Antibiotics in the pipeline: a literature review (2017-2020).

INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an emerging global threat. It increases mortality and morbidity and strains healthcare systems. Health care professionals can counter the rising AMR by promoting antibiotic stewardship and facilitating new drug development. Even with the economic and scientific challenges, it is reassuring that new agents continue to be developed. METHODS: This review addresses new antibiotics in the pipeline. We conducted a review of the literature including Medline, Clinicaltrials.org, and relevant pharmaceutical companies for approved and in pipeline antibiotics in phase 3 or new drug application (NDA). RESULTS: We found a number of new antibiotics and reviewed their current development status, mode of action, spectra of activity, and indications for which they have been approved. The included studies from phase 3 clinical trials were mainly utilized for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and pneumonia acquired in the healthcare settings. The number of these agents is limited against high priority organisms. The identified antibiotics were based mainly on previously known molecules or pre-existing antimicrobial agents. CONCLUSION: There are a limited number of antibiotics against high priority organisms such as multi-drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. New antimicrobial agents directed against the top priority organisms as classified by the World Health Organization are urgently needed.

Standard dosing of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patient with COVID-19: a multicenter propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19.  METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate.  RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH.

Short term effectiveness of ustekinumab versus vedolizumab in Crohn's disease after failure of anti-TNF agents: An observational comparative study design with a Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a debilitating gastrointestinal disease with complex etiology. Although effective, recipients of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents may experience primary or secondary nonresponse, necessitating alternative treatments. This study is intended to compare the short-term effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in treating CD after failure of multiple lines of anti-TNF therapy using real-world data. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, including adults (≥18 years old) with CD who did not respond to anti-TNF therapy. Primary endpoints were clinical improvement per the Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) scores and remission at 12 weeks on an ordinal outcome scale. Secondary endpoints included clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic remission; clinical response; corticosteroid-free days; and cumulative steroid dose. Proportional odds and logistic regression Bayesian models were used to analyze outcomes, and the probability of treatment effectiveness was calculated from the posterior distribution. RESULTS: The study included 101 patients (ustekinumab, n = 71 and vedolizumab, n = 30) with a median age of 32 years (IQR: 26.0-38.0); 54.4% were male. At 12 weeks, the HBI endpoint showed an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-1.31), favoring ustekinumab, with a 75% probability of treatment effectiveness over vedolizumab. The clinical ordinal scale had an aOR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.26-1.35) with a 73% probability of effectiveness for ustekinumab. Ustekinumab was also associated with favorable outcomes in secondary endpoints, reaching up to a 90% probability of effectiveness. CONCLUSION: In CD patients with anti-TNF failure, ustekinumab was more effective than vedolizumab in the short term. These real-world insights contribute to understanding CD management but require validation in larger prospective studies and randomized controlled trials.

A Systematic Review of therapeutic agents for the treatment of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV).

BACKGROUND: The Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first described in 2012 and attracted a great international attention due to multiple healthcare associated outbreaks. The disease carries a high case fatality rate of 34.5%, and there is no internationally or nationally recommended therapy. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, Science Direct, Embase and Scopus databases for relevant papers published till March 2019 describing in vitro, in vivo or human therapy of MERS. RESULTS: Initial search identified 62 articles: 52 articles were from Medline, 6 from Embase, and 4 from Science Direct. Based on the inclusions and exclusions criteria, 30 articles were included in the final review and comprised: 22 in vitro studies, 8 studies utilizing animal models, 13 studies in humans, and one study included both in vitro and animal model. There are a few promising therapeutic agents on the horizon. The combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-beta- 1b showed excellent results in common marmosets and currently is in a randomized control trial. Ribavirin and interferon were the most widely used combination and experience comes from a number of observational studies. Although, the data are heterogenous, this combination might be of potential benefit and deserve further investigation. There were no randomized clinical trials to recommend specific therapy for the treatment of MERS-CoV infection. Only one such study is planned for randomization and is pending completion. The study is based on a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-beta- 1b. A fully human polyclonal IgG antibody (SAB-301) was safe and well tolerated in healthy individuals and this agent may deserve further testing for efficacy. CONCLUSION: Despite multiple studies in humans there is no consensus on the optimal therapy for MERS-CoV. Randomized clinical trials are needed and potential therapies should be evaluated only in such clinical trials. In order to further enhance the therapeutic aroma for MERS-CoV infection, repurposing old drugs against MERS-CoV is an interesting strategy and deserves further consideration and use in clinical settings.

Benchmarking of antibiotic usage: An adjustment to reflect antibiotic stewardship program outcome in a hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Antimicrobial stewardship program aims to reduce antibiotic use. Periodic measurement and monitoring of antibiotic use and comparison within the institution as well as with other organizations are important indicators. We analyzed antibiotic usage in a general hospital in Saudi Arabia. Antibiotic data were collected retrospectively for 2011 and from 2013 to 2015, and only adult patients (>15year of age) were included in the study. Data were presented as days of therapy (DOT) and defined daily dose (DDD). DDD was adjusted per 100 bed-days and according to the case mix index (CMI). The total DDD was 37,557 in 2013, 36,550 in 2014 and 38,738 in 2015. The DDD per 100 patient-days was 90.7-94.5. There was a discordant findings of antibiotic measurements based on the DDD compared to DOT, and DDD/100 bed-days compared to DOT/100 bed-days. There was a negative correlation between CMI and DDD per 100 bed days (r -0.696), but a positive correlation of CMI with DOT (r +0.93). Adjusted DDD/100 bed-days showed decrease in the usage of antibiotics, reflecting activities of the antibiotic stewardship program. The increase in DOT/100 bed-days may indicate the favorable utilization of combination therapy. Antibiotic usage needs to be adjusted per 100 bed-days and correlated with CMI for better reflection of optimal antibiotic utilization, activities of the antibiotic stewardship program, and to allow benchmarking.