Nanotechnology is the science of nanoscale, which is the scale of nanometers or one billionth of a meter. Nanotechnology encompasses a broad range of technologies, materials, and manufacturing processes that are used to design and/or enhance many products, including medicinal products. This technology has achieved considerable progress in the oncology field in recent years. Most chemotherapeutic agents are not specific to the cancer cells they are intended to treat, and they can harm healthy cells, leading to numerous adverse effects. Due to this non-specific targeting, it is not feasible to administer high doses that may harm healthy cells. Moreover, low doses can cause cancer cells to acquire resistance, thus making them hard to kill. A solution that could potentially enhance drug targeting and delivery lies in understanding the complexity of nanotechnology. Engineering pharmaceutical and natural products into nano-products can enhance the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Novel nano-formulations such as liposomes, polymeric micelles, dendrimers, quantum dots, nano-suspensions, and gold nanoparticles have been shown to enhance the delivery of drugs. Improved delivery of chemotherapeutic agents targets cancer cells rather than healthy cells, thereby preventing undesirable side effects and decreasing chemotherapeutic drug resistance. Nanotechnology has also revolutionized cancer diagnosis by using nanotechnology-based imaging contrast agents that can specifically target and therefore enhance tumor detection. In addition to the delivery of drugs, nanotechnology can be used to deliver nutraceuticals like phytochemicals that have multiple properties, such as antioxidant activity, that protect cells from oxidative damage and reduce the risk of cancer. There have been multiple advancements and implications for the use of nanotechnology to enhance the delivery of both pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

(1) Background: Dalbavancin is a long-acting lipoglycopeptide antibiotic approved for skin and soft-tissue infections. Post-marketing experience suggests dalbavancin is being used for off-label indications that normally require long-term intravenous (IV) antibiotics; however, data assessing this off-label usage are limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world efficacy, safety, and financial impact of off-label dalbavancin use. (2) Methods: This is a retrospective, observational study conducted within a 4-hospital health system. Adult patients who received dalbavancin from January 2018 to January 2021 for an off-label indication were included. The primary outcome was clinical success at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included safety (nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity). A pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed by comparing the cost of dalbavancin to the anticipated cost of patient stay if standard IV therapy was given. (3) Results: Forty-eight patients met study criteria. Indications included osteomyelitis (54%), endocarditis (23%), bacteremia (15%), and prosthetic joint infection (8%). The predominant organism was S. aureus (60%), with 42% caused by methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Overall, 41 (85%) patients achieved clinical success at 90 days, including 85% with osteomyelitis, 82% with endocarditis, and 86% with bacteremia. There were no instances of nephrotoxicity or hepatotoxicity. Estimated cost avoidance per patient was USD 5313 and USD 1683 if traditional IV therapy would have been completed in the hospital and skilled nursing facility, respectively. (4) Conclusion: Dalbavancin was associated with a relatively high success rate for the treatment of off-label indications and may be a cost-effective alternative to traditional IV antibiotic therapy.

Objective: To determine whether a multifaceted initiative resulted in maintained reduction in inappropriate treatment of asymptomatic pyuria (ASP) or bacteriuria (ASB) in the emergency department (ED). Design: Single-center, retrospective study. Methods: Beginning in December 2015, a series of interventions were implemented to decrease the inappropriate treatment of ASP or ASB in the ED. Patients discharged from the ED from August to October 2015 (preintervention period), from December 2016 to February 2017 (postintervention period 1), and from November 2019 to January 2020 (postintervention period 2) were included if they had pyuria and/or bacteriuria without urinary symptoms. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics within 72 hours of discharge from the ED. The secondary outcome was the number of patients returning to the ED with symptomatic UTI within 30 days of discharge. Results: We detected a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with ASP or ASB who were inappropriately treated when comparing the preintervention group and post-intervention group 1 (100% vs 32.4%; P < .001). This reduced frequency of inappropriate treatment was noted 3 years after the intervention, with 28% of patients receiving treatment for ASP or ASB in postintervention group 2. (P was not significant fin the comparison with postintervention group 1.) Among the 3 groups analyzed, we detected no difference in the numbers of patients returning to the ED with a symptomatic UTI within 30 days of ED discharge regardless of whether patients received antibiotics. Conclusions: A multifaceted intervention resulted in a significant decrease in inappropriate use of antibiotics for ASP and/or ASB that was maintained 3 years after implementation.