 (8%) in the TT group (p ≤ 0.05). Relapses occurred in 2/26 patients who survived the treatment phase in the ST group (8%) and in 3/37 in the TT group (8%, p = 0.68). All relapses in the TT group occurred in patients presenting prosthetic valve endocarditis. Finally, 20 patients were cured in the ST group (59%), and 33 patients in the TT group (89%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

In E. faecalis endocarditis, the switch to teicoplanin in selected patients following an initial phase of standard treatment represents an alternative, particularly for outpatient therapy. Caution should be exercised in cases of prosthetic valve endocarditis.

Teicoplanin for treating enterococcal infective endocarditis: A retrospective observational study from a referral centre in Spain

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of teicoplanin for treating enterococcal infective endocarditis (EIE). A retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of definite EIE patients treated with teicoplanin in a Spanish referral centre (2000-2017) was performed. The primary outcome was mortality during treatment. Secondary outcomes were mortality during 3-month follow-up, adverse effects and relapse. A total of 22 patients received teicoplanin, 9 (40.9%) as first-line (8 Enterococcus faecium and 1 Enterococcus faecalis) and 13 (59.1%) as salvage therapy (13 E. faecalis). Median (IQR) age was 71.5 (58.3-78) years and Charlson comorbidity index was 4.5 (3-7). Five (22.7%) affected prosthetic valves. Median duration of treatment in survivors was 53 (42.5-61) days for antibiotics and 27 (17-41.5) days for teicoplanin [median dose 10 (10-10.8) mg/kg/day]. Reasons for teicoplanin use were resistance to β-lactams (40.9%), adverse events with previous regimens (31.8%) and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) (27.3%). Teicoplanin was withdrawn due to adverse events in 2 patients (9.1%). Five patients (22.7%) died during treatment: four in the first-line (three with surgery indicated but not performed) and one in the salvage therapy group (surgery indicated but not performed). Two deaths (11.8%) occurred over the 3-month follow-up. There were no relapses during a median of 43.2 (22.1-69.1) months. Teicoplanin can be used as an alternative treatment for susceptible E. faecium IE and as a salvage therapy in selected patients with E. faecalis IE when adverse events develop with standard regimens or to allow OPAT.

Efficacy of teicoplanin, administered in two different regimens, in the treatment of experimental endocarditis due to Enterococcus faecalis

Using a rabbit model of endocarditis, we studied the efficacy of teicoplanin against a strain of Enterococcus faecalis resistant to ampicillin. Rabbits were randomly assigned to receive no antibiotics, teicoplanin 12 or 18 mg/kg of body weight every 12h, for 9 days. The effect of treatment on bacterial counts of vegetations and survival of the animals was evaluated at the end of treatment and 10 days thereafter. The two treatment regimens of teicoplanin produced peak serum levels 18.51+/-1.84 and 34.66+/-4.19 microg/ml, and trough levels above 10 x MIC of teicoplanin for the infecting organism. Both regimens resulted in significant bacterial reduction in the vegetations as compared to the control group (p<0.001). The drug prevented relapse of the infection 10 days after discontinuation of treatment. By increasing the teicoplanin dosage no additional therapeutic benefit was observed in terms of bacterial killing, sterilization of the vegetations, and survival of the animals, although the higher doses gave numerically superior results. These findings may have meaning for the optimum use of teicoplanin in the treatment of enterococcal endocarditis.

Efficacy of teicoplanin-gentamicin given once a day on the basis of pharmacokinetics in humans for treatment of enterococcal experimental endocarditis

With the aim of investigating home therapy for enterococcal endocarditis, we compared the efficacy of teicoplanin combined with gentamicin given once a day or in three daily doses (t.i.d.) with the standard treatment, ampicillin plus gentamicin administered t.i.d., for treating experimental enterococcal endocarditis. The antibiotics were administered by using "human-like pharmacokinetics" (H-L), i.e, pharmacokinetics like those in humans, that simulated the profiles of these drugs in human serum. Animals with catheter-induced endocarditis were infected intravenously with 10(8) CFU of Enterococcus faecalis EF91 (MICs and MBCs of ampicillin, gentamicin, and teicoplanin, 0.5 and 32, 16 and 32, and 0.5 and 1 microg/ml, respectively) and were treated for 3 days with ampicillin H-L at 2 g every 4 h plus gentamicin H-L at 1 mg/kg every 8 h, or teicoplanin H-L at 10 mg/kg every 24 h, alone or combined with gentamicin, administered at dose of H-L at 1 mg/kg every 8 h or H-L at 4.5 mg/kg every 24 h. The results of therapy for experimental endocarditis due to EF91 showed that teicoplanin alone was as effective as ampicillin alone in reducing the bacterial load (P > 0.05). The combination of ampicillin or teicoplanin with gentamicin was more effective than the administration of both drugs alone in reducing the log(10)CFU/gram of aortic vegetation (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively). Teicoplanin plus gentamicin H-L at 4.5 mg/kg, both administered every 24 h, showed an efficacy equal to the "gold standard," ampicillin plus gentamicin H-L at 1 mg/kg t.i.d. (P > 0.05). Increasing the interval of administration of gentamicin to a single daily dose combined with teicoplanin resulted in a reduction of bacteria in the vegetations equivalent to that achieved with the recommended regimen of ampicillin plus thrice-daily gentamicin in the treatment of experimental endocarditis due to E. faecalis. Teicoplanin plus gentamicin, both administered once a day, may be useful home therapy for selected cases of enterococcal endocarditis.

The role of glycopeptide antibiotics in the treatment of infective endocarditis

There are several sets of guidelines for the treatment of infective endocarditis, reflecting the need for differing treatment in various countries and times. This review considers the need for differing treatment modalities and in particular the utility of the glycopeptide antibiotics vancomycin and teicoplanin. Specific recommendations are offered as to when to consider the use of glycopeptides, appropriate dosage, length of treatment course and whether to use monotherapy or combined therapy. Used judiciously, the glycopeptides give results as good as can be achieved with other antimicrobial agents without exceptional toxicity. The potential of teicoplanin for use in the outpatient treatment of infective endocarditis is considered.

Infective endocarditis and glycopeptides

BACKGROUND

Despite the number of antibacterial agents currently available, endocarditis remains a difficult disease to treat and the mortality rate has not fallen in recent years. The glycopeptides have good activity against the Gram-positive bacteria commonly implicated in endocarditis (staphylococci, both coagulase-positive and negative; enterococci and streptococci).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of the glycopeptides vancomycin and teicoplanin on the therapy of infectious endocarditis caused by Gram-positive bacteria.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all major published or recently conducted studies using vancomycin or teicoplanin to treat endocarditis.

RESULTS

Cure rates obtained with vancomycin and teicoplanin are similar, but there are no controlled studies to investigate this. Vancomycin nephrotoxicity limits its use in endocarditis, in particular when used in combination with an aminoglycoside. By contrast, teicoplanin shows little nephrotoxic potential, even in patients with some degree of renal impairment or when given in combination with an aminoglycoside. Teicoplanin should be used at doses of 6 mg/kg/day or higher to achieve satisfactory cure rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical data on the use of glycopeptides in endocarditis suffer from a lack of controlled trials. Although teicoplanin appears to offer some advantages over vancomycin in the therapy of endocarditis, there is an urgent need for randomized, clinical trials before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Current perspectives on glycopeptide resistance

In the last 5 years, clinical isolates of gram-positive bacteria with intrinsic or acquired resistance to glycopeptide antibiotics have been encountered increasingly. In many of these isolates, resistance arises from an alteration of the antibiotic target site, with the terminal D-alanyl-D-alanine moiety of peptidoglycan precursors being replaced by groups that do not bind glycopeptides. Although the criteria for defining resistance have been revised frequently, the reliable detection of low-level glycopeptide resistance remains problematic and is influenced by the method chosen. Glycopeptide-resistant enterococci have emerged as a particular problem in hospitals, where in addition to sporadic cases, clusters of infections with evidence of interpatient spread have occurred. Studies using molecular typing methods have implicated colonization of patients, staff carriage, and environmental contamination in the dissemination of these bacteria. Choice of antimicrobial therapy for infections caused by glycopeptide-resistant bacteria may be complicated by resistance to other antibiotics. Severe therapeutic difficulties are being encountered among patients infected with enterococci, with some infections being untreatable with currently available antibiotics.

Enterococcus, an emerging pathogen

OBJECTIVE

To review the bacterial genus Enterococcus with respect to its epidemiology, specific infections in humans, mechanisms of resistance and tolerance, and antimicrobial treatment.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search of English-language journal articles published from 1977 to 1992 was completed. Articles published prior to 1977 were identified through Index Medicus and from references appearing in the bibliographies of other journal articles. Information also was acquired from abstracts, personal communication with infectious disease specialists with active research in the area of enterococcal infection, and conference proceedings.

STUDY SELECTION

In vitro data; animal models of enterococcal infection; case reports; and case-controlled, cohort, and randomized controlled trials in humans were evaluated for relevant information.

DATA EXTRACTION

Studies were evaluated by their methodologic strength (e.g., randomized controlled trial), reporting of clinically relevant outcomes (e.g., clinical response to antimicrobial therapy), statistical analyses, and accountability of all patients who entered the study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The incidence of enterococcal infections has increased in recent years and enterococci are now the second most frequently reported nosocomial pathogens. Enterococcus faecalis is the pathogen responsible for most enterococcal infections seen today; it has been implicated as an important cause of endocarditis, bacteremia, urinary tract infections, and intraabdominal infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Enterococcal infection is of particular concern clinically because of its resistance to several antibiotics. Controlled comparative clinical trials of antimicrobial therapy in humans are lacking for several enterococcal infections. Therefore, the recommendations for antimicrobial therapy presented in this review are guidelines that reflect our current understanding of antibiotics used for enterococcal infection.

Teicoplanin does not modify the hypoglycemic effects of phenformin or glibenclamide, nor the anticoagulant action of warfarin. Experimental study

Eventual pharmacological interactions induced by teicoplanin administration associated with oral hypoglycemic (phenformin and glibenclamide) and oral anticoagulant (warfarin) drugs have been experimentally evaluated. The administration of teicoplanin (3-15 mg/kg/die by endoperitoneal route) to the rat for 4 days did not significantly (P greater than 0.05) modify glycemia, prothrombin and partial thromboplastin times, the hypoglycemic effect of phenformin (2.5 mg/kg/die/4 days) or glibenclamide (0.5 mg/kg/die/4 days) nor the anticoagulant effect of warfarin (0.5 mg/kg/die/4 days). In conclusion, our results document that teicoplanin does not interfere with the activity of phenformin, glibenclamide or sodium warfarin.

Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in intravenous drug abusers being treated for bacterial endocarditis

The pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin were determined after multiple 30-min intravenous infusions of 10 to 15 mg/kg every 12 to 24 h in 11 intravenous drug abuse (IVDA) patients being treated for bacterial endocarditis. Multiple serum samples were obtained over 7 to 14 days. Twenty-four-hour urine collections were obtained on days 1 and 5. Serum concentration-time data were analyzed by using multiple-dose pharmacokinetic analysis (NONLIN84). Results were compared with pharmacokinetic parameters derived from previous studies in normal healthy volunteers following multiple intravenous infusions of teicoplanin (3 to 6 mg/kg/day). Total and renal clearances of teicoplanin in IVDA patients were found to be significantly greater and more highly variable than those observed previously in normal healthy volunteers. As a result, predicted steady-state trough concentrations in serum may vary up to fivefold. The mechanism responsible for this variation appears to be related to the glomerular filtration rate. In IVDA patients, individualized teicoplanin dosage may be required in the treatment of bacterial endocarditis.

Teicoplanin. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential

Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic with a molecular structure which is related to that of vancomycin. Gram-positive bacteria such as staphylococci (including methicillin-resistant strains), streptococci, enterococci and many anaerobic Gram-positive bacteria are susceptible to teicoplanin in vitro. Teicoplanin has an exceptionally long half-life, allowing once-daily intramuscular or intravenous administration. Teicoplanin is clinically and bacteriologically effective against a wide variety of Gram-positive infections such as septicaemia, endocarditis, skin and soft tissue infections and infections associated with venous catheters. The drug is equally efficacious against methicillin-resistant and -susceptible staphylococci. Adverse effects with teicoplanin are generally limited to local effects or hypersensitivity reactions. While teicoplanin has the potential for ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity, the incidence appears to be quite low when recommended serum concentrations are maintained. Teicoplanin is a valuable alternative to vancomycin, and providing controlled comparative studies prove equivalent safety and efficacy between the 2 glycopeptides the more easily administered teicoplanin should become the preferred antibacterial agent.

Efficacy of teicoplanin in two dosage regimens for experimental endocarditis caused by a beta-lactamase-producing strain of Enterococcus faecalis with high-level resistance to gentamicin

Optimal therapy for the treatment of infections caused by strains of enterococci demonstrating high-level resistance to gentamicin and other aminoglycosides has not been established. The present study examined the efficacy of teicoplanin, a glycopeptide antibiotic active against gram-positive bacterial infections in various animal models, in the treatment of experimental endocarditis due to a beta-lactamase-producing strain of Enterococcus faecalis with high-level resistance to gentamicin. Vancomycin was used as a comparative antibiotic. In the first set of experiments, both antimicrobial agents were administered by continuous intravenous infusion for 5 days at dosages which yielded comparable mean levels in serum (plus or minus the standard deviation) of 14.6 +/- 4.3 micrograms/ml for teicoplanin and 14.3 +/- 2.2 micrograms/ml for vancomycin. These regimens proved similarly effective in sterilizing cardiac vegetations (38 versus 50% of treated animals, respectively; P greater than 0.05). Mean (plus or minus the standard deviation) residual bacterial titers within vegetations were reduced to 3.2 +/- 1.2 log10 CFU/g and 3.4 +/- 1.7 log10 CFU/g, respectively. In separate experiments, the potential of teicoplanin to cure endocarditis was assessed, using two dosage regimens: (i) 30 mg/kg per day (mean level in serum, 13 micrograms/ml) for 10 days or (ii) 150 mg/kg per day (mean level in serum, 84 micrograms/ml) for 5 days. Surviving animals were sacrificed 10 days after the discontinuation of therapy. Both teicoplanin regimens were more effective than the comparative vancomycin (150 mg/kg per day) regimen: 92 versus 43% cured (P =0.025) in the standard-dose group, and 82 versus 37% cured (P = 0.015) in the high-dose group. Results in this rat model of enterococcal endocarditis show that teicoplanin may prove useful in the treatment of serious infections due to high level-gentamicin-resistant enterococci in humans.

Therapy of enterococcal infections

Because enterococci are typically tolerant of the bactericidal effects of cell wall-active antimicrobial agents, bactericidal therapy has required use of these agents in combination with aminoglycosides. For strains which do not demonstrate high-level aminoglycoside resistance, either streptomycin or gentamicin can be used in combination with penicillin, ampicillin or vancomycin. At some centers, as many as 50% of isolates display high-level gentamicin resistance. A minority of such isolates will not be highly streptomycin-resistant, and the latter drug can be used in combination with a cell wall-active drug. Optimal treatment of serious infections due to strains highly resistant to both streptomycin and gentamicin is unknown. While no agent is predictably bactericidal against such isolates, ampicillin, penicillin or vancomycin alone would be expected to cure some patients. Other drugs or drug combinations do not offer any predictable therapeutic advantages.

The epidemiology of enterococci

The enterococci are emerging as a significant cause of nosocomial infections, accounting for approximately 10% of hospital acquired infections. They are found as normal inhabitants of the human gastrointestinal tract, but may also colonize the oropharynx, vagina, perineal region and soft tissue wounds of asymptomatic patients. Until recently, evidence indicated that most enterococcal infections arose from patients' own endogenous flora. Recent studies, however, suggest that exogenous acquisition may occur and that person-to-person spread, probably on the hands of medical personnel, may be a significant mode of transmission of resistant enterococci within the hospital. The use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, especially cephalosporins, is another major factor in the increasing incidence of enterococcal infections. These findings suggest that barrier precautions, as applied with other resistant nosocomial pathogens, along with more judicial use of antibiotics may be beneficial in preventing nosocomial spread of resistant enterococci.

Teicoplanin in the treatment of gram-positive-bacterial endocarditis

Intravenous teicoplanin has been used to treat 23 cases of gram-positive-bacterial endocarditis, usually with 3 to 7 mg/kg every 12 h on the first day, followed by 3 to 7 mg/kg every 24 h. For some cases (staphylococcal and enterococcal endocarditis), the dosage was 8 to 14.4 mg/kg per day and/or other antibiotics were given. The mean duration was 48.2 days (range, 23 to 130 days). Of 23 patients, 21 (91.3%) had negative cultures or were cured. A total of 18 patients were treated with teicoplanin alone; of these, 4 had surgery, and all (except 2 who relapsed) were cured. Teicoplanin was combined with one or more antibiotics in five cases; in all cases appropriate cultures were negative, but three patients died during therapy or follow-up. Mild renal impairment was seen in two patients; both were receiving teicoplanin in combination with an aminoglycoside. We conclude that intravenous teicoplanin administered once a day at doses of 7 to 14 mg/kg per day is well tolerated, easy to administer, and may represent an efficacious therapy for gram-positive-bacterial endocarditis.

Evaluation of teicoplanin for treatment of endocarditis caused by gram-positive cocci in 20 patients

Teicoplanin, a new glycopeptide antibiotic similar to vancomycin, was evaluated for the treatment of bacterial endocarditis in an open multicenter study from May 1985 to August 1987. A total of 20 patients with positive blood culture endocarditis received teicoplanin once daily as a mean intravenous injection of 7.3 mg/kg of body weight (range, 4.8 to 10.6 mg/kg); in 17 patients, teicoplanin was combined with another antibiotic, usually an aminoglycoside. The mean duration of therapy was 28 days (range, 7 to 66 days). The diagnosis of endocarditis was confirmed by echocardiography or anatomical findings in 15 patients and established on the basis of clinical manifestations plus positive blood cultures in 5 patients. The tricuspid valve was involved in 11 of the 20 patients. Isolates from blood were 12 Staphylococcus aureus, 1 Staphylococcus hominis, 1 Micrococcus sedentarius, 1 Enterococcus faecalis, 3 Streptococcus bovis, and 2 nongroupable Streptococcus sp. At the end of therapy, bacterial eradication was achieved in 17 of 20 patients (85%), and a favorable clinical outcome had occurred in 14 of 17 evaluable patients (82%). Of these 14 patients, one relapsed 4 months after the end of treatment. Thus, teicoplanin was effective in 13 of 17 patients (76%). Mean peak levels of teicoplanin in serum were lower, 23.1 +/- 2.9 micrograms/ml, in patients who failed than in those who were cured (45.8 +/- 8.4 micrograms/ml). Side effects occurred in 7 of 20 patients (35%), and required premature discontinuation of teicoplanin in 3 patients. These side effects were fever in three patients, rash in three patients, hearing loss in two patients, and increased serum transaminase levels in two patients. This study demonstrates the efficacy of teicoplanin in the treatment of endocarditis and the need for achieving peak levels in serum close to 40 micrograms/ml. Teicoplanin should now be further evaluated in endocarditis caused by gram-positive cocci means of controlled comparative study with standard therapy.

Poor efficacy of teicoplanin in treatment of deep-seated staphylococcal infections

Teicoplanin in a 400 mg intravenous loading dose followed by 200 mg/day intravenously or intramuscularly was given to 19 patients with deep-seated staphylococcal infections. Only eight patients (44.4%) were considered cured, failure mostly being observed in patients with osteomyelitis, endocarditis and bacteremia. Poor tissue kinetics of teicoplanin and the presence of foreign bodies are probable explanations for the reported failures. Future trials using a higher dose of teicoplanin with or without the addition of rifampicin or gentamicin seem to be justified.

Pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin in critically ill patients with various degrees of renal impairment

The pharmacokinetics of teicoplanin were studied in 15 adult patients in the acute phase of severe infections caused by gram-positive cocci. All the subjects were given a daily intravenous bolus dose of 6 mg of teicoplanin kg-1 (body weight). The pharmacokinetic study was performed over a 48-h period after injection 4. The subjects were categorized according to their mean creatinine clearances (ml.min-1.kg-1) during the study period: group 1 (n = 3), greater than 1.6; group 2 (n = 6), 0.8 to 1.6; and group 3 (n = 6), 0.15 to 0.8. Mean concentrations of teicoplanin in serum at 1, 24, and 48 h were 33 +/- 8, 9 +/- 3, and 6 +/- 2.5 micrograms.ml-1, respectively. The mean half-lives of the concentration-time curve from 12 to 48 h were 28 +/- 4, 44 +/- 24, and 48 +/- 14 h in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (group 3 versus group 1: P less than 0.05). The mean area under the serum concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h was 344 +/- 92 mg.h.liter-1, and the mean hybrid volume of distribution was 1.09 +/- 0.46 liter.kg-1. These values were similar for the three groups, with a trend for larger areas under the curve in group 3. Creatinine clearance correlated directly with the total body clearance of teicoplanin (r = 0.70) and with the renal clearance of teicoplanin (r = 0.82). However, in critically ill patients, the wide interindividual variations in pharmacokinetic parameters are more relevant than those related to the variations in renal function when creatinine clearance is above 0.30 ml.min-1.kg-1. We concluded that, in such conditions, monitoring of concentrations of teicoplanin in serum is mandatory.

The use of a new glycopeptide antibiotic, teicoplanin, in the treatment of bacterial endocarditis

Teicoplanin, a new glycopeptide antibiotic, has been used to treat twelve patients with bacterial endocarditis due to Gram-positive organisms. Teicoplanin has activity against Gram-positive bacteria similar to vancomycin but therapeutic levels are maintained by a single daily dose, given as an intravenous bolus. Of six patients with native valve infections, two cases, due to viridans streptococci, were successfully treated with teicoplanin alone and two others, caused by Streptococcus faecalis, were cured by combinations including teicoplanin. One of these patients sustained high tone hearing loss during treatment. The remaining two patients were drug addicts with endocarditis due to Staphylococcus aureus which recurred despite repeated multiple therapy. Of six prosthetic valve infections, antibiotic combinations including teicoplanin cured three cases, caused by streptococci. Infection persisted or treatment was curtailed in three cases of Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis. In this small open study, teicoplanin appeared as effective as vancomycin in the treatment of endocarditis but had the considerable advantage of ease of administration.