Advertisement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow A correction has been published
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rybak, M.
Right arrow Articles by Levine, D. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rybak, M.
Right arrow Articles by Levine, D. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Vol. 66, Issue 1, 82-98
Copyright © 2009. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved. 1079-2082/04/0602-1242$06.00

ASHP Report

Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: A consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists

 Michael Rybak, Ben Lomaestro, John C. Rotschafer, Robert Moellering, Jr., William Craig, Marianne Billeter, Joseph R. Dalovisio and Donald P. Levine

MICHAEL RYBAK, PHARM.D., is Professor of Pharmacy and Medicine, and Director, Anti-Infective Research Laboratory, Eugene Applebaum College of Pharmacy and Health Science, Wayne State University (WSU), Detroit, MI. BEN LOMAESTRO, PHARM.D., is Senior Clinical Pharmacy Specialist in Infectious Diseases, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY. JOHN C. ROTSCHAFER, PHARM.D., is Professor, Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. ROBERT MOELLERING JR, M.D., is Shields Warren-Mallinckrodt Professor of Medical Research, Harvard Medical School, and Physician, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. WILLIAM CRAIG, M.D., is Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison. MARIANNE BILLETER, PHARM.D., BCPS, is Manager of Clinical Pharmacy Services at Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, LA. JOSEPH R. DALOVISIO, M.D., Chairman, Department of Infectious Diseases, Ochsner Health System, New Orleans. DONALD P. LEVINE, M.D., is Professor of Medicine and Chief, Division of General Internal Medicine, WSU.

Address correspondence to Ms. Cindy Reilly at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 7272 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 (creilly{at}ashp.org).

Index terms: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; Antibiotics; Bacterial infections; Blood levels; Infectious Diseases Society of America; Organizations; Pharmacokinetics; Protocols; Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists; Toxicity; Vancomycin

 
Vancomycin is a glycopeptide antibiotic that has been in clinical use for nearly 50 years as a penicillin alternative to treat penicillinase-producing strains of Staphylococcus aureus. It is one of the most widely used antibiotics in the United States for the treatment of serious gram-positive infections involving methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA).1 Early use of vancomycin was associated with a number of adverse effects, including infusion-related toxicities, nephrotoxicity, and possible ototoxicity. Upon further investigation, it appears that the impurities in early formulations of vancomycin caused many of these adverse events.1–4 Its overall use was curtailed significantly with the development of semisynthetic penicillins (e.g., methicillin, oxacillin, nafcillin) that were considered less toxic.1–4 However, the steady rise in the number of MRSA infections since the early 1980s has once again brought vancomycin into the forefront as the primary treatment for infections caused by this organism.

Over the years, vancomycin has been one of the most studied antibiotics. Extensive pharmacokinetic studies in a variety of patient populations and the availability of commercial drug assays have allowed clinicians to target serum vancomycin concentrations precisely in a relatively narrow range. This approach has been advocated to lessen the potential for nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity and to achieve therapeutic concentrations. However, it should be noted that the practice of routine monitoring and adjusting of serum vancomycin drug concentrations has been the subject of intense debate for many years.5–9 The controversy has resulted from conflicting evidence regarding the use of serum vancomycin concentrations to predict and prevent drug-induced toxicity and as a measure of effectiveness in treating infections. Further, data derived from more recent studies appear to suggest that vancomycin has little potential for nephrotoxicity or ototoxicity when used at conventional dosages (e.g., 1 g every 12 hours [15 mg/kg every 12 hours]), unless it is used concomitantly with known nephrotoxic drugs or at very high dosages.10–12 This consensus review evaluates the scientific data and controversies associated with serum vancomycin monitoring and provides recommendations based on the available evidence.

This is a consensus statement of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP). Consensus committee members were assigned key topics regarding vancomycin that contribute to current knowledge about patient monitoring. A draft document addressing these areas that included specific recommendations was reviewed by all committee members. After peer review by members of ASHP, IDSA, and SIDP, the committee met to review the submitted comments and recommendations. After careful discussion and consideration of these suggestions, the document was revised and circulated among the committee and supporting organizations for final comment. This consensus review represents the opinion of the majority of committee members.

A search of PubMed was conducted using the following search terms: vancomycin pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, resistance, and toxicity. All relevant and available peer-reviewed studies in the English language published between 1958 and 2008 were considered. Studies were rated by their quality of evidence, and the subsequent recommendations were graded using the classification schemata of the Canadian Medical Association (Table 1Go).13 Recommendations of the expert panel are presented in Table 2Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Definitions of Levels and Grades for Recommendations13

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Summary of Expert Panel Recommendations for Vancomycin Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM)a
Potential limitations of this review include the facts that few prospective or randomized trials of vancomycin monitoring were available and that most of the published literature regarding vancomycin monitoring described observational studies in patients with S. aureus infection. Vancomycin monitoring in pediatric patients is beyond the scope of this review.


arrow
Overview of vancomycin pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties
 
Sophisticated pharmacokinetic techniques such as Bayesian and noncompartmental modeling have been used to derive pharmacokinetic parameters for vancomycin. The serum vancomycin concentration–time profile is complex and has been characterized as one-, two-, and three-compartment pharmacokinetic models. In patients with normal renal function, the {alpha}-distribution phase ranges from 30 minutes to 1 hour, and the β-elimination half-life ranges from 6 to 12 hours. The volume of distribution is 0.4–1 L/kg.14–18

While reports of the degree of vancomycin protein binding have varied, a level of 50–55% is most often stated.19,20 Penetration of vancomycin into tissues is variable and can be affected by inflammation and disease state. For example, with un-inflamed meninges, cerebral spinal fluid vancomycin concentrations ranging from 0 to approximately 4 mg/L have been reported, whereas concentrations of 6.4–11.1 mg/L have been reported in the presence of inflammation.21 Penetration into skin tissue is significantly lower for patients with diabetes (median, 0.1 mg/L; range, 0.01–0.45 mg/L) compared with nondiabetic patients based on the median ratio of tissue vancomycin to plasma vancomycin concentrations (median, 0.3 mg/L; range, 0.46–0.94 mg/L).21 Vancomycin concentrations in lung tissue ranging from 5% to 41% of serum vancomycin concentrations have been reported in studies of healthy volunteers and patients.5,6,22,23 Epithelial lining fluid (ELF) penetration in critically injured patients is highly variable, with an overall blood:ELF penetration ratio of 6:1.23,24


arrow
Selection of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic monitoring parameters
 
A variety of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic monitoring parameters have been proposed for vancomycin, including time (t) the concentration of vancomycin remains above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), the ratio of the area under the serum drug concentration-versus-time curve and the MIC, and the ratio of the maximum serum drug concentration (Cmax) and the MIC. These parameters are abbreviated t >MIC, AUC/MIC, and Cmax/MIC, respectively. Reviews of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics have recommended the AUC/MIC as the preferred parameter based in part on data from animal models, in vitro studies, and limited human studies.6,25–28 Studies by Ackerman et al.,29 Löwdin et al.,30 and Larsson et al.31 demonstrated that vancomycin kills S. aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis in a concentration-independent fashion. By simulating free vancomycin peak concentrations of 40, 20, 10, and 5 mg/L in an in vitro chemostat model with a normal vancomycin terminal half-life of six hours, Larsson et al.31 found no difference in the corresponding bacterial kill curves for S. aureus.

Using neutropenic mouse models, investigators have concluded that the AUC/MIC is the pharmacodynamically linked parameter for measuring vancomycin’s effectiveness in treating S. aureus, including methicillin- susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), MRSA, and vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) strains.6,25 (Note: The total AUC/MIC and the free vancomycin AUC/MIC [AUC x 50% protein binding/MIC] have been interchangeably reported for vancomycin. Unless designated fAUC/MIC, this consensus review refers to total AUC/MIC.)

Craig and Andes32 recently evaluated the use of free vancomycin AUC0–24hr/MIC (f AUC/MIC) as the primary parameter for predicting vancomycin activity against VISA, heteroresistant VISA (hVISA), and MSSA in the murine neutropenic mouse model. They found that the fAUC/MIC requirement varied depending on the vancomycin MIC and was a function of bacterial density at the site of infection, with a lower fAUC/MIC needed for a lower bacterial inoculum. Of interest, the dose required for a 2 log colony-forming unit/g kill was 2.5 times higher for hVISA strains than for VISA and vancomycin-susceptible S. aureus strains. The researchers concluded that vancomycin dosages of 500 mg every 6 hours or 1 g every 12 hours provide fAUC/MIC values of 100–250 and suggested that values around 500 may enhance the therapeutic effectiveness of vancomycin in humans.

Moise-Broder et al.33 explored the use of AUC/MIC in predicting clinical and microbiological success in treating ventilator-associated S. aureus pneumonia. These investigators suggested an average AUC/MIC of 345 for a successful clinical outcome and a ratio of 850 for a successful microbiological outcome. For pathogens with an MIC of 1 mg/L, an AUC/MIC of approximately 250 can be achieved in most patients with 1 g every 12 hours based on a patient with an actual body weight (ABW) of 80 kg and normal renal function (i.e., creatinine clearance [CLcr] = 100 mL/min), but obtaining a target AUC/MIC of 850 would require much higher dosages for most patients.

Summary: Based on these study results, an AUC/MIC ratio of ≥ 400 has been advocated as a target to achieve clinical effectiveness with vancomycin. Animal studies and limited human data appear to demonstrate that vancomycin is not concentration dependent and that the AUC/MIC is a predictive pharmacokinetic parameter for vancomycin.


arrow
Impact of dosing strategies on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters
 
The initial clinical dosing strategies for vancomycin were developed in the late 1950s before the emergence of antibiotic pharmacodynamics.34 Published data on the pharmacodynamics of vancomycin against specific bacterial pathogens or infections are very limited, with much of the available data generated from in vitro or animal models. This is partly due to the drug’s generic status, which discourages manufacturers from conducting well-controlled scientific investigations that would provide additional and clarifying pharmacodynamic data. It is recommended that dosages be calculated based on ABW. There are limited data on dosing in obese patients; however, initial dosages should be based on ABW and adjusted based on serum vancomycin concentrations to achieve therapeutic levels.17

Vancomycin is ideally suited from a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic perspective for intermittent administration based on the usual susceptibility of staphylococci and streptococci (MIC values of ≤1 mg/L), the most commonly used dosage regimen for vancomycin (1 g every 12 hours), and the concentration-independent nature of the drug. As a result, the likelihood of maintaining free or unbound serum vancomycin concentrations in excess of the bacterial MIC for the entire dosing interval is usually 100% with standard intermittent i.v. infusions for typical staphylococci and streptococci.

Despite the absence of clinical data supporting t>MIC as a predictive parameter for clinical effectiveness, continuous-infusion strategies have been suggested as a possible means to optimize the serum vancomycin concentration and improve effectiveness. Using a randomized crossover study design in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, James et al.35 found no significant difference between intermittent and continuous administrations when measuring killing activity in vitro, although the ability to maintain serum bactericidal titers above 1:8 was better with a continuous infusion. In a similarly designed study in healthy subjects, Lacy et al.36 found virtually no difference in activity as measured by bactericidal titers between continuous and intermittent infusions. Further, in a randomized study, Wysocki et al.37,38 evaluated 160 patients with severe staphylococcal infections. No difference in patient outcome was observed between those receiving intermittent or continuous infusion vancomycin. Vancomycin differs from β-lactam antibiotics, which typically have short half-lives and often require shorter dosage intervals or continuous infusion to optimize therapy. Therefore, based on the available evidence, there does not appear to be any difference in patient outcomes between vancomycin administered by continuous infusion or by intermittent administration.

Summary and recommendations:Vancomycin dosages should be calculated on ABW. For obese patients, initial dosing can be based on ABW and then adjusted based on serum vancomycin concentrations to achieve therapeutic levels. Continuous infusion regimens are unlikely to substantially improve patient outcome when compared with intermittent dosing. (Level of evidence = II, grade of recommendation = A.)


arrow
Therapeutic vancomycin drug monitoring
 
Peak versus trough concentrations   Over the years, serum vancomycin concentration monitoring practices have varied. Early suggestions, such as those of Geraci,39 who recommended peak serum vancomycin concentrations of 30–40 mg/L and trough concentrations of 5–10 mg/L, likely did not appreciate the multiexponential decline in the serum vancomycin concentration-versus-time curve.

How Geraci defined peak concentration is unclear. In addition, the pharmacodynamic properties of vancomycin had not been evaluated at the time these recommendations were made. Because the AUC/MIC has been found to correlate with efficacy in experiments conducted with in vitro or animal models, this evidence has led some clinicians to question the relevance of monitoring peak serum vancomycin concentrations.6 Consequently, some clinicians have decreased the extent of pharmacokinetic monitoring for this antibiotic.40 However, because it can be difficult in the clinical setting to obtain multiple serum vancomycin concentrations to determine the AUC and subsequently calculate the AUC/MIC, trough serum concentration monitoring, which can be used as a surrogate marker for AUC, is recommended as the most accurate and practical method to monitor vancomycin.

Summary and recommendation: Trough serum vancomycin concentrations are the most accurate and practical method for monitoring vancomycin effectiveness. Trough concentrations should be obtained just before the next dose at steady-state conditions. (Level of evidence = II, grade of recommendation = B.) (Note: Steady-state achievement is variable but occurs approximately after the fourth dose.)

Optimal trough concentrations   While Geraci’s39 recommendation for trough concentration was not based on prospective clinical trial data, the benchmark total drug concentration of 5–10 mg/L is likely to fall short of achieving the desired overall vancomycin exposure in many types of infection and isolates with higher (but susceptible) MICs. Therefore, targeting higher trough serum vancomycin concentrations should increase the likelihood of achieving more effective overall antibiotic exposures (i.e., AUC/MIC) and assist in addressing the trend of higher vancomycin MIC values in these organisms.

In recently published guidelines for hospital-acquired, ventilator- associated, and healthcare- associated pneumonia, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) suggested an initial vancomycin dosage of 15 mg/kg every 12 hours in adults with normal renal function.41 ATS acknowledged that vancomycin was a concentration-independent (time-dependent) killer of gram-positive pathogens but had lower penetration into the ELF and respiratory secretions. ATS further recommended that trough serum vancomycin concentrations be maintained at 15–20 mg/L. However, based on pharmacokinetic dosing principles for patients with a normal body weight and normal renal function, it is unlikely that vancomycin 15 mg/kg every 12 hours will produce trough concentrations of 15–20 mg/L. Furthermore, there are no data indicating that achieving these trough concentrations over time is well tolerated and safe.

In an attempt to evaluate the use of targeted trough concentrations of 15–20 mg/L, Jeffres et al.42 retrospectively evaluated 102 patients with healthcare-associated MRSA pneumonia. Overall mortality was 31% (32 patients). There were no significant differences in mean ± S.D. calculated trough serum vancomycin concentrations (13.6 ± 5.9 mg/L versus 13.9 ± 6.7 mg/L) or mean ± S.D. calculated AUC (351 ± 143 mg • hr/L versus 354 ± 109 mg • hr/L) between survivors and nonsurvivors. In addition, no relationship was found between trough serum vancomycin concentrations or AUC and hospital mortality. Although no significant differences were found between survivors and nonsurvivors in terms of trough serum vancomycin concentrations and AUCs, several factors should be noted. For instance, a sample size calculation was not predetermined; therefore, the potential for a Type II error is possible. There was also large variability in both vancomycin trough concentrations (range, 4.2–29.8 mg/L) and AUCs (range, 119–897 mg • hr/L), which may account for the lack of significant findings. Time to achieve targeted serum vancomycin concentrations was not measured and may be a critical factor in determining patient outcome. In addition, because a disk-diffusion method was used for susceptibility testing, organism MIC could not be determined. Therefore, only the AUC, not the AUC/MIC, was evaluated as a potential predictor of success or failure. Although the results of this study are of interest, additional prospective studies are needed to confirm these data.

Relationship between trough vancomycin concentrations, resistance, and therapeutic failure   While vancomycin is considered a bactericidal antibiotic, the rate of bacterial kill is slow when compared with that of β-lactams, and vancomycin’s activity is affected by the bacterial inoculum. Large bacterial burdens in the stationary growth phase or in an anaerobic environment pose a significant challenge to the speed and extent of vancomycin’s bactericidal activity.43–46

In recent years, VISA or glycopeptide-intermediate susceptible S. aureus (GISA) and vancomycin- resistant S. aureus (VRSA) have appeared and raised questions about the overall utility of this antibiotic. (Note: The terms VISA and GISA are often used interchangeably. For the purpose of this consensus review, VISA will be used throughout.) Although infection with these organisms is infrequent, there is fear that the organisms could become more prevalent if the high rate of use and exposure pressure of vancomycin continues.47 The discovery of inducible hVISA (i.e., strains with MIC values in the susceptible range of 0.5–2 mg/L in patients whose therapy with standard dosages of vancomycin has failed) raises further questions regarding current dosing guidelines and the overall use of this antibiotic. Concerns are related to treatment failures and the inability to easily detect hVISA isolates in clinical settings.48–50

In 2006, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) lowered the susceptibility and resistance breakpoints for the MIC of vancomycin from ≤4 to ≤2 mg/L for "susceptible," from 8–16 to 4–8 mg/L for "intermediate," and from ≥32 to ≥16 mg/L for "resistant."51 The decision to move the breakpoints was primarily based on clinical data indicating that patients were less likely to be successfully treated with vancomycin if the S. aureus MIC was ≥4 mg/L.51 Despite the change in susceptibility and resistance breakpoints, two reports have suggested that patients with S. aureus isolates having vancomycin MICs of 1–2 mg/L are less likely to be successfully treated with vancomycin compared with patients with S. aureus isolates that demonstrate greater susceptibility.52,53 However, this information alone does not address whether the use of higher concentrations of vancomycin would improve overall effectiveness. Low serum vancomycin concentrations may also create problems, as there appears to be a direct correlation between low serum vancomycin levels and the emergence of hVISA, VISA, or both, at least with certain genotypes of MRSA.54 In addition, studies have suggested that trough serum vancomycin concentrations of <10 mg/L may predict therapeutic failure and the potential for the emergence of VISA or VRSA.54,55

Studies of MRSA and hVISA bacteremia have revealed significantly higher rates of morbidity in patients infected with hVISA.50,55,56 These patients were more likely to have high bacterial load infections, low initial trough serum vancomycin concentrations, and treatment failure.56 Jones57 recently reported that approximately 74% of hVISA strains and 15% of wild-type S. aureus strains were tolerant (minimum bactericidal concentration of ≥32 mg/L) to the effects of vancomycin, which contributes to a low probability of success in patients harboring these organisms.

Sakoulas et al.52 reported a significant correlation between vancomycin susceptibilities and patient outcome. Treatment of bloodstream infections caused by MRSA strains having a vancomycin MIC of ≤0.5 mg/L had an overall success rate of 55.6%, while treatment of patients infected with MRSA strains having a vancomycin MIC of 1–2 mg/L had a success rate of only 9.5% (p = 0.03). (Treatment failure was defined as persistent signs or symptoms of infection [e.g., fever, leukocytosis], new signs or symptoms of infection, or worsening of signs or symptoms of infection in patients receiving at least five days of therapy with targeted trough serum vancomycin concentrations of 10–15 mg/L). However, this was a relatively small study (n = 30) of MRSA bacteremic patients who were refractory to vancomycin therapy and were enrolled in compassionate-use drug trials. In a more recent study of patients with MRSA bacteremia (n = 34), Moise et al.58 demonstrated that patients with MRSA isolates with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L had significantly higher median days to organism eradication, longer treatment with vancomycin, and a significantly lower overall likelihood of organism eradication. Hidayat et al.53 evaluated the use of high-dosage vancomycin intended to achieve unbound trough serum vancomycin concentrations of at least four times the MIC in patients with MRSA infections. Of the 95 patients evaluated with MRSA pneumonia or bacteremia, or both, 51 (54%) had vancomycin MIC values of 1.5 or 2 mg/L. Although an initial response of 74% was demonstrated in patients achieving the desired target MIC, a high percentage of patients infected with strains having an MIC of 1.5 or 2 mg/L had a poorer response (62% versus 85%) and significantly higher infection-related mortality (24% versus 10%) compared with patients infected with low-MIC strains (0.5, 0.75, or 1 mg/L), despite achieving target trough serum vancomycin concentrations of 15–20 mg/L. The data from these two studies suggest that S. aureus isolates with MICs of 1–2 mg/L that are still within the susceptible range may be less responsive to vancomycin therapy. Soriano et al.59 evaluated the influence of vancomycin MIC on outcome in a total of 414 episodes of MRSA bacteremic patients. MIC evaluations were determined by Etest methodology. Among several factors that predicted poor outcome, S. aureus isolates with an MIC of 2 mg/L were significantly associated with increased mortality. Based on the low probability of achieving an appropriate targeted vancomycin concentration exposure (AUC/MIC), the authors suggested that vancomycin should not be considered an optimal treatment approach for infection due to strains with a vancomycin MIC of >1 mg/L when using trough serum vancomycin concentrations of >10 mg/L as a target.

Lodise et al.60 evaluated the relationship between vancomycin MIC and treatment failure among 92 adult nonneutropenic patients with MRSA bloodstream infections. Vancomycin failure was defined as 30-day mortality, 10 or more days of bacteremia on vancomycin therapy, or recurrence of MRSA bacteremia within 60 days of vancomycin discontinuation. Classification and regression tree analysis found that a vancomycin MIC breakpoint of ≥1.5 mg/L was associated with an increased probability of treatment failure. The 66 patients with a vancomycin MIC of ≥1.5 mg/L had a 2.4-fold higher rate of treatment failure compared with patients with a vancomycin MIC of ≤1 mg/L (36.4% versus 15.4%, respectively; p = 0.049). Poisson regression analysis determined that a vancomycin MIC of ≥1.5 mg/L was independently associated with treatment failure (p = 0.01). Based on these findings, the investigators suggested that an alternative therapy should be considered.

An analysis of a large surveillance database of 35,458 S. aureus strains by Jones57 found that the MIC required to inhibit the growth of 50% of organisms or the MIC required to inhibit the growth of 90% of organisms (MIC90) for vancomycin is 1 mg/L.57 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 U.S. Surveillance Network data of vancomycin susceptibility reported that 16.2% of 241,605 S. aureus isolates had an MIC of 2 mg/L.51 Regional variability exists, and an MIC90 of 2 mg/L has recently been reported by several institutions. For example, Mohr and Murray61 reported that as many as 30% of 116 MRSA blood culture isolates collected from the Texas Medical Center over a one-year period had a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L. There have been recent reports of significant shifts in bacterial susceptibility to vancomycin over a five-year surveillance period.62–64 Increasing S. aureus MIC values, coupled with reports of failure rates associated with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mg/L, have raised the question of whether the breakpoint for vancomycin resistance should be lowered even further.65

New information is emerging regarding the importance of the accessory gene regulator (agr), a global quorum-sensing regulator in S. aureus that is responsible for orchestrating the expression of adherence factors, biofilm production, tolerance to vancomycin, and virulence factors.66 The agr locus has been a subject of intense study because there appears to be a relationship between polymorphism in this gene cluster and patient response to vancomycin therapy. Several studies have determined that all VISA strains reported to date from the United States belong to agr group II. The agr group II includes the USA 100 MRSA clones that are predominately associated with nosocomial infections, and these strains have been associated with vancomycin treatment failure.33,67 Sakoulas et al.67,68 have determined in in vitro studies that the emergence of hVISA or VISA may occur when S. aureus isolates with a down-regulated or defective agr locus are exposed to suboptimal vancomycin concentrations. In a series of in vitro experiments, MRSA belonging to agr group II with a defective agr locus exposed to vancomycin concentrations of <10 mg/L produced heteroresistant-like characteristics similar to VISA strains with subsequent MIC increases from 1 to 8 mg/L.67 This phenomenon was recently demonstrated in a patient with chronic renal failure undergoing hemodialysis who experienced recurrent MRSA bacteremia over a 30-month period.54 The patient was treated repeatedly with vancomycin at trough serum concentrations that always exceeded 10 mg/L. Despite frequent recurrences of bacteremia with the same isolate, the isolate remained susceptible to vancomycin. The genetic background of this organism was found to be similar to other VISA strains belonging to agr group II. When the isolate was subjected to vancomycin concentrations of <10 mg/L under laboratory conditions, it quickly demonstrated characteristics similar to VISA strains with subsequent MIC increases from 1 to 8 mg/L.67 This phenomenon was recently demonstrated in a patient with chronic renal failure undergoing hemodialysis who experienced recurrent MRSA bacteremia over a 30-month period.54 The patient was treated repeatedly with vancomycin at trough serum concentrations that always exceeded 10 mg/L. Despite frequent recurrences of bacteremia with the same isolate, the isolate remained susceptible to vancomycin. The genetic background of this organism was found to be similar to other VISA strains belonging to agr group II. When the isolate was subjected to vancomycin concentrations of <10 mg/L under laboratory conditions, it quickly demonstrated characteristics similar to VISA strains with a subsequent increased MIC.

Tsuji et al.69 used an in vitro pharmacodynamic model to evaluate S. aureus agr groups I–IV exposed to optimal and suboptimal vancomycin doses over a three-day period. In this study, low vancomycin exposures equivalent to total trough serum vancomycin concentrations of 1.5–10 mg/L and an AUC/MIC of 31–264 produced increases in the MIC to the range considered to be VISA by the current CLSI vancomycin breakpoints. Although resistance was produced in both agr functional and defective strains, the likelihood of resistance was fourfold to fivefold higher in agr-defective isolates. Subsequently, the investigators determined that as many as 48% of hospital-associated MRSA had a dysfunctional agr locus, making this finding potentially clinically relevant and warranting further evaluation.70

Summary and recommendation: Based on evidence suggesting that S. aureus exposure to trough serum vancomycin concentrations of <10 mg/L can produce strains with VISA-like characteristics, it is recommended that trough serum vancomycin concentrations always be maintained above 10 mg/L to avoid development of resistance. (Level of evidence = III, grade of recommendation = B.)

Correlating dosing with optimal AUC/MIC and trough concentrations.   As mentioned previously, an isolate’s vancomycin MIC is an important parameter for determining the potential success of a given dosage regimen. Therefore, an actual vancomycin MIC value should ideally be obtained from the clinical microbiology laboratory. Currently, some clinical microbiology laboratories may be limited in their ability to report vancomycin MIC values, depending on the methodology (disk diffusion or automated microdilution) used to determine antimicrobial susceptibility. In some instances, supplemental Etest methods may be used to obtain this information.

As previously stated, an AUC/MIC of ≥400 has been promoted as the target predictive of successful therapy (i.e., organism eradication). Based on this information, a simple evaluation of standard dosing practices (e.g., 1 g every 12 hours) for an individual with normal renal function (CLcr of ≥100 mL/min) and average weight (80 kg) would only yield a 24-hour drug AUC of approximately 250 mg • hr/L. Unless the pathogen had a vancomycin MIC of ≤0.5 mg/L, this dosage regimen would not generate the targeted AUC/MIC of ≥400. For a pathogen with an MIC of 1 mg/L, the minimum trough serum vancomycin concentration would have to be at least 15 mg/L to obtain the target AUC/MIC. Using the vancomycin pharmacokinetic data generated by Jeffres et al.42 in patients receiving vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA pneumonia, Mohr and Murray61 determined by Monte Carlo simulation that the probability of achieving an AUC/MIC of ≥400 would be 100% if the S. aureus MIC for vancomycin was 0.5 mg/L but 0% if the MIC was 2 mg/L. Using a similar one-compartment model of vancomycin and a Monte Carlo simulation integrating S. aureus MIC values, del Mar Fernández de Gatta Garcia et al.71 reported that a daily dosage of 3–4 g of vancomycin would be required to provide 90% probability of attaining a target AUC/MIC of 400 with an MIC of 1 mg/L. For VISA strains, a vancomycin daily dose of ≥5 g would be required to provide a high probability of target AUC/MIC attainment for this pathogen. For susceptible S. aureus, total daily doses of ≥40 mg/kg would likely be required for typical patients. Use of these larger dosages of vancomycin should be carefully monitored for the desired clinical outcome and the absence of drug-induced toxicity. The use of a nomogram is an alternative method for dosage adjustments; however, the majority of published nomograms in clinical use have been proven to be inaccurate, and most have not been clinically validated.72 In addition, no published nomogram to date has been constructed to achieve trough serum vancomycin concentrations of 15–20 mg/L.

Loading doses have also been suggested for critically ill patients to attain target trough serum vancomycin levels earlier. In a small study of critically ill patients with serious S. aureus infections, a vancomycin loading dose of 25 mg/kg infused at a rate of 500 mg/hr was found to be safe without producing toxic peak serum drug levels.73 While this approach is not currently supported by evidence from large randomized clinical trials, vancomycin loading doses can be considered in the treatment of serious MRSA infections.63,74

Summary and recommendations: Based on the potential to improve penetration, increase the probability of optimal target serum vancomycin concentrations, and improve clinical outcomes for complicated infections such as bacteremia, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, meningitis, and hospital- acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus, total trough serum vancomycin concentrations of 15–20 mg/L are recommended. Trough serum vancomycin concentrations in that range should achieve an AUC/MIC of ≥400 in most patients if the MIC is ≤1 mg/L. (Level of evidence = III, grade of recommendation = B.)

In order to achieve rapid attainment of this target concentration for seriously ill patients, a loading dose of 25–30 mg/kg (based on ABW) can be considered. (Level of evidence = III, grade of recommendation = B.)

A targeted AUC/MIC of ≥400 is not achievable with conventional dosing methods if the vancomycin MIC is ≥2 mg/L in a patient with normal renal function (i.e., CLcr of 70–100 mL/min). Therefore, alternative therapies should be considered.

Vancomycin dosages of 15–20 mg/kg (based on ABW) given every 8–12 hours are required for most patients with normal renal function to achieve the suggested serum concentrations when the MIC is ≤1 mg/L. It should be noted that currently available nomograms were not developed to achieve these targeted endpoints. Individual pharmacokinetic adjustments and verification of serum target achievement are recommended. When individual doses exceed 1 g (i.e., 1.5 and 2 g), the infusion period should be extended to 1.5–2 hours. (Level of evidence = III, grade of recommendation = B.)


arrow
Vancomycin toxicity
 
Vancomycin was initially dubbed "Mississippi mud" because of the brown color of early formulations, which were about 70% pure. The impurities are thought to have contributed to the incidence of adverse reactions.7,75,76 In the 1960s, purity increased to 75% and in 1985 to 92–95% for Eli Lilly’s vancomycin product.74 Concurrently, a decrease in the reporting of serious adverse events occurred.

The most common vancomycin adverse effects are unrelated to serum drug concentration and include fever, chills, and phlebitis.7 Red man syndrome may be associated with histamine release and manifests as tingling and flushing of the face, neck, and upper torso. It is most likely to occur when larger dosages are infused too rapidly (>500 mg over ≤30 minutes).7,77,78 Vancomycin should be administered intravenously over an infusion period of at least 1 hour to minimize infusion-related adverse effects. For higher dosages (e.g., 2 g), the infusion time should be extended to 1.5–2 hours. Less frequent adverse events, such as neutropenia, also appear unrelated to serum drug concentrations.79,80

Vancomycin has long been considered a nephrotoxic and ototoxic agent. Excessive serum drug concentrations have been implicated, and it was assumed that monitoring of serum concentrations would allow interventions that decrease toxicity.

Incidence, mechanism, and definition of nephrotoxicity.   A review of the literature published from 1956 through 1986 identified 57 cases of vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity, with over 50% of those cases identified within the first six years of vancomycin use when the product was relatively impure.75 The rate of nephrotoxicity attributable to vancomycin monotherapy varied from 0% to 17% and from 7% to 35% with concurrent administration of aminoglycosides.81–85 A review of the literature available through 1993, conducted by Cantu et al.,8 identified 167 cases of vancomycin-related nephrotoxicity. However, the lack of clear-cut examples of vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity (when the drug was used alone) was striking. The researchers determined that the frequency of nephrotoxicity due to vancomycin monotherapy was 5–7%. No evidence supported maintaining serum vancomycin concentrations within a given range to prevent nephrotoxicity. However, another study identified older age, longer treatment courses, and higher trough serum vancomycin concentrations (30–65 mg/L) as risk factors for vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity.81 Although the definition of vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity has varied, a reasonable composite from the literature defines this adverse effect as an increase of >0.5 mg/dL (or a ≥50% increase) in serum creatinine over baseline in consecutively obtained daily serum creatinine values CLcr of 50% or a drop in calculated from baseline on two consecutive days in the absence of an alternative explanation.10,12,53,86–88

The exact mechanism and incidence of vancomycin nephrotoxicity have been investigated in animals and humans. The filtration and energy-dependent transport mechanisms found in the proximal tubular epithelium render the kidneys susceptible to toxicant-induced injury.89 Vancomycin exposure in renal proximal tubule epithelial cells results in increased cell proliferation. The stimulation of oxygen consumption and the increase in ATP concentrations support the role of vancomycin as a stimulant of oxidative phosphorylation.89 In rats, antioxidants protect kidneys against vancomycin-induced injury, in theory, by inhibiting free oxygen radical production.90 Human data suggest toxicity from vancomycin (or aminoglycosides) is not confined to the proximal tubule but may also involve the medullary region (loop of Henle and collecting duct) of the nephron.91 Vancomycin destruction of glomeruli and necrosis of the proximal tubule are thought to be due to oxidative stress.92

In humans, nephrotoxicity due to vancomycin monotherapy with typical dosage regimens is uncommon, is usually reversible, and occurs with an incidence only slightly above what is reported with other antimicrobials not considered to be nephrotoxic.11,83,93–96 Investigators have administered a wide dosing range of vancomycin monotherapy to rats without appreciable renal injury.97,98 Renal impairment in rats was observed when concurrent aminoglycosides were administered97–99 or if very high dosages of vancomycin were used (350 mg/kg twice daily for four days).98 Wood et al.100 investigated the influence of vancomycin on tobramycin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats and found that toxicity occurred earlier and was more severe with concurrent aminoglycoside and vancomycin therapy. Histological evidence of tubular necrosis occurred earlier and the percentage of necrotic cells was higher in rats receiving combination therapy compared with animals administered tobramycin alone. Indeed, animals receiving vancomycin alone lacked evidence of nephrotoxicity. Enhanced renal accumulation of tobramycin was not evident in animals receiving both vancomycin and tobramycin. In fact, animals receiving the combination had lower renal tobramycin concentrations than did animals receiving tobramycin alone. Increased enzymuria and crystalluria were seen in rats and may suggest toxicity after vancomycin administration.101–104 However, these markers are very sensitive and could reflect transient hypotension due to rapid administration rather than toxicity.8 Enzymuria in humans was minimally affected during five days of vancomycin therapy.105

Data regarding concurrent vancomycin and aminoglycoside administration in humans provide conflicting information, with some reports indicating that the combination augments aminoglycoside-induced nephrotoxicity,11,76,81,83,91,94,106,107 and others indicating no effect.81,83,85,86,96,108–111 Rybak et al.10 found that patients given vancomycin and an aminoglycoside were 6.7-fold more likely to develop nephrotoxicity than those receiving vancomycin alone. Vancomycin administration for more than 21 days was an additional risk factor (p = 0.007). Bertino et al.107 found vancomycin to be an independent risk factor for aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity in a review of 1489 patients who prospectively received individualized pharmacokinetic monitoring. However, vancomycin use was not associated with increased risk when assessed in a multivariate model in this study. Most of the available data suggest a 3- to 4-fold increase in nephrotoxicity when aminoglycosides are combined with vancomycin.81,83,93,94 Synergistic toxicity may also occur when vancomycin is used with other nephrotoxic agents (e.g., amphotericin B, certain chemotherapy agents) or used to treat certain diseases (e.g., sepsis, liver disease, obstructive uropathy, pancreatitis).40,86,93

Vancomycin administered either as a single, large, 30-mg/kg once-daily dose or in two divided doses did not influence nephrotoxicity significantly (p = 0.71).112 However, "high-dose" (defined as a total daily dose of 40 mg/kg, either as a continuous infusion or divided every 12 hours, resulting in a mean ± S.D. concentration of 24.4 ± 7.8 mg/L) was found to be less nephrotoxic than "standard-dose" intermittent therapy (defined as 10 mg/kg every 12 hours, resulting in a mean ± S.D. trough serum vancomycin concentration of 10.0 ± 5.3 mg/L) (p = 0.007) by other investigators.113 It should be noted that the average age of patients in this later investigation was 60 years; their average weight was not provided.

Human trials have suggested that trough serum vancomycin concentrations of >10 mg/L are associated with an increased risk of nephrotoxicity.10,76,83,85,86 No correlation has been observed between peak vancomycin concentrations and nephrotoxicity.10 Zimmermann et al.114 found no correlation between nephrotoxicity and initial serum creatinine concentration, length of hospital stay, or duration of vancomycin therapy. However, the researchers did find that serum vancomycin concentrations were significantly higher in those patients who eventually developed nephrotoxicity. In that study, no patient who maintained trough serum vancomycin concentrations of <20 mg/L developed nephrotoxicity. It is noteworthy that 21 (57%) of 37 patients consistently had trough serum vancomycin concentrations of >20 mg/L and yet did not develop nephrotoxicity. Recent guidelines have recommended target trough serum vancomycin concentrations of 15–20 mg/L.41 However, the safety of higher trough vancomycin concentrations over a prolonged period has not been sufficiently studied.

Lee-Such et al.115 conducted a retrospective chart review of patients over age 18 years who received vancomycin for at least 14 days and had an available baseline serum creatinine concentration and a CLcr of >30 mL/ min (calculated by Cockroft-Gault equation). Patients were categorized by trough serum vancomycin concentrations (≤15 mg/L [n = 19] or ≥15.1 mg/L [n = 40]). Nephrotoxicity was defined as a rise in serum creatinine of ≥0.5 mg/dL above baseline. The median maximum serum creatinine percentage increase was 0.0% (range, –31.3 to 30.0) in the low-trough-concentration group and 17.2% (range, –36.4 to 133) in the high-concentration group (p = 0.0045). There were no significant correlations between percent change in serum creatinine and duration of vancomycin therapy, highest trough concentration, or average daily dose. The frequency of nephrotoxicity was 0% in the low-trough-concentration group and 15% in the high-trough-concentration group. The investigators could not discern if higher vancomycin levels were a cause or an indicator of worsening renal function. In addition, a single trough vancomycin concentration of >15 mg/L placed a patient in the high-concentration group, but such a level could be due to a variety of clinical or operational factors not related to vancomycin-induced toxicity. Finally, the use of pressors and concurrent nephrotoxins was poorly described but could provide additional concurrent risk for renal dysfunction. Further details are lacking, as the data are currently available only in abstract form.

Jeffres et al.87 conducted a similar but prospective investigation of 94 patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia. Nephrotoxicity was defined as a 0.5-mg/dL increase from baseline in serum creatinine or an increase of ≥50% in serum creatinine from baseline during vancomycin therapy. Patients were stratified based on vancomycin trough concentrations of <15 mg/L (n = 43) or ≥15 mg/L (n = 51). Overall, 40 patients (42.6%) met the criteria for nephrotoxicity. The maximal serum creatinine concentration observed occurred after the maximum serum vancomycin concentration by at least 24 hours in 34 patients (85.0%). Patients who developed nephrotoxicity were more likely to have higher steady-state mean trough serum vancomycin concentrations (20.8 mg/L versus 14.3 mg/L, respectively; p < 0.001), trough serum vancomycin concentrations of >15 mg/L (67.5% versus 40.7%, p = 0.01), and a longer duration (≥14 days) of vancomycin therapy (45.0% versus 20.4%, p = 0.011) than those who did not develop nephrotoxicity.

Hidayat et al.53 prospectively investigated the efficacy and toxicity of adjusting vancomycin troughs to achieve an unbound concentration of at least four times the MIC. Patients received vancomycin for 72 hours or more. Nephrotoxicity was defined as a 0.5-mg/dL or ≥50% increase from the baseline serum creatinine concentration in two consecutive laboratory analyses. For nephrotoxicity analysis, groups were divided based on trough serum vancomycin concentrations (<15 or ≥15 mg/L). Nephrotoxicity occurred only in the ≥15-mg/L group (11 of 63 patients [12%] versus 0 of 24 patients in the <15-mg/L group [p = 0.01]) and was predicted by the use of concurrent nephrotoxic agents (p < 0.001). By controlling for age, admission to ICUs, Acute Physiology and Chronic Evaluation II score, trough serum vancomycin level, and duration of therapy, multivariate analysis demonstrated concurrent nephrotoxins to be the strongest predictor of vancomycin nephrotoxicity. Without concurrent nephrotoxins, nephrotoxicity occurred in only 1 (2%) of 44 patients with a trough concentration of ≥15 mg/L versus 0 of 24 patients in the <15-mg/L group.

Lodise et al.12 retrospectively examined the relationship between vancomycin dosage and rate of nephrotoxicity at a single institution. Nephrotoxicity was defined as an increase in serum creatinine of 0.5 mg/ dL or an increase of 50%, whichever was greater, on at least two consecutive days during the period from initiation of vancomycin or linezolid therapy to 72 hours after completion of therapy. Linezolid usage was also included as a nonvancomycin comparator group. A significant difference in nephrotoxicity was noted among patients receiving vancomycin ≥4 g/day (34.6%), vancomycin <4 g/day (10.9%), and linezolid (6.7%) (p = 0.001). The relationship between high-dosage vancomycin and nephrotoxicity persisted in the multivariate analyses that controlled for potential confounding covariates. The multivariate analyses also demonstrated that patient total weight of ≥101.4 kg, estimated CLcr of ≤86.6 mL/min, and ICU residence at the start of therapy each independently influenced the time to nephrotoxicity. In a secondary analysis, a significant relationship was found between the vancomycin AUC and nephrotoxicity. Specifically, a vancomycin AUC of ≥952 mg • L/hr was associated with a higher probability of vancomycin-related nephrotoxicity.

Nguyen et al.88 retrospectively investigated patients receiving vancomycin between January and December 2006 at a single institution. Patients included were age ≥18 years, receiving vancomycin for at least 72 hours, and had at least one serum vancomycin value obtained. Hemodialysis patients were excluded. Nephrotoxicity was defined as an increase of >0.5 mg/dL over baseline in serum creatinine for two consecutive assays. Creatinine levels were followed until patient discharge. Patients were divided based on trough serum vancomycin concentration attainment of 5–15 mg/L (n = 130) or >15 mg/L (n = 88). The rate of nephrotoxicity was 6.2% in the lower-trough group and 18.2% in the higher-trough group (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis indicated that the main predictors of nephrotoxicity were an elevated overall average trough concentration and duration of therapy.

Investigations, such as those described herein, are intriguing but often limited by small sample size, retrospective design, and questionable methodology. Additional data are needed, including the timing of the relationship between high vancomycin levels and nephrotoxicity (i.e., which one precedes the other). In addition, while statistically relevant, the clinical significance of minor and transient changes in creatinine or CLcr can be debated. The effect of a 0.5-mg/dL increase in serum creatinine concentration would be greater in a patient with a lower initial CLcr value than in one with a higher base-value. line CLcr

Summary and recommendation: There are limited data suggesting a direct causal relationship between toxicity and specific serum vancomycin concentrations. In addition, data are conflicting and characterized by the presence of confounding nephrotoxic agents, inconsistent and highly variable definitions of toxicity, and the inability to examine the time sequence of events surrounding changes in renal function secondary to vancomycin exposure.

A patient should be identified as having experienced vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity if multiple (at least two or three consecutive) high serum creatinine concentrations (increase of 0.5 mg/dL or ≥50% increase from baseline, whichever is greater) are documented after several days of vancomycin therapy in the absence of an alternative explanation. (Level of evidence = II, grade of recommendation = B.)

Role of therapeutic drug monitoring in preventing nephrotoxicity.   Because vancomycin is eliminated via glomerular filtration, a decrease in the glomerular filtration rate from any cause will increase the serum vancomycin concentration and make the association between renal dysfunction and trough concentrations difficult to assess.8

Some investigators have found vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring to be associated with decreased nephrotoxicity. Other factors associated with decreased toxicity include shorter courses of therapy, less total dosage in grams of the drug, and a decreased length of hospital stay.7,12,116,117 However, Darko et al.7 found therapeutic drug monitoring to be cost-effective only in patients in ICUs, those receiving other nephrotoxins, and, possibly, oncology patients.

Summary and recommendations: Available evidence does not support monitoring peak serum vancomycin concentrations to decrease the frequency of nephrotoxicity. (Level of evidence = I, grade of recommendation = A.)

Monitoring of trough serum vancomycin concentrations to reduce nephrotoxicity is best suited to patients receiving aggressive dosing targeted to produce sustained trough drug concentrations of 15–20 mg/L or who are at high risk of toxicity, such as patients receiving concurrent nephrotoxins. (Level of evidence = III, grade of recommendation = B.)

Monitoring is also recommended for patients with unstable renal function (either deteriorating or significantly improving) and those receiving prolonged courses of therapy (over three to five days). (Level of evidence = II, grade of recommendation = B.)

All patients receiving prolonged courses of vancomycin should have at least one steady-state trough concentration obtained (approximately after the fourth dose). Frequent monitoring (more than a single trough concentration before the fourth dose) for short-course therapy (less than five days) or for lower-intensity dosing (targeted to attain trough serum vancomycin concentrations below 15 mg/L) is not recommended. (Level of evidence = II, grade of recommendation = B.)

There are limited data to support the safety of sustained trough serum vancomycin concentrations of 15–20 mg/L. When this target range is desired, obtaining once-weekly trough concentrations in hemodynamically stable patients is recommended. Frequent (in some instances daily) trough concentration monitoring is advisable to prevent toxicity in hemodynamically unstable patients. The exact frequency of monitoring is often a matter of clinical judgment. (Level of evidence = III, grade of recommendation = B.)

Data on comparative vancomycin toxicity using continuous versus intermittent administration are conflicting and no recommendation can be made.

Incidence of ototoxicity and role of therapeutic drug monitoring for prevention of vancomycin-induced hearing loss.   Vancomycin-induced hearing loss is controversial. Vancomycin has not been found to be ototoxic in animal models.97,98,100,118,119 Early literature attributed ototoxic events to impurities or to concurrent ototoxic agents.119 Early studies indicated that other ototoxic agents, such as the aminoglycosides kanamycin and streptomycin, may have additive or synergistic toxicity when used in combination with vancomycin.120 The frequency of ototoxicity in humans has been reported to range from 1% to 9%3,8,48,121–124 and to be associated with serum vancomycin concentrations above 40 mg/L.7,125 This most likely represents an inflated occurrence rate due to impurities associated with the older formulation or poor documentation of cause and effect as they relate to serum concentrations. The true risk of ototoxicity from vancomycin monotherapy is low without concurrent therapy with ototoxic agents.77

Severe ototoxicity induced by vancomycin is rare and characterized as damage to the auditory nerve that initially affects high-frequency sensory hairs in the cochlea, then the middle- and low-frequency hairs, and eventually can lead to total hearing loss.75 High-tone deafness occurs before low-tone deafness at all frequencies and is permanent. Inability to hear high-frequency sounds and tinnitus are ominous signs that should result in discontinuation of vancomycin.126,127 Also rare is reversible ototoxicity such as tinnitus, which can occur with or without high-tone deafness.33,120,127 Investigation of pediatric pneumococcal meningitis noted that early vancomycin administration (relative to ceftriaxone administration) was associated with a substantially increased risk of hearing loss due to the effects of rapid bacterial killing by both antimicrobials and the resultant host inflammatory response.128 However, toxicity did not correlate with vancomycin concentrations.

In 1958, Geraci et al.129 described hearing loss in two patients with serum vancomycin concentrations of 80–100 mg/L. That report generated an impetus to monitor peak serum concentrations. However, Cantu et al.8 reviewed 53 published cases of vancomycin-attributed ototoxicity and concluded that vancomycin was rarely ototoxic as a single agent. In addition, ototoxicity was fully reversible when other ototoxic agents were not involved.

Bailie and Neal75 reviewed 28 cases of ototoxicity reported between 1956 and 1986, most of which involved vancomycin preparations with higher levels of impurities. Patients with severe renal dysfunction were found to be more susceptible to developing ototoxicity when their dosage regimen was not adjusted. The researchers were unable to correlate mild ototoxicity with excessive peak or trough serum vancomycin concentrations or prevention of ototoxicity by monitoring serum concentrations.

A lack of correlation between serum vancomycin levels and the development of ototoxicity has also been observed in cancer patients.75 Of 742 patients analyzed, ototoxicity occurred in 18 (6%) of 319 patients (95% CI, 4–9%) who were receiving concurrent ototoxic agents (including aminoglycosides, cisplatin, loop diuretics, aspirin, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents) and in 12 (3%) of 423 patients (95% CI, 2–5%) not treated with other ototoxic agents. All clinical ototoxicity resolved within three weeks after vancomycin discontinuation.

Summary and recommendation: Monitoring serum vancomycin levels to prevent ototoxicity is not recommended because this toxicity is rarely associated with monotherapy and does not correlate with serum vancomycin concentrations. Monitoring may be more important when other ototoxic agents, such as aminoglycosides, are administered. (Level of evidence = III, grade of recommendation = B.)


arrow
Summary
 
In general, pharmacodynamic dosing of antibiotics may significantly augment antibiotic performance. There seems to be little difference in the pharmacodynamics of intermittently or continuously dosed vancomycin. This consensus panel review supports that vancomycin is a concentration-independent killer of gram-positive pathogens and that the AUC/MIC is likely the most useful pharmacodynamic parameter to predict effectiveness. In many clinical settings where it may be difficult to obtain multiple serum vancomycin concentrations to determine the AUC and subsequently the AUC/ MIC, trough serum vancomycin concentration monitoring can be recommended as the most accurate and practical method to monitor serum vancomycin levels. Increasing trough serum vancomycin concentrations to 15–20 mg/L to obtain an increased AUC/MIC of ≥400 may be desirable but is currently not supported by clinical trial data. Target attainment of an AUC/MIC of ≥400 is not likely in patients with S. aureus infections who have an MIC of ≥2 mg/L; therefore, treatment with alternative agents should be considered. Higher trough serum vancomycin levels may also increase the potential for toxicity, but additional clinical experience will be required to determine the extent of this potential.


arrow
Footnotes
 
The following individuals are acknowledged for reviewing draft versions of this statement: Diane M. Cappelletty, Pharm.D.; Douglas N. Fish, Pharm.D., FCCP, FCCM, BCPS; William L. Greene, B.S., Pharm.D., BCPS, FASHP; David J. Ritchie, Pharm.D., FCCP, BCPS; Annette M. Rowden, Pharm.D., BCPS; and Lynda J. Thompson, Pharm.D.

Developed through the ASHP Council on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on June 26, 2008, the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Board of Directors on June 16, 2008, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists’ Board of Directors on June 25, 2008.

The authors have declared no potential conflicts of interest.


arrow
References
 
  1. Moellering RC Jr. Vancomycin: a 50-year reassessment. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(suppl 1):S3–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Levine DP. Vancomycin: a history. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(suppl 1):S5–12.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Murray BE, Nannini EC. Glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin), streptogramins (quinupristin-dalfopristin), and lipopeptides (daptomycin). In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, eds. Mandell, Douglas and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases. 6th ed. Oxford: Churchill Livingstone; 2005:417–40.
  4. Virgincar N, MacGowan A. Glycopeptides (dalabavancin, oritavancin, teicoplanin, vancomycin). In: Yu VL, Edwards G, McKinnon PS et al., eds. Antimicrobial therapy and vaccines. Volume II: antimicrobial agents. 2nd ed. Pittsburgh: ESun Technologies; 2004:181–99.
  5. Stevens DL. The role of vancomycin in the treatment paradigm. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(suppl 1):S51–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Rybak MJ. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(suppl 1):S35–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Darko W, Medicis JJ, Smith A. Mississippi mud no more: cost-effectiveness of pharmacokinetic dosage adjustment of vancomycin to prevent nephrotoxicity. Pharmacotherapy. 2003; 23:643–50.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Cantu TG, Yamanaka-Yuen NA, Leitman PS. Serum vancomycin concentrations: reappraisal of their clinical value. Clin Infect Dis. 1994; 18:533–43.[Medline]
  9. Moellering RC Jr. Monitoring serum vancomycin levels: climbing the mountain because it is there? Clin Infect Dis. 1994; 18:544–6.[Medline]
  10. Rybak MJ, Albrecht LM, Boike SC et al. Nephrotoxicity of vancomycin alone and with an aminoglycoside. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990; 25:679–87.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Rybak MJ, Abate BJ, Kang SL et al. Prospective evaluation of the effect of an aminoglycoside dosing regimen on rates of observed nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999; 43:1549–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Lodise TP, Lomaestro B, Graves J et al. Larger vancomycin doses (≥4 grams/ day) are associated with an increased incidence of nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008; 52:1330–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J. 1979; 121:1193–254.[Medline]
  14. Rodvold KA, Blum RA, Fischer JH et al. Vancomycin pharmacokinetics in patients with various degrees of renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988; 32:848–52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Matzke GR, McGory RW, Halstenson CE et al. Pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in patients with various degrees of renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984; 25:433–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Rotschafer JC, Crossley K, Zaske DE et al. Pharmacokinetics of vancomycin: observations in 28 patients and dosage recommendations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982; 22:391–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Blouin RA, Bauer LA, Miller DD et al. Vancomycin pharmacokinetics in normal and morbidly obese subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982; 21:575–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Golper TA, Noonan HM, Elzinga L et al. Vancomycin pharmacokinetics, renal handling, and nonrenal clearances in normal human subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1988; 43:565–70.[Medline]
  19. Ackerman BH, Taylor EH, Olsen KM et al. Vancomycin serum protein binding determination by ultrafiltration. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988; 22:300–3.[Abstract]
  20. Albrecht LM, Rybak MJ, Warbasse LH et al. Vancomycin protein binding in patients with infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus. DICP. 1991; 25:713–5.[Abstract]
  21. Skhirtladze K, Hutschala D, Fleck T et al. Impaired target site penetration of vancomycin in diabetic patients following cardiac surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006; 50:1372–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Cruciani M, Gatti G, Lazzarini L et al. Penetration of vancomycin into human lung tissue. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996; 38:865–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Georges H, Leroy O, Alfandari S et al. Pulmonary disposition of vancomycin in critically ill patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1997; 16:385–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Lamer C, de Beco V, Soler P et al. Analysis of vancomycin entry into pulmonary lining fluid by bronchoalveolar lavage in critical ill patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993; 37:281–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Craig WA. Basic pharmacodynamics of antibacterials with clinical applications to the use of beta-lactams, glycopeptides, and linezolid. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2003; 17:479–501.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antimicrobial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis. 1998; 26:1–10.[Medline]
  27. Drusano GL. Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics: critical interactions of bug and drug. Nature Rev Microbiol. 2004; 2:289–300.[CrossRef]
  28. Rybak MJ. Pharmacodynamics: relation to antimicrobial resistance. Am J Med. 2006; 119(6, suppl 1):S37–44.[Medline]
  29. Ackerman BH, Vannier AM, Eudy EB. Analysis of vancomycin time-kill studies with Staphylococcus species by using a curve stripping program to describe the relationship between concentration and pharmacodynamic response. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992; 36:1766–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Löwdin E, Odenholt I, Cars O. In vitro studies of pharmacodynamic properties of vancomycin against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998; 42:2739–44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Larsson AJ, Walker KJ, Raddatz JK et al. The concentration-independent effect of monoexponential and biexponential decay in vancomycin concentrations on the killing of Staphylococcus aureus under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996; 38:589–97.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Craig WA, Andes DR. In vivo pharmacodynamics of vancomycin against VISA, heteroresistant VISA (hVISA) and VSSA in the neutropenic murine thigh-infection model. Paper presented at 46th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Francisco, CA: 2006 Sep.
  33. Moise-Broder PA, Sakoulas G, Eliopoulos GM et al. Accessory gene regulator group II polymorphism in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is predictive of failure of vancomycin therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 38:1700–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. The development of vancomycin. In: Cooper GL, Given DB. Vancomycin: a comprehensive review of 30 years of clinical experience. New York: Park Row; 1986:1–6.
  35. James JK, Palmer SM, Levine DP et al. Comparison of conventional dosing versus continuous-infusion vancomycin therapy for patients with suspected or documented gram-positive infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996; 40:696–700.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Lacy MK, Tessier PR, Nicolau DP et al. Comparison of vancomycin pharmacodynamics (1 g every 12 or 24 h) against methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000; 15:25–30.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Wysocki M, Thomas F, Wolff MA et al. Comparison of continuous with discontinuous intravenous infusion of vancomycin in severe MRSA infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995; 35:352–4.[Free Full Text]
  38. Wysocki M, Delatour F, Faurisson F et al. Continuous versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin in severe staphylococcal infections: prospective multicenter randomized study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001; 45:2460–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Geraci J. Vancomycin. Mayo Clin Proc. 1977; 52:631–4.[Medline]
  40. Karam CM, McKinnon PS, Neuhauser MM et al. Outcome assessment of minimizing vancomycin monitoring and dosing adjustments. Pharmacotherapy. 1999; 19:257–66.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. American Thoracic Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005; 171:388–416.[Free Full Text]
  42. Jeffres MN, Isakow W, Doherty JA et al. Predictors of mortality for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus healthcare-associated pneumonia: specific evaluation of vancomycin pharmacokinetic indices. Chest. 2006; 130:947–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. LaPlante KL, Rybak MJ. Impact of high-inoculum Staphylococcus aureus on the activities of nafcillin, vancomycin, linezolid, and daptomycin, alone and in combination with gentamicin, in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004; 48:4665–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Lamp KC, Rybak MJ, Bailey EM et al. In vitro pharmacodynamic effects of concentration, pH, and growth phase on serum bactericidal activities of daptomycin and vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992; 36:2709–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Peetermans WE, Hoogeterp JJ, Hazekampvan Dokkum AM et al. Antistaphylococcal activities of teicoplanin and vancomycin in vitro and in an experiment fashion. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990; 34:1869–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Svensson E, Hanberger H, Nilsson LE. Pharmacodynamic effects of antibiotics and antibiotic combinations on growing and nongrowing Staphylococcus epidermidis cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997; 41:107–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Cosgrove SE, Carroll KC, Perl TM. Staphylococcus aureus with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 39:539–45.[CrossRef][Medline]
  48. Liu C, Chambers HF. Staphylococcus aureus with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin: epidemiology, clinical significance, and critical assessment of diagnostic methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003; 47:3040–5.[Free Full Text]
  49. Moore MR, Perdreau-Remington F, Chambers HF. Vancomycin treatment failure associated with heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in a patient with endocarditis and in the rabbit model of endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003; 47:1262–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Howden BP, Johnson PD, Ward PB et al. Isolates with low-level vancomycin resistance associated with persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006; 50:3039–47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Tenover FC, Moellering RC Jr. The rationale for revising the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute vancomycin minimal inhibitory concentration interpretive criteria for Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 44: 1208–15.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Sakoulas G, Moise-Broder PA, Schentag J et al. Relationship of MIC and bactericidal activity to efficacy of vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol. 2004; 42:2398–402.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Hidayat LK, Hsu DI, Quist R et al. High-dose vancomycin therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: efficacy and toxicity. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:2138–44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Sakoulas G, Gold HS, Cohen RA et al. Effects of prolonged vancomycin administration on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a patient with recurrent bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006; 57:699–704.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Howden BP, Ward PB, Charles PG et al. Treatment outcomes for serious infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 38:521–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  56. Charles PG, Ward PB, Johnson PD et al. Clinical features associated with bacteremia due to heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 38:448–51.[CrossRef][Medline]
  57. Jones RN. Microbiological features of vancomycin in the 21st century: minimum inhibitory concentration creep, bactericidal/static activity, and applied breakpoints to predict clinical outcomes or detect resistant strains. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(suppl 1):S13–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
  58. Moise PA, Sakoulas G, Forrest A et al. Vancomycin in vitro bactericidal activity and its relationship to efficacy in clearance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007; 51:2582–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Soriano A, Marco F, Martinez JA et al. Influence of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration on the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2008; 46:193–200.[CrossRef][Medline]
  60. Lodise TP, Graves J, Graffunder E et al. Relationship between vancomycin MIC and failure among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia treated with vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008; 52:3315–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Mohr JF, Murray BE. Point: vancomycin is not obsolete for the treatment of infection caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 44:1536–42.[CrossRef][Medline]
  62. Rhee KY, Gardiner DF, Charles M. Decreasing in vitro susceptibility of clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates to vancomycin at the New York Hospital: quantitative testing redux. Clin Infect Dis. 2005; 40:1705–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  63. Wang G, Hindler JF, Ward KW et al. Increased vancomycin MICs for Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates from a university hospital during a 5-year period. J Clin Microbiol. 2006; 44:3883–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Steinkraus G, White R, Friedrich L. Vancomycin MIC creep in non- vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA), vancomycin-susceptible clinical methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) blood isolates from 2001–05. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007; 60:788–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Deresinski S. Counterpoint: vancomycin and Staphylococcus aureus—an antibiotic enters obsolescence. Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 44:1543–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  66. Novick RP. Autoinduction and signal transduction in the regulation of staphylococcal virulence. Mol Microbiol. 2003; 48:1429–49.[CrossRef][Medline]
  67. Sakoulas G, Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC Jr et al. Staphylococcus aureus accessory gene regulator (agr) group II: is there a relationship to the development of intermediate-level glycopeptide resistance? J Infect Dis. 2003; 187:929–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
  68. Sakoulas G, Eliopoulos GM, Fowler VG Jr et al. Reduced susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus to vancomycin and platelet microbicidal protein correlates with defective autolysis and loss of accessory gene regulator (agr) function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005; 49:2687–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Tsuji BT, Rybak MJ, Lau KL et al. Evaluation of accessory gene regulator (agr) group and function in the proclivity towards vancomycin intermediate resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007; 51:1089–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Tsuji BT, Rybak MJ, Cheung CM et al. Community- and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a comparison of molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial activities of various agents. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007; 58:41–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  71. Del Mar Fernández de Gatta Garcia M, Revilla N, Calvo MV et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of vancomycin in ICU patients. Intensive Care Med. 2006; 33:279–85.[CrossRef][Medline]
  72. Murphy JE, Gillespie DE, Bateman CV. Predictability of vancomycin trough concentrations using seven approaches for estimating pharmacokinetic parameters. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2006; 63:2365–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Wang JT, Fang CT, Chen YC et al. Necessity of a loading dose when using vancomycin in critically ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001; 47:246. Letter.[Free Full Text]
  74. Mohammedi I, Descloux E, Argaud L et al. Loading dose of vancomycin in critically ill patients: 15 mg/kg is a better choice than 500 mg. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006; 27:259–62.[CrossRef][Medline]
  75. Bailie GR, Neal D. Vancomycin ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity. A review. Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp. 1988; 3:376–86.[Medline]
  76. Elting LS, Rubenstein EB, Kurtin D et al. Mississippi mud in the 1990s: risks and outcomes of vancomycin-associated toxicity in general oncology practice. Cancer. 1998; 83:2597–607.[CrossRef][Medline]
  77. Wilhelm MP, Estes L. Symposium on antimicrobial agents—part XII. Vancomycin. Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74:928–35.[Medline]
  78. Rybak MJ, Boike SC. Monitoring vancomycin therapy. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1986; 20:757–61.[Abstract]
  79. Henry K, Steinberg I, Crossley KB. Vancomycin-induced neutropenia during treatment of osteomyelitis in an outpatient. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1986; 20:783–5.[Abstract]
  80. Koo KB, Bachand RL, Chow AW. Vancomycin-induced neutropenia. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1986; 20:780–2.[Abstract]
  81. Farber BF, Moellering RC Jr. Retrospective study of the toxicity of preparations of vancomycin from 1974 to 1981. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983; 23:138–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  82. Mellor JA, Kingdom J, Cafferkey M et al. Vancomycin toxicity: a prospective study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985; 15:773–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  83. Sorrell TC, Collignon PJ. A prospective study of adverse reactions associated with vancomycin therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985; 16:235–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  84. Cimino MA, Rotstein C, Slaughter RL et al. Relationship of serum antibiotic concentrations to nephrotoxicity in cancer patients receiving concurrent aminoglycoside and vancomycin therapy. Am J Med. 1987; 83:1091–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  85. Downs NJ, Neihart RE, Dolezal JM et al. Mild nephrotoxicity associated with vancomycin use. Arch Intern Med. 1989; 149:1777–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  86. Pauly DJ, Musa DM, Lestico MR et al. Risk of nephrotoxicity with combination vancomycin-aminoglycoside antibiotic therapy. Pharmacotherapy. 1990; 10:378–82.[Medline]
  87. Jeffres MN, Isakow W, Doherty JA et al. A retrospective analysis of possible renal toxicity associated with vancomycin in patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Clin Ther. 2007; 29:1107–15.[CrossRef][Medline]
  88. Nguyen M, Wong J, Lee C et al. Nephrotoxicity associated with high dose vs standard dose vancomycin therapy. Paper presented at 47th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Chicago, IL; 2007 Sep.
  89. King DW, Smith MA. Proliferative responses observed following vancomycin treatment in renal proximal tubule epithelial cells. Toxicol In Vitro. 2004; 18:797–803.[CrossRef][Medline]
  90. Celik I, Cihangiroglu M, Ilhan N et al. Protective effects of different anti-oxidants and amrinone on vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2005; 97:325–32.[CrossRef][Medline]
  91. Le Moyec L, Racine S, Le Toumelin P et al. Aminoglycoside and glycopeptide renal toxicity in intensive care patients studied by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of urine. Crit Care Med. 2002; 30:1242–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  92. Nishino Y, Takemura S, Minamiyama Y et al. Inhibition of vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity by targeting superoxide dismutase to renal proximal tubule cells in the rat. Redox Rep. 2002; 7:317–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  93. Hailemeskel B, Namanny M, Wutoh A. Frequency of nephrotoxicity with vancomycin and aminoglycoside therapy. Hosp Pharm. 1999; 12:1417–20.
  94. Salama SE, Rotstein C. Prospective assessment of nephrotoxicity with concomitant aminoglycoside and vancomycin therapy. Can J Hosp Pharm. 1993; 46:53–9.
  95. Malacarne P, Bergamasco S, Donadio C. Nephrotoxicity due to combination antibiotic therapy with vancomycin and aminoglycosides in septic critically ill patients. Chemotherapy. 2006; 52:178–84.[CrossRef][Medline]
  96. Cunha BA, Mohan SS, Hamid N et al. Cost-ineffectiveness of serum vancomycin levels. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007; 26:509–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
  97. Wold JS, Turnipseed SA. Toxicity of vancomycin in laboratory animals. Rev Infect Dis. 1981; 3(suppl):S224–9.[Medline]
  98. Aronoff GR, Sloan RS, Dinwiddie CB Jr et al. Effects of vancomycin on renal function in rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981; 19:306–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  99. Beauchamp D, Pellerin M, Gourde P et al. Effects of daptomycin and vancomycin on tobramycin nephrotoxicity in rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990; 34:139–47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  100. Wood CA, Kohlhepp SJ, Kohnen PW et al. Vancomycin enhancement of experimental tobramycin nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986; 30:20–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  101. Marre R, Schulz E, Anders T et al. Renal tolerance and pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in rats. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1984; 14:253–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  102. Fauconneau B, De Lemos E, Pariat C et al. Chrononephrotoxicity in rat of a vancomycin and gentamicin combination. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1992; 71:31–6.[Medline]
  103. Marre R, Schulz E, Hedtke D et al. Influence of fosfomycin and tobramycin on vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity. Infection. 1985; 13:190–2.[CrossRef][Medline]
  104. Kacew S, Hewitt WR, Hook JB. Gentamicin-induced renal metabolic alterations in newborn rat kidney: lack of potentiation by vancomycin. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1989; 99:61–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
  105. Rybak MJ, Frankowski JJ, Edwards DJ et al. Alanine aminopeptidase and beta 2-microglobulin excretion in patients receiving vancomycin and gentamicin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987; 31:1461–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  106. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group and the National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical Trials Group. Vancomycin added to empirical combination antibiotic therapy for fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. J Infect Dis. 1991; 163:951–8. [Erratum, J Infect Dis. 1991; 164:832.][Medline]
  107. Bertino JS Jr, Booker LA, Franck PA et al. Incidence of and significant risk factors for aminoglycoside-associated nephrotoxicity in patients dosed by using individualized pharmacokinetic monitoring. J Infect Dis. 1993; 167:173–9.[Medline]
  108. Karp JE, Dick JD, Angelopulos C et al. Empiric use of vancomycin during prolonged treatment-induced granulocytopenia: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with acute leukemia. Am J Med. 1986; 81:237–42.[CrossRef][Medline]
  109. Goren MP, Baker DK Jr, Shenep JL. Vancomycin does not enhance amikacin-induced tubular nephrotoxicity in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1989; 8:278–82.[Medline]
  110. Nahata MC. Lack of nephrotoxicity in pediatric patients receiving concurrent vancomycin and aminoglycoside therapy. Chemotherapy. 1987; 33:302–4.[Medline]
  111. Goetz MB, Sayers J. Nephrotoxicity of vancomycin and aminoglycoside therapy separately and in combination. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993; 32:325–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  112. Cohen E, Dadashev A, Drucker M et al. Once-daily versus twice-daily intravenous administration of vancomycin for infections in hospitalized patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002; 49: 155–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  113. Boffi El Amari E, Vuagnat A, Stern R et el. High versus standard dose vancomycin for osteomyelitis. Scand J Infect Dis. 2004; 36:712–7.[Medline]
  114. Zimmermann AE, Katona BG, Plaisance KI. Association of vancomycin serum concentrations with outcomes in patients with gram-positive bacteremia. Pharmacotherapy. 1995; 15:85–91.[Medline]
  115. Lee-Such SC, Overholser BR, Munoz-Price LS. Nephrotoxicity associated with aggressive vancomycin therapy. Paper presented at 46th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Francisco, CA; 2006 Sep.
  116. Welty TE, Copa AK. Impact of vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring on patient care. Ann Pharmacother. 1994; 28:1335–9.[Abstract]
  117. Iwamoto T, Kagawa Y, Kojima M. Clinical efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring in patients receiving vancomycin. Biol Pharm Bull. 2003; 26:876–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  118. Davis RR, Brummett RE, Bendrick TW et al. The ototoxic interaction of viomycin, capreomycin and polymyxin B with ethacrynic acid. Acta Otolaryngol. 1982; 93:211–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  119. Tange RA, Kieviet HL, von Marle J et al. An experimental study of vancomycin-induced cochlear damage. Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1989; 246:67–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  120. Traber PG, Levine DP. Vancomycin ototoxicity in a patient with normal renal function. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 95:458–60.
  121. Brummett RE, Fox KE. Vancomycin- and erythromycin-induced hearing loss in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989; 33:791–6.[Free Full Text]
  122. Dangerfield HG, Hewit WL, Monzon OT et al. Clinical use of vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1960; 61:428–37.
  123. Kirby WM, Perry DM, Bauer AW. Treatment of staphylococcal septicemia with vancomycin: report of thirty-three cases. N Engl J Med. 1960; 262:49–55.[Medline]
  124. Waisbren BA, Kleinerman L, Skemp J et al. Comparative clinical effectiveness and toxicity of vancomycin, ristocetin, and kanamycin. Arch Intern Med. 1960; 106:179–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  125. Saunders NJ. Why monitor peak vancomycin concentrations? Lancet. 1994; 344:1748–50.[CrossRef][Medline]
  126. Fekety R. Vancomycin. Med Clin North Amer. 1982; 66:175–81.
  127. Reynolds JE, ed. Martindale, the extra pharmacopoeia. 28th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 1982.
  128. Buckingham SC, McCullers JA, Lujan-Zilbermann J et al. Early vancomycin therapy and adverse outcomes in children with pneumococcal meningitis. Pediatrics. 2006; 117:1688–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  129. Geraci JE, Heilman FR, Nichols DR et al. Antibiotic therapy of bacterial endocarditis. VII. Vancomycin for acute micrococcal endocarditis; preliminary report. Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clin. 1958; 33:172–81.[Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
J. A. Crompton, D. S. North, M. Yoon, J. N. Steenbergen, K. C. Lamp, and G. N. Forrest
Outcomes with daptomycin in the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections with a range of vancomycin MICs
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., August 1, 2010; 65(8): 1784 - 1791.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
C. Garcia-de-la-Maria, F. Marco, Y. Armero, D. Soy, A. Moreno, A. del Rio, M. Almela, C. Cervera, S. Ninot, C. Falces, et al.
Daptomycin Is Effective for Treatment of Experimental Endocarditis Due to Methicillin-Resistant and Glycopeptide-Intermediate Staphylococcus epidermidis
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., July 1, 2010; 54(7): 2781 - 2786.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
Y. Yang, M. V. McBride, K. A. Rodvold, F. Tverdek, A. M. Trese, J. Hennenfent, G. Schiff, B. L. Lambert, and G. T. Schumock
Hospital policies and practices on prevention and treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., June 15, 2010; 67(12): 1017 - 1024.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
Y. L. Lo, J. G. C. van Hasselt, S. C. Heng, C. T. Lim, T. C. Lee, and B. G. Charles
Population Pharmacokinetics of Vancomycin in Premature Malaysian Neonates: Identification of Predictors for Dosing Determination
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., June 1, 2010; 54(6): 2626 - 2632.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
W. L. Jackson Jr., A. F. Shorr, N. Nesseler, Y. Launey, P. Seguin, D. van de Beek, J. M. Drake, and A. R. Tunkel
Nosocomial Bacterial Meningitis
N. Engl. J. Med., April 8, 2010; 362(14): 1346 - 1348.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
J. S Stroup, J. Wagner, and T. Badzinski
Use of Daptomycin in a Pregnant Patient with Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis
Ann. Pharmacother., April 1, 2010; 44(4): 746 - 749.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
D. T. Nguyen, E. Yeh, S. Perry, R. F. Luo, B. A. Pinsky, B. P. Lee, D. Sisodiya, E. J. Baron, and N. Banaei
Real-Time PCR Testing for mecA Reduces Vancomycin Usage and Length of Hospitalization for Patients Infected with Methicillin-Sensitive Staphylococci
J. Clin. Microbiol., March 1, 2010; 48(3): 785 - 790.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Pharmacy PracticeHome page
T. M. Winterboer, K. A. Lecci, and K. M. Olsen
Continuing Education: Alternative Approaches to Optimizing Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics in Critically Ill Patients
Journal of Pharmacy Practice, February 1, 2010; 23(1): 6 - 18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mayo Clin Proc.Home page
R. Orenstein and S. C. Litin
Clinical Pearls in Infectious Diseases
Mayo Clin. Proc., February 1, 2010; 85(2): 172 - 175.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
L. McCluggage, K. Lee, T. Potter, R. Dugger, and A. Pakyz
Implementation and evaluation of vancomycin nomogram guidelines in a computerized prescriber-order-entry system
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., January 1, 2010; 67(1): 70 - 75.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
H. M. Nguyen and C. J. Graber
Limitations of antibiotic options for invasive infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: is combination therapy the answer?
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., January 1, 2010; 65(1): 24 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
R. K. Shields, J. L. Martello, B. A. Potoski, G. Sakoulas, and P. A. Moise
Is Vancomycin Ototoxicity a Significant Risk?
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., October 1, 2009; 53(10): 4572 - 4573.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
K. M. Kuper, E. B. Hirsch, V. H. Tam, and on behalf of the Houston Infectious Diseases Netwo
Significant publications on infectious diseases pharmacotherapy in 2008
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., October 1, 2009; 66(19): 1726 - 1734.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
S. Svetitsky, L. Leibovici, and M. Paul
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Vancomycin versus Teicoplanin: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., October 1, 2009; 53(10): 4069 - 4079.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
Y. Harigaya, J. B. Bulitta, A. Forrest, G. Sakoulas, A. J. Lesse, J. M. Mylotte, and B. T. Tsuji
Pharmacodynamics of Vancomycin at Simulated Epithelial Lining Fluid Concentrations against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Implications for Dosing in MRSA Pneumonia
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., September 1, 2009; 53(9): 3894 - 3901.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Clin PharmacolHome page
S. Laer, J. S. Barrett, and B. Meibohm
The In Silico Child: Using Simulation to Guide Pediatric Drug Development and Manage Pediatric Pharmacotherapy
J. Clin. Pharmacol., August 1, 2009; 49(8): 889 - 904.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
E. O. Mason, L. B. Lamberth, W. A. Hammerman, K. G. Hulten, J. Versalovic, and S. L. Kaplan
Vancomycin MICs for Staphylococcus aureus Vary by Detection Method and Have Subtly Increased in a Pediatric Population Since 2005
J. Clin. Microbiol., June 1, 2009; 47(6): 1628 - 1630.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
A. H. Thomson, C. E. Staatz, C. M. Tobin, M. Gall, and A. M. Lovering
Development and evaluation of vancomycin dosage guidelines designed to achieve new target concentrations
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., May 1, 2009; 63(5): 1050 - 1057.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JWatch Infect. DiseasesHome page
Therapeutic Monitoring of Vancomycin in Adults
Journal Watch Infectious Diseases, January 21, 2009; 2009(121): 6 - 6.
[Full Text]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow A correction has been published
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rybak, M.
Right arrow Articles by Levine, D. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rybak, M.
Right arrow Articles by Levine, D. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?