Carbapenem antibiotics are the most effective antimicrobials for the treatment of infections caused by the most resistant bacteria. They belong to the category of β-lactams that include the penicillins, cephalosporins, monobactams and carbapenems. This class of antimicrobials has a broader spectrum of activity than most other beta-lactams antibiotics and are the most effective against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. All β-lactams antibiotics have a similar molecular structure: the carbapenems together with the β-lactams. This combination gives an extraordinary stability to the molecule against the enzymes inactivating the β-lactams. They are safe to use and therefore widespread use in many countries has given rise to carbapenem resistance which is a major global public health problem. The carbapenem resistance in some species is intrinsic and consists of the capacity to resist the action of antibiotics with several mechanisms: for the absence of a specific target, or an intrinsic difference in the composition of cytoplasmatic membrane or the inability to cross the outer membrane. In addition to intrinsic resistance, bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics with several mechanisms that can be gathered in three main groups. The first group includes antibiotics with poor penetration into the outer membrane of bacterium or antibiotic efflux. The second includes bacteria that modify the target of the antibiotics through genetic mutations or post-translational modification of the target. The third includes bacteria that act with enzyme-catalyzed modification and this is due to the production of beta-lactamases, that are able to inactivate carbapenems and so called carbapenemases. In this review, we focus on the mode of action of carbapenem and the mechanisms of carbapenem resistance.

The management of the COVID-19 pandemic represents a challenging process, especially for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to the serious economic and health resource problems it generates. In this article, we assess COVID-19 situation in LMICs and outline emerging problems and possible solutions. The prevention and control of COVID-19 would be based on focused tests exploiting those systems (e.g., GeneXpert^®) already used in other scenarios. This would be less stressful for the healthcare system in LMICs. Avoiding close contact with people suffering from acute respiratory infections, frequent handwashing, and avoiding unprotected contact with farm or wild animals are recommended infection control interventions. The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, despite its procurement being especially difficult in LMICs. Patients’ triage should be based on a simple and rapid logarithm to decide who requires isolation and targeted testing for SARS-CoV-2. Being able to estimate which patients will develop severe disease would allow hospitals to better utilize the already limited resources more effectively. In LMICs, laboratories are often in the capital cities; therefore, early diagnosis and isolation become difficult. The number of ICU beds is often insufficient, and the equipment is often old and poorly serviced. LMICs will need access to COVID-19 treatments at minimal prices to ensure that all who need them can be treated. Year-to-date, different vaccines have been approved and are currently available. The main obstacle to accessing them is the limited ability of LMICs to purchase significant quantities of the vaccine.

The aim of this study was to assess colistin use in a country endemic for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB). Colistin prescription patterns were evaluated in 22 Italian centres. Factors associated with use of colistin in combination with other anti-MDR-GNB agents were also assessed. A total of 221 adults receiving colistin were included in the study. Their median age was 64 years (interquartile range 52-73 years) and 134 (61%) were male. Colistin was mostly administered intravenously (203/221; 92%) and mainly for targeted therapy (168/221; 76%). The most frequent indications for colistin therapy were bloodstream infection and lower respiratory tract infection. Intravenous colistin was administered in combination with at least another anti-MDR-GNB agent in 80% of cases (163/203). A loading dose of 9 MU of colistimethate was administered in 79% of patients receiving i.v. colistin and adequate maintenance doses in 85%. In multivariable analysis, empirical therapy [odds ratio (OR) = 3.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-8.53;P = 0.017] and targeted therapy for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infection (OR = 4.76, 95% CI 1.69-13.43; P = 0.003) were associated with use of colistin in combination with other agents, whilst chronic renal failure (OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.88; P = 0.024) was associated with use of colistin monotherapy. Colistin remains an important option for severe MDR-GNB infections when other treatments are not available. Despite inherent difficulties in optimising its use owing to peculiar pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics, colistin was mostly used appropriately in a country endemic for MDR-GNB.

Background. Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is the most common cause of flaccid paralysis, with about 100,000 people developing the disorder every year worldwide. Recently, the incidence of GBS has increased during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemics. We reviewed the literature to give a comprehensive overview of the demographic characteristics, clinical features, diagnostic investigations, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2-related GBS patients. Methods. Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched on 24 September 2020 for studies reporting on GBS secondary to COVID-19. Results. We identified 63 articles; we included 32 studies in our review. A total of 41 GBS cases with a confirmed or probable COVID-19 infection were reported: 26 of them were single case reports and 6 case series. Published studies on SARS-CoV-2-related GBS typically report a classic sensorimotor type of GBS often with a demyelinating electrophysiological subtype. Miller Fisher syndrome was reported in a quarter of the cases. In 78.1% of the cases, the response to immunomodulating therapy is favourable. The disease course is frequently severe and about one-third of the patients with SARS-CoV-2-associated GBS requires mechanical ventilation and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. Rarely the outcome is poor or even fatal (10.8% of the cases). Conclusion. Clinical presentation, course, response to treatment, and outcome are similar in SARS-CoV-2-associated GBS and GBS due to other triggers.

(1) Background: healthcare-associated infections are one of the most frequent adverse events in healthcare delivery worldwide. Several antibiotic resistance mechanisms have been developed, including those to carbapenemase. Cefiderocol (CFD) is a novel siderophore cephalosporin designed to treat carbapenem-resistant bacteria. (2) Methods: we performed a systematic review of all cases reported in the literature to outline the existing evidence. We evaluated real-world evidence studies of CFD in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant (CR) bacteria. (3) Results: a total of 19 publications treating cases of infection by CR bacteria were included. The three most frequent CR pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. A regimen of 2 g every 8 h was most frequently adopted for CFD with a mean treatment duration of 25.6 days. CFD was generally well tolerated, with fewer side effects. The success rate of CFD therapy was satisfactory and almost 70% of patients showed clinical recovery; of these, nearly half showed negative blood cultures and infection-free status. (4) Conclusions: This review indicates that CFD is active against important GN organisms including Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii. CFD seems to have a safe profile.

This pilot study was designed to compare the efficacy of ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide (um-PEA) as add-on therapy to tapentadol (TP) with TP therapy only in patients suffering from chronic low back pain (LBP). This pilot observational study consists in two arms: the prospective arm and the retrospective one. In the prospective arm patients consecutively selected received um-PEA as add-on therapy to TP for 6 months; in the retrospective arm patients were treated with TP only for 6 months. Pain intensity and neuropathic component were evaluated at baseline, during and after 6 months. The degree of disability and TP dosage assumption were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months. Statistical analysis performed with generalized linear mixed model on 55 patients (30 in the prospective group and 25 in the retrospective group) demonstrated that um-PEA as add-on treatment to TP in patients with chronic LBP, in comparison to TP alone, led to a significantly higher reduction in pain intensity, in the neuropathic component, the degree of disability and TP dosage assumption. No serious side effects were observed. Overall, the present findings suggest that um-PEA may be an innovative therapeutic intervention as add-on therapy to TP for the management of chronic LBP with a neuropathic component, as well as to improve patient quality of life. Additionally, this combination treatment allowed a reduction in TP dose over time and did not show any serious side effects.