Copper and nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots as green nano-probes for fluorimetric determination of delafloxacin; characterization and applications

BACKGROUND

Carbon quantum dots (CQDs) have gained much interest recently for being efficient probes. Their cost-effectiveness, eco-friendliness, and unique photocatalytic activities made them distinctive alternatives to other luminescent approaches like fluorescent dyes and luminous derivatization. Meanwhile, delafloxacin (DLF) is a recently approved antibacterial medicine. DLF has been authorized for the treatment of soft-tissue and skin infections as well as pneumonia. Therefore, new eco-friendly, cost-effective, and sensitive tools are needed its estimation in different matrices.

RESULTS

In the proposed study, green copper and nitrogen carbon dots (Cu-N@CDs) were synthesized from a green source (plum juice with copper sulphate). Cu-N@CQDs were then characterized using multiple tools including X-ray photon spectroscopy (XPS), FTIR and UV-VIS spectroscopy, Zeta potential measurements, High-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), and fluorescence spectroscopy. After gradually adding DLF, the developed quantum dots' fluorescence was significantly enhanced within the working range of 0.5-100.0 ng mL-1. The limits of detection and quantification were 0.08 and 0.27 ng mL-1, respectively. The accuracy of the proposed method ranged from 96.00 to 99.12 % in recovery%, when recovered from milk and plasma samples.

SIGNIFICANCE

Cu-N@CDs were utilized and validated for selectively determining DLF in several matrices including pharmaceutical forms, human plasma and in milk samples using spectrofluorimetric technique. The bio-analytical method is simple and could be used in content uniformity testing as well as in therapeutic drug monitoring in human plasma.

The Intersection of Antimicrobial Stewardship, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Federal Legislature

To mitigate the dangers of inappropriate antimicrobial use leading to increased multidrug-resistant organisms and mortality, antimicrobial stewardship programs have become a mainstay in many health systems. Unfortunately, some pharmaceutical manufacturers simultaneously have ended antimicrobial research and development efforts altogether due to suboptimal return on investments. An optimal and sustainable antimicrobial armamentarium requires a broad alliance between antimicrobial stewardship programs, the pharmaceutical industry, the legislature, and federal and state agencies. Public-private relationships such as the Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator (CARB-X) and legislative policies creating push and pull incentives, including the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN), Developing an Innovative Strategy for Antimicrobial-Resistant Microorganisms (DISARM), and Pioneering Antimicrobial Subscriptions to End Upsurging Resistance (PASTEUR) Acts, are each a step in the right direction, but more work remains. Understanding these legislative actions is imperative for all clinicians, as is teamwork from those involved in the antimicrobial field to develop and maintain the life cycle of each drug that harbors societal value.

It's about the patients: Practical antibiotic stewardship in outpatient settings in the United States

Antibiotic-resistant pathogens cause over 35,000 preventable deaths in the United States every year, and multiple strategies could decrease morbidity and mortality. As antibiotic stewardship requirements are being deployed for the outpatient setting, community providers are facing systematic challenges in implementing stewardship programs. Given that the vast majority of antibiotics are prescribed in the outpatient setting, there are endless opportunities to make a smart and informed choice when prescribing and to move the needle on antibiotic stewardship. Antibiotic stewardship in the community, or "smart prescribing" as we suggest, should factor in antibiotic efficacy, safety, local resistance rates, and overall cost, in addition to patient-specific factors and disease presentation, to arrive at an appropriate therapy. Here, we discuss some of the challenges, such as patient/parent pressure to prescribe, lack of data or resources for implementation, and a disconnect between guidelines and real-world practice, among others. We have assembled an easy-to-use best practice guide for providers in the outpatient setting who lack the time or resources to develop a plan or consult lengthy guidelines. We provide specific suggestions for antibiotic prescribing that align real-world clinical practice with best practices for antibiotic stewardship for two of the most common bacterial infections seen in the outpatient setting: community-acquired pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infection. In addition, we discuss many ways that community providers, payors, and regulatory bodies can make antibiotic stewardship easier to implement and more streamlined in the outpatient setting.

Afabicin, a First-in-Class Antistaphylococcal Antibiotic, in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Clinical Noninferiority to Vancomycin/Linezolid

Afabicin (formerly Debio 1450, AFN-1720) is a prodrug of afabicin desphosphono, an enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (FabI) inhibitor, and is a first-in-class antibiotic with a novel mode of action to specifically target fatty acid synthesis in Staphylococcus spp. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of afabicin were compared with those of vancomycin/linezolid in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to staphylococci in this multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, and double-dummy phase 2 study.

Afabicin (formerly Debio 1450, AFN-1720) is a prodrug of afabicin desphosphono, an enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (FabI) inhibitor, and is a first-in-class antibiotic with a novel mode of action to specifically target fatty acid synthesis in Staphylococcus spp. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of afabicin were compared with those of vancomycin/linezolid in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) due to staphylococci in this multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, and double-dummy phase 2 study. Randomized patients (1:1:1) received either low-dose (LD) afabicin (intravenous [i.v.] 80 mg, followed by oral 120 mg, twice a day [BID]), high-dose (HD) afabicin (i.v. 160 mg, followed by oral 240 mg, BID), or vancomycin/linezolid (i.v. vancomycin 1 g or 15 mg/kg, followed by oral linezolid 600 mg, BID). The most frequent baseline pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (97.5% of microbiological intent-to-treat [mITT] population), and 50.4% of patients had methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Clinical response rates at 48 to 72 h postrandomization in the mITT population were comparable among treatment groups (94.6%, 90.1%, and 91.1%, respectively). Both LD and HD afabicin were noninferior to vancomycin/linezolid (differences, −3.5% [95% confidence interval {CI}, −10.8%, 3.9%] and 1.0% [95% CI, −7.3%, 9.2%], respectively). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and were headache (9.1% and 16.8%) and nausea (6.4% and 8.4%) with LD and HD afabicin, respectively. Afabicin was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of ABSSSI due to staphylococci, and these data support further development of afabicin for the treatment of ABSSSI and potentially other types of staphylococcal infections. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02426918.)

Multicenter Study of the Real-World Use of Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

The objective of this study was to determine if real-world ceftaroline treatment in adults hospitalized for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) is associated with decreased infection-related length of stay (LOSinf) compared to that with vancomycin. This was a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study from 2012 to 2017. Cox proportional hazard regression, propensity score matching, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to determine the independent effect of treatment group on LOSinf The patients were adults hospitalized with ABSSSI and treated with ceftaroline or vancomycin for ≥72 h within 120 h of diagnosis at four academic medical centers and two community hospitals in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, and West Virginia. A total of 724 patients were included (325 ceftaroline treated and 399 vancomycin treated). In general, ceftaroline-treated patients had characteristics consistent with a higher risk of poor outcomes. The unadjusted median LOSinf values were 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7) days and 6 (IQR, 4 to 8) days in the vancomycin and ceftaroline groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.866; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.747 to 1.002). The Cox proportional hazard model (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.891; 95% CI, 0.748 to 1.060), propensity score-matched (aHR, 0.955; 95% CI, 0.786 to 1.159), and IPTW (aHR, 0.918; 95% CI, 0.793 to 1.063) analyses demonstrated no significant difference in LOSinf between groups. Patients treated with ceftaroline were significantly more likely to meet criteria for discharge readiness at day 3 in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Although discharge readiness at day 3 was higher in ceftaroline-treated patients, LOSinf values were similar between treatment groups. Clinical and nonclinical factors were associated with LOSinf.

Combating resistance while maintaining innovation: the future of antimicrobial stewardship

Antimicrobial resistance represents a significant global health threat. However, a commercial model that does not offer a return on investment resulting in a lack of investment in antibiotic R&D, means that the current pipeline of antibiotics lacks sufficient innovation to meet this challenge. Those responsible for defining, promoting and monitoring the rationale use of antibiotics (the antimicrobial stewardship programme) are key to addressing current shortcomings. In this personal perspective, we discuss the future role stewardship can play in stimulating innovation, a need to move away from a pharmacy budget dominated view of antibiotic use, and the impact of the ever-increasing sophistication and interdisciplinary nature of antimicrobial control programs. Changes are needed to optimize clinical outcomes for patients.

Antimicrobial stewardship during a time of rapid antimicrobial development: Potential impact on industry for future investment

In response to the antimicrobial resistance crisis, pharmaceutical industry reinvested in and produced new antibiotics. Antimicrobial stewardship programs influence optimal antimicrobial use, which often places them at the cross-roads of resistance and treatments. We surveyed a clinical administration database of US medical centers between 2014 and 2018 for index antimicrobial utilization date of six Qualified Infectious Diseases Products (QIDP). Among 132 hospitals identified, the median time to use any agent was 398 days (range 13 to >1478 days). QIDP antibiotic use was more likely among academic medical centers (range 34%-88%) and hospitals >400 beds (range 39%-86%) compared to non-academic medical center (3-51%) and smaller and hospitals (range 0-61%). The South was quickest to use all QIDP (median 733 days), while the Northeast was longest at 1370 days. New antimicrobials have limited clinical use, which impacts manufacturers' ability to stay in the antimicrobial market and further risking a depleted antimicrobial pipeline.