ArticleInternational journal of antimicrobial agents2020
Clinical outcomes of teicoplanin use in the OPAT setting.
Article in International journal of antimicrobial agents, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delivery of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) in an Ever-Changing National Health Service (UK): Benefits, Barriers, and Opportunities.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Analysis of Prosthetic Joint Infections, Risk Factors for Treatment Failure and Effect of Teicoplanin in Treatment: A Single-Center, Retrospective, Observational Study.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Current practices and challenges of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a narrative review.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Review
- Successful Outpatient Treatment of Severe Diabetic-Foot Myositis and Osteomyelitis Caused by Extensively Drug-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis with Teicoplanin plus Rifampicin: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Teicoplanin possesses several convenient properties for use in the delivery of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services. However, its use is not widespread and data on its efficacy in the OPAT setting are limited. Here we present a case series of patients undergoing OPAT care being treated by either teicoplanin-based (n = 107) or ceftriaxone-based (n = 191) antibiotic regimens. Clinical failure with teicoplanin occurred in five episodes of care (4.7%) compared with only two episodes of ceftriaxone-based OPAT care (1.0%). Teicoplanin-associated clinical failure was observed in 2 (33.3%) of 6 patients with Enterococcus infections compared with 3 (3.0%) of 101 patients with non-Enterococcus infections. Overall, there were four (2.9%) drug-related adverse events for teicoplanin and four (1.8%) for ceftriaxone, prompting a switch to teicoplanin in three patients. These findings support the continued use of teicoplanin in OPAT as well as its consideration in centres where it is not currently being offered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.