This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Successful treatment of cancer remains a challenge, due to the unique pathophysiology of solid tumors, and the predictable emergence of resistance. Traditional methods for cancer therapy including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy all have their own limitations. A novel approach is bacteriotherapy, either used alone, or in combination with conventional methods, has shown a positive effect on regression of tumors and inhibition of metastasis. Bacteria‐assisted tumor‐targeted therapy used as therapeutic/gene/drug delivery vehicles has great promise in the treatment of tumors. The use of bacteria only, or in combination with conventional methods was found to be effective in some experimental models of cancer (tumor regression and increased survival rate). In this article, we reviewed the major advantages, challenges, and prospective directions for combinations of bacteria with conventional methods for tumor therapy.

No abstract

Background Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is an important pathogen of healthcare- associated diarrhea, however, an increase in the occurrence of C. difficile infection (CDI) outside hospital settings has been reported. The accumulation of antimicrobial resistance in C. difficile can increase the risk of CDI development and/or its spread. The limited number of antimicrobials for the treatment of CDI is matter of some concern. Objectives In order to summarize the data on antimicrobial resistance to C. difficile derived from humans, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Methods We searched five bibliographic databases: (MEDLINE [PubMed], Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) for studies that focused on antimicrobial susceptibility testing in C. difficile and were published between 1992 and 2019. The weighted pooled resistance (WPR) for each antimicrobial agent was calculated using a random- effects model. Results A total of 111 studies were included. The WPR for metronidazole and vancomycin was 1.0% (95% CI 0–3%) and 1% (95% CI 0–2%) for the breakpoint > 2 mg/L and 0% (95% CI 0%) for breakpoint ≥32 μg/ml. Rifampin and tigecycline had a WPRs of 37.0% (95% CI 18–58%) and 1% (95% CI 0–3%), respectively. The WPRs for the other antimicrobials were as follows: ciprofloxacin 95% (95% CI 85–100%), moxifloxacin 32% (95% CI 25–40%), clindamycin 59% (95% CI 53–65%), amoxicillin/clavulanate 0% (0–0%), piperacillin/tazobactam 0% (0–0%) and ceftriaxone 47% (95% CI 29–65%). Tetracycline had a WPR 20% (95% CI 14–27%) and meropenem showed 0% (95% CI 0–1%); resistance to fidaxomicin was reported in one isolate (0.08%). Conclusion Resistance to metronidazole, vancomycin, fidaxomicin, meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam is reported rarely. From the alternative CDI drug treatments, tigecycline had a lower resistance rate than rifampin. The high-risk antimicrobials for CDI development showed a high level of resistance, the highest was seen in the second generation of fluoroquinolones and clindamycin; amoxicillin/clavulanate showed almost no resistance. Tetracycline resistance was present in one fifth of human clinical C. difficile isolates.