Red-man syndrome after vancomycin: potential cross-reactivity with teicoplanin

Adverse reactions to vancomycin and cross-reactivity with other antibiotics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Glycopeptide antibiotics such as vancomycin are frequently utilized to treat resistant Gram-positive infections such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The current literature on glycopeptide and lipoglycopeptide structure, hypersensitivity and potential cross-reactivity was reviewed, highlighting implications for safe prescribing.

RECENT FINDINGS

Structurally similar, glycopeptides could theoretically cross-react. Immediate reactions to vancomycin include non-IgE-mediated reactions (e.g. red man syndrome) and IgE-mediated hypersensitivity (e.g. anaphylaxis), sharing clinical features. Vancomycin can activate mast cells via MAS-related G-protein-coupled receptor X2, an IgE-independent receptor implicated in non-IgE reactions. In-vivo and in-vitro testing for suspected IgE-mediated reactions to glycopeptides remain ill-defined. Vancomycin is increasingly recognized to cause severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR), with drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) predominantly reported. Vancomycin DRESS has been associated with HLA-A32:-01, with a number needed to prevent of 1 in 74. Data demonstrating cross-reactivity amongst glycopeptides and lipoglycopeptides is limited to case reports/series.

SUMMARY

Further studies and in-vivo/in-vitro diagnostics are required for better differentiation between IgE and non-IgE glycopeptide reactions. Despite its association with vanomycin DRESS, utility of pharmacogenomic screening for HLA-A32: 01 is ill-defined. Although HLA-A32:01 has been associated with vancomycin DRESS, its utility for pharmacogenomic screening is ill defined. Further clinical and immunological cross-reactivity data for glycopeptide/lipoglycopeptide antibiotics is required.

Incidence of teicoplanin adverse drug reactions among patients with vancomycin-associated adverse drug reactions and its risk factors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Teicoplanin can be used as an alternative to vancomycin when treating beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive bacterial infections. Both vancomycin and teicoplanin are associated with relatively high rates of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including hypersensitivity reactions. There is limited data on teicoplanin-vancomycin cross-reactivity. This study examined the incidence of teicoplanin ADRs and risk factors for cross-reactivity between vancomycin and teicoplanin.

METHODS

We analyzed the incidence of teicoplanin ADRs in a retrospective study of 304 newly teicoplanin-exposed, immunocompetent, hospitalized patients at a single Korean Medical Center between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015.

RESULTS

Among 304 patients, 238 (78.3%) experienced vancomycin-associated ADRs prior to their teicoplanin exposure and 58 (19.1%) experienced teicoplanin- associated ADRs, which were mostly hypersensitivity reactions without acute kidney injury. The incidence of teicoplanin ADRs was higher in patients who previously experienced vancomycin-related ADRs (23.1% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001). History of drug allergy was a statistically significant risk factor of teicoplanin ADRs. The incidence of teicoplanin ADRs significantly increased in patients with multiple organ involvement in vancomycin hypersensitivity reactions.

CONCLUSION

Teicoplanin should be administered with caution and clinicians must consider the risk factors of cross-reaction when prescribing teicoplanin to individuals with a history of vancomycin hypersensitivity.

A practical management of children with antibiotic allergy

About 10% of the parents reported that their children are allergic to one drug and the betalactam antibiotics are the most frequently suspected. Even if most of the adverse events following antibiotic prescriptions to children are considered allergic, after a full allergy work-up only a few of the suspected reactions are confirmed. For this reason, many children are incorrectly labelled as "allergic" and this represents an important challenge for the choice of the antibiotic therapy in these "labelled" children, who are frequently improperly deprived of narrow-spectrum antibiotics because considered as allergic. When an allergic reaction is suspected a precise diagnosis and a choice of a safe and effective alternative is essential for the future antibiotic option. In the light of this, the main aim of this paper is to try to provide a practical approach to managing the individuals who have reported adverse reactions to antibiotics.

SIAIP position paper: provocation challenge to antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in children

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) in childhood are mainly caused by betalactam or non-betalactam antibiotics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Laboratory tests for identifying children who are allergic to drugs have low diagnostic accuracy and predictive value. The gold standard to diagnose DHR is represented by the drug provocation test (DPT), that aims of ascertaining the causative role of an allergen and evaluating the tolerance to the suspected drug. Different protocols through the administration of divided increasing doses have been postulated according to the type of drug and the onset of the reaction (immediate or non immediate reactions). DPT protocols differ in doses and time interval between doses. In this position paper, the Italian Pediatric Society for Allergy and Immunology provides a practical guide for provocation test to antibiotics and NSAIDs in children and adolescents.

Glycopeptide-Induced Neutropenia: Cross-Reactivity Between Vancomycin and Teicoplanin

Objective:

To report teicoplanin-related neutropenia that developed after an episode of neutropenia induced by vancomycin therapy.

Case Summary:

A 57-year-old female suffered from osteomyelitis of the left humerus, with a white blood cell (WBC) count of 2.8 × 103/mm3 and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 0.28 × 103/mm3, occurring after 24 days of vancomycin therapy. Vancomycin was changed to teicoplanin and the agranulocytosis resolved 4 days later. However, a new episode of neutropenia, with a WBC count of 2.8 × 103/mm3 and ANC of 0.448 × 103/mm3, occurred 11 days after teicoplanin initiation. Agranulocytosis resolved 4 days following withdrawal of teicoplanin.

Discussion:

Because of the close time relationship between drug administration and the development of symptoms and signs, as well as between drug withdrawal and changes in WBC count and ANC, the episodes of neutropenia were suspected to be drug related. Teicoplanin-induced agranulocytosis that followed vancomycin-induced agranulocytosis suggests a possible cross-reactivity between the 2 drugs. Both reactions were categorized as probable according to the Naranjo probability scale.

Conclusions:

For all patients with vancomycin-induced neutropenia, possible cross-reactivity of teicoplanin should be monitored.

Persistent fever in a young woman

Drug fever is overlooked. We aim to remind clinicians to consider drug fever as a differential after eliminating other causes.

Hypersensitivity reactions to non beta-lactam antimicrobial agents, a statement of the WAO special committee on drug allergy

Antibiotics are used extensively in the treatment of various infections. Consequently, they can be considered among the most important agents involved in adverse reactions to drugs, including both allergic and non-allergic drug hypersensitivity [J Allergy Clin Immunol 113:832–836, 2004]. Most studies published to date deal mainly with reactions to the beta-lactam group, and information on hypersensitivity to each of the other antimicrobial agents is scarce. The present document has been produced by the Special Committee on Drug Allergy of the World Allergy Organization to present the most relevant information on the incidence, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, possible mechanisms, and management of hypersensitivity reactions to non beta-lactam antimicrobials for use by practitioners worldwide.

[Glycopeptide-induced cutaneous adverse reaction: results of an immunoallergic investigation in eight patients]

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin (V) and teicoplanin (T) are glycopeptides used in severe infections and can induce different kinds of cutaneous adverse reactions (CAR).

AIMS

To determine the value of immunoallergic investigations in CAR in which glycopeptides are suspected.

METHODS

Retrospective study (2000-2007) in eight patients with CAR suspected of being caused by glycopeptides. Six weeks after abatement of the reaction, in accordance with ESCD's guideline for drug testing, immunoallergic skin tests investigations were carried out (drug patch-tests, prick-tests and intradermal tests) in succession for all the drugs taken during the CAR. If negative, a glycopeptide challenge was proposed.

RESULTS

The study included eight patients (five women, three men; mean age=53); three patients presented a reaction to vancomycin, four reacted to teicoplanin and one reacted to both drugs. CARs consisted of six maculopapular rashes, one case of DRESS and one of urticaria. Skin tests confirmed involvement of glycopeptides in four of eight cases with cross-reactivity between V and T in two patients. Four patients exhibited good tolerance to rechallenge tests with glycopeptides.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that skin tests may be useful in glycopeptide-induced CAR in determining the responsible drug and also in the event of rechallenge. Allergic cross-reactivity (V and T), observed in two of our patients, although already been reported in the literature, but does not occur systematically.

Tolerability of teicoplanin in 117 hospitalized adults with previous vancomycin-induced fever, rash, or neutropenia: a retrospective chart review

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin has reliable antibacterial activity against many gram-positive pathogens but is associated with many adverse events. Teicoplanin, another glycopeptide, is associated with fewer adverse events, but its use in patients with previous vancomycin-induced adverse reactions remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this work were to evaluate the clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with vancomycin-induced fever (ie, drug fever), rash, or neutropenia and to examine the tolerability of teicoplanin in these patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of the medical charts of patients aged >or=18 years who were hospitalized between January 2002 and October 2007 at National Cheng Kung University Hospital in Tainan, Taiwan. Patients were included if they experienced drug-induced fever (ie, "drug fever"), rash, or neutropenia during vancomycin treatment. Their antimicrobial therapy was subsequently switched to teicoplanin. Clinical information and the development of drug fever, rash, or neutropenia with teicoplanin were determined from the charts.

RESULTS

Antibiotic therapy was switched to teicoplanin in 117 patients with vancomycin-induced fever alone (n = 24), rash alone (n = 77), both drug fever and rash (n = 8), or neutropenia (n = 8). The mean (SD) age of these patients was 53.1 (22.8) years, and 65 (56%) were male. The major clinical indications for vancomycin therapy among these patients were wound infections (21%), respiratory tract infections (14%), and bacteremia (13%). The dosages for vancomycin ranged from 1 g every 5 days to 1 g BID, and for teicoplanin ranged from 400 mg daily to 400 mg q72h, adjusted by the degree of renal dysfunction. Overall, 12 patients with vancomycin-induced fever (n = 2), rash (n = 6), or neutropenia (n = 4) subsequently developed teicoplanin-induced fever (n = 3), rash (n = 3), or neutropenia (n = 6). Specifically, of 8 patients with vancomycin-induced neutropenia, 4 (50%) subsequently developed neutropenia after switching to teicoplanin. Vancomycin- and teicoplanin-induced neutropenia was often noted after 1 week of treatment. Among patients with vancomycin-induced fever, rash, or neutropenia, there were no differences between patients with or without teicoplanin-induced fever, rash, or neutropenia in terms of age, sex, weight, dosage or duration of vancomycin therapy, dosage of teicoplanin, or underlying disease. There was no difference in mortality rates between patients with or without teicoplanin-induced fever, rash, or neutropenia. The cause of all deaths was progression of infectious or underlying disease, unrelated to vancomycin or teicoplanin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this retrospective chart review of hospitalized patients with vancomycin-induced fever, rash, or neutropenia, only 10% experienced subsequent teicoplanin-induced fever, rash, or neutropenia. However, it should be noted that half of the patients with vancomycin-induced neutropenia developed teicoplanin-induced neutropenia.

Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia: diagnostic approach

Correct management of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia requires a multidisciplinary approach with prompt recognition and treatment of the acute event by the attending anaesthesiologist, and subsequent determination of the responsible agent(s) with strict avoidance of subsequent administration of all incriminated and/or cross-reacting compounds. However, correct identification of the causative compound(s) and safe alternatives is not always straightforward and, too often, not done. This review is not intended to discuss acute management of anaesthesia-related anaphylaxis but summarizes the major causes of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia and the diagnostic approach of this rare but potentially life-threatening complication. Apart from general principles about the diagnostic approach, history taking and importance of tryptase quantification, more specific confirmatory diagnostic procedures are organized on the basis of the major causes of perioperative anaphylactic reactions.

[Cutaneous drug reactions induced by glycopeptides]

Glycopeptides are a class of antibiotics used with a rising frequency because of the increasing number of infections due to Methicillin-resistant staphylococci. The dermatological adverse effect of vancomycin are well-known: "red man syndrome", maculopapular exanthema, etc., with some distinctive features such as Ig A linear dermatosis. Drug eruptions are less common but not insignificant when using teicoplanin, a more recent molecule. A given glycopeptide cannot be considered as an alternative for every patient "allergic" to another, because of cases of cross-reaction and the morbi-mortality of some cutaneous drug reactions. This emphasizes the importance to recognize early clinical signs. In this article, we review the various dermatological adverse drug reactions induced by glycopeptides, and suggest a possible management to clinicians who could be confronted with this problem.

A case of hypersensitivity syndrome to both vancomycin and teicoplanin

Drug hypersensitivity syndrome to both vancomycin and teicoplanin has not been previously reported. We describe here a 50-yr-old male patient with vertebral osteomyelitis and epidural abscess who developed hypersensitivity syndrome to both vancomycin and teicoplanin. Skin rash, fever, eosinophilia, interstitial pneumonitis, and interstitial nephritis developed following the administration of each drug, and resolved after withdrawing the drugs and treating with high dose corticosteroids. The vertebral osteomyelitis was successfully treated with 6-week course of linezolid without further complications. Skin patch tests for vancomycin and teicoplanin was done 2 months after the recovery; a weak positive result for vancomycin (10% aq.,+at D2 and +at D4 with erythema and vesicles; ICDRG scale), and a doubtful result for teicoplanin (4% aq.-at D2 and+/-at D4 with macular erythema; ICDRG scale). We present this case to alert clinicians to the hypersensitivity syndrome that can result from vancomycin and teicoplanin, with possible cross-reactivity, which could potentially be life-threatening.

Teicoplanin-induced vasculitis with cutaneous and renal involvement

We present a case of cutaneous vasculitis with renal impairment. This developed whilst receiving teicoplanin for Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis of the hip.

Direct medical costs associated with using vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: an economic model

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the direct medical costs associated with using vancomycin, as inpatient treatment, in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, in four clinical indications: complicated skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), bacteremia, infective endocarditis (IE), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the cost of administering intravenous vancomycin. Cost inputs included hospitalization, drug procurement, materials, preparation and administration, renal function and drug monitoring, treating adverse events, and treatment failure. Probabilities and lengths of stay and treatment were obtained from the literature, an antimicrobial therapy database and clinical expert opinion. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the robustness of the baseline scenario.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The cost of using vancomycin in the four indications, including and excluding hospital cost.

RESULTS

Whereas the drug acquisition price of vancomycin 1g is US dollars 9.01 per dose, when all costs associated with using vancomycin were included, the cost per dose rose to US dollars 29-US dollars 43 per patient. Total costs per patient receiving multiple doses in a single course of treatment, excluding hospital room costs, were for SSTI, bacteremia, IE, and HAP,US dollars 779, US dollars 749, US dollars 2261, and US dollars 768, respectively. Total costs, including hospital length of stay, were for SSTI US dollars 23616, bacteremia US dollars 26446, IE US dollars 48925, and HAP US dollars 22493. In univariate analyses varying per diem hospital costs and length of stay had the greatest impact. Results of the multivariate analysis were comparable to the costs in the baseline scenario for all indications.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis highlights the importance of capturing all costs associated with using a drug and not simply focusing on drug acquisition cost. Future economic analyses should identify and account for the key cost burdens of a particular treatment to calculate its true cost.