Hypersensitivity syndrome associated with teicoplanin has rarely been reported. We report a case with a preceding episode of vancomyin-related neutropenia. A 47-year-old female with cervical spine infection was treated with vancomycin. Neutropenia occurred after 17 days of vancomycin therapy. Vancomycin was changed to teicoplanin, and the neutropenia resolved 4 days later. After 11 days of teicoplanin therapy, a new episode of hypersensitivity syndrome manifested as fever, bilateral neck lymphadenopathy, mild wheezing, hepatitis and increased CRP occurred. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia developed 3 days later. The patient's symptoms settled over 1 week following withdrawal of teicoplanin. Naranjo's ADR algorithm categorized the neutropenia associated with vancomycin and the hypersensitivity syndrome associated with teicoplanin as 'probable'.

Teicoplanin, used as an alternative in cases of vancomycin intolerance, was associated with a high incidence of ADRs and haematological reactions, most notably neutropenia. This high rate of ADRs suggests cross-reactivity between the two glycopeptides.

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

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of candidaemia, consumption of fluconazole and susceptibility of blood Candida isolates at a tertiary hospital. From January 1999 to September 2006, all candidaemic episodes were identified and available strains were evaluated for the susceptibilities of antifungal agents. Annual defined daily doses of antifungal agents were collected. There had been 909 Candida isolates detected from the bloodstream of 843 patients during the study period. Among them, 740 isolates were available for the susceptibilities of antifungal agents. The incidence density of candidaemia was 28 episodes per 10,000 patient-days. Species distribution of 909 isolates did not vary annually, but varied greatly in the units of the hospital. Candida parapsilosis was the more prominent (30.1%) isolate in the paediatric units, where C. tropicalis and C. glabrata were less common (12.3% and 1.4% respectively). Resistance rates for itraconazole, fluconazole and voriconazole were 6.9%, 3.8% and 3.8% respectively. There were 25 (3.4%) isolates resistant to amphotericin-B. Although fluconazole usage increased over time (r(2) = 0.45; P = 0.07), fluconazole resistance did not increase accordingly (P = 0.33). In our institution in which the incidence of candidaemia was high, fluconazole resistance among blood Candida isolates remained rare.

BackgroundPay-for-Performance programs have shown improvement in indicators monitoring adequacy and target achievement in diabetic care. However, less is known regarding the impact of this program on the occurrence and long-term effects of diabetic retinopathy. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of pay-for-performance program on the development of treatment needed for diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes patients.MethodsWe conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study with a matching design using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from 2000 to 2012. The outcome was defined as the treatment needed diabetic retinopathy. We matched Pay-for-Performance and non-Pay-for-Performance groups for age, gender, year diabetes was diagnosed and study enrollment, and duration of follow-up.ResultsA total of 9311 patients entered the study cohort, of whom 2157 were registered in the Pay-for-Performance group and 7154 matched in the non-Pay-for-Performance group. The incidence of treatment needed diabetic retinopathy was not significantly different in two groups. However, the incidence of treatment needed diabetic retinopathy was significantly different if restricted the non-Pay-for-Performance group who had at least 1 eye examination or optical coherence tomography within 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64–0.94).ConclusionsPay-for-Performance is valuable in preventing the development of treatment needed diabetic retinopathy, which could be attributed to the routine eye examination required in the Pay-for-Performance program. We could improve our diabetic care by promoting eye health education and patient awareness on the importance of regular examinations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3454-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.