Revolutionizing Infection Control: The Role of Bacteriophage Therapy in Combating Antimicrobial Resistance

Revolutionizing Infection Control: The Role of Bacteriophage Therapy in Combating Antimicrobial Resistance

Jorge Angel Velasco Espinal¹, Jorge Arizmendi García², José Eduardo Velasco Espinal³, Katerin Alvarado Echenoa⁴, Daniel Alberto Madrid Gonzalez⁵, Guadalupe Angeles Chimal⁶, Alexa Fernanda Uriostegui Navarro⁷, Ariana Itzel Olvera Dueñas⁸

^1,2,5,6,7,8Universidad del Valle de Cuernavaca

²Universidad del Valle de Cuernavaca

³Universidad Latinoamericana

⁴Universidad El Bosque

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0395

Received: 01 July 2025; Accepted: 11 July 2025; Published: 12 August 2025

ABSTRACT

The escalating threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has intensified the global pursuit of innovative therapeutic alternatives to conventional antibiotics. Bacteriophage therapy, a century-old approach that employs viruses to selectively target and lyse bacterial pathogens, has re-emerged as a credible strategy for managing multi-drug resistant (MDR) infections that no longer respond to traditional treatments. This documentary research examines the current relevance, clinical feasibility, and practical implications of integrating bacteriophage therapy into modern infection control frameworks. A purposive, systematic review of thirty peer-reviewed sources was conducted, encompassing empirical studies, clinical trials, compassionate-use reports, and expert analyses published primarily within the last fifteen years. The evidence was analyzed to identify infection types most frequently treated, geographical trends in research and application, clinical outcomes, development stages, administration routes, and formulation strategies. The results confirm that bacteriophage therapy demonstrates considerable therapeutic potential, with the majority of documented interventions reporting complete or partial resolution of resistant infections. Notably, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus remain the primary targets of phage-based interventions, while Europe and North America lead in advancing clinical development and translational research. The evolution of phage formulations from natural isolates to sophisticated genetically engineered constructs reflects the field’s adaptability and technological progress. Despite these advances, critical barriers persist, including regulatory challenges, the limited number of Phase III trials, and the need for robust phage banks and standardized clinical protocols. This study concludes that bacteriophage therapy represents a viable adjunct or alternative to conventional antimicrobials, contributing meaningful theoretical and practical insights to the field. Its successful integration into mainstream infection control strategies will depend on sustained interdisciplinary research, regulatory innovation, and equitable access to ensure its full potential is realized in the global fight against AMR.

Keywords: Bacteriophage Therapy; Antimicrobial Resistance; Multi-Drug Resistant Infections; Phage-Antibiotic Synergy; Alternative Antimicrobials

INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) constitutes an unprecedented challenge for contemporary global public health systems, threatening to undermine decades of medical progress and dramatically increasing morbidity, mortality, and economic burden worldwide [7]. Projections from authoritative international bodies estimate that by 2050, AMR could surpass cancer as a leading cause of death, with an annual death toll potentially reaching 10 million lives if decisive action is not undertaken [7]. The principal drivers behind this alarming scenario are multifactorial, encompassing inappropriate prescription practices, excessive use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in both human and veterinary medicine, lack of novel drug development, and insufficient public health measures to curtail the spread of resistant pathogens [1][2][5][26].

In response to this escalating crisis, the scientific community has intensified its efforts to identify and validate alternative or complementary antimicrobial strategies capable of circumventing conventional antibiotic limitations [1][4][12][25]. Among these emerging interventions, bacteriophage therapy—an approach that employs viruses specifically targeting and lysing bacterial hosts—has re-emerged as a scientifically grounded and potentially transformative solution [4][5][6][14]. Bacteriophages, or phages, were first discovered in the early 20th century and rapidly gained clinical application in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union prior to the widespread adoption of antibiotics [6][23][30]. However, with the advent and global success of synthetic antibiotics, phage therapy was relegated to a marginal role in mainstream Western medicine until the resurgence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens reignited interest in phage-based interventions [5][14][19].

Bacteriophages possess a suite of unique biological properties that render them highly attractive for modern therapeutic applications. Their exquisite host specificity enables targeted elimination of pathogenic bacteria while preserving the commensal microbiota, thereby minimizing collateral damage associated with broad-spectrum antibiotics [6][12][16][19]. Additionally, phages are self-replicating within the infection site, a feature that can amplify their therapeutic impact precisely where bacterial concentrations are highest [16][19]. These characteristics have driven recent advances in phage biology, including genetic engineering techniques that enhance lytic activity, broaden host range, and counteract bacterial defense mechanisms [2][9][17][20].

The practical feasibility of bacteriophage therapy has been demonstrated through a growing corpus of experimental studies, clinical trials, and compassionate-use case reports targeting recalcitrant infections caused by MDR bacteria [3][8][17][18]. Notable clinical successes include the adjuvant use of phages for prosthetic joint infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and osteomyelitis—conditions often complicated by biofilm formation and persistent resistance to conventional treatment regimens [8][11][17][18][27][29]. Moreover, pioneering research has highlighted the potential of phage-antibiotic synergy (PAS), wherein combined administration enhances bacterial eradication, mitigates resistance development, and restores susceptibility to previously ineffective antibiotics [19][25]. Such findings underscore the potential of integrated therapeutic paradigms that strategically leverage the complementary strengths of phages and antibiotics [19][25].

Despite these promising developments, significant barriers continue to impede the widespread adoption of bacteriophage therapy in mainstream medical practice [10][19][21][23]. Challenges include the lack of standardized regulatory frameworks, variability in phage preparation quality, limited scalability of production, and concerns regarding phage resistance evolution [10][21][23]. In this context, the establishment of robust phage banks, advanced cocktail design methodologies, and streamlined approval pathways are imperative to translate laboratory successes into sustainable clinical solutions [9][20][22][24]. Additionally, ethical considerations related to personalized phage therapy, compassionate use protocols, and equitable access in low- and middle-income countries demand critical attention from policymakers and healthcare stakeholders [18][20][24].

A comprehensive understanding of these challenges and opportunities necessitates a rigorous examination of the existing literature and empirical evidence. The present documentary research article is conceived as a critical synthesis and contextual analysis of contemporary scientific contributions, encompassing mechanistic studies, preclinical models, clinical trials, and translational research initiatives related to bacteriophage therapy [1–30]. Building on these foundations, this study seeks to address the following principal research question: To what extent can bacteriophage therapy be effectively integrated into modern infection control strategies to mitigate the global threat posed by antimicrobial resistance?

The underlying hypothesis guiding this inquiry is that bacteriophage therapy, when strategically combined with advanced biotechnological approaches and integrated within a supportive regulatory ecosystem, constitutes a viable and scalable adjunct or alternative to conventional antibiotics [2][4][9][12][13][19][25]. To test this hypothesis, this article adopts a documentary research design, systematically reviewing peer-reviewed literature spanning molecular biology, pharmacology, clinical practice, and public health policy [1–30]. This methodological alignment ensures a coherent link between the theoretical framework, the research objectives, and the analytical approach, thereby reinforcing the validity and relevance of the findings presented [14][22][23][24].

Through this scholarly contribution, the present work aspires not only to contextualize the current state of bacteriophage research but also to elucidate its translational potential within contemporary infection control paradigms. By articulating evidence-based recommendations and highlighting critical knowledge gaps, this study aims to inform and stimulate future scientific inquiry, regulatory reform, and clinical innovation in the ongoing global effort to curb the AMR crisis [7][14][16][28][30].

State of the Art

The persistent escalation of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most urgent and complex global health challenges, demanding sustained scientific scrutiny and multidisciplinary solutions [7][26]. A substantial body of contemporary research underscores that the emergence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacterial strains is not merely an isolated phenomenon but rather the cumulative outcome of decades of widespread antibiotic misuse in clinical, agricultural, and veterinary contexts [1][5][7][26]. This reality has been compounded by stagnant innovation pipelines in the pharmaceutical sector, with alarmingly few novel antibiotics reaching the market in the past two decades [1][2][5]. Consequently, the scientific community has revisited alternative therapeutic modalities that predate the antibiotic era, among which bacteriophage therapy has re-emerged as a scientifically robust candidate [4][14][23].

Historical Trajectory and Renewed Scientific Interest

Bacteriophages were discovered in the early 20th century and soon became an integral part of infection management in Eastern Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union [6][23][30]. However, the advent of broad-spectrum antibiotics and their rapid global dissemination marginalized phage therapy in Western medical paradigms for decades [5][14][30]. In light of the AMR crisis, this historical oversight has transformed into renewed research momentum, as contemporary scientists harness advanced molecular tools to isolate, engineer, and deploy phages with heightened precision [4][9][12][13].

Mechanisms of Action and Therapeutic Potential

Phages’ biological features have been extensively studied and refined in recent decades, confirming their inherent host specificity and self-replicating capabilities within infected tissues [6][12][16]. Such attributes enable them to target pathogenic bacteria selectively, preserving beneficial microbiota and minimizing collateral damage—a limitation long associated with broad-spectrum antibiotics [6][19]. Modern research has further leveraged genetic engineering to develop phages with expanded host ranges and enhanced lytic capabilities, overcoming some of the barriers posed by bacterial phage resistance mechanisms [2][9][17][20].

A growing corpus of studies has also examined the concept of phage-antibiotic synergy (PAS), demonstrating that co-administration can enhance bacterial eradication rates, disrupt biofilms, and even resensitize resistant strains to traditional antibiotics [19][25]. This integrated approach has been particularly relevant for complex, chronic infections such as osteomyelitis, diabetic foot ulcers, and respiratory infections where biofilm formation impedes standard antibiotic efficacy [8][18][19].

Clinical Evidence and Real-World Applications

Clinical applications of bacteriophage therapy have gradually transitioned from anecdotal use to rigorously documented case reports, compassionate-use protocols, and controlled clinical trials [3][8][11][17][18]. Notable interventions include successful treatment of recalcitrant prosthetic joint infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and urinary tract infections resistant to multiple lines of antibiotics [8][11][18][27][29]. For instance, recent randomized controlled trials have validated the intravesical use of bacteriophages in treating MDR urinary infections, demonstrating significant reductions in bacterial load and symptom severity [29]. Similarly, tailored phage cocktails have been deployed as adjuvant therapy in orthopedic and neurosurgical contexts with encouraging clinical outcomes [11][17][18].

Current Gaps, Barriers, and Strategic Needs

Despite the surge of promising data, the translation of bacteriophage therapy into standardized medical practice faces substantial regulatory, logistical, and ethical challenges [10][19][21][23]. Unlike conventional antibiotics, phages require individualized or semi-individualized design due to host specificity, posing hurdles for large-scale production and quality assurance [10][20][22]. Regulatory frameworks in most countries remain inadequately adapted to the unique biological properties of phages, with only a few nations, such as Georgia and parts of Eastern Europe, maintaining routine therapeutic phage use [6][21][23][24]. Furthermore, there is an urgent need to develop robust phage banks, standardized isolation protocols, and rapid susceptibility testing methods to support clinical decision-making [9][20][22].

Another layer of complexity relates to bacterial defense strategies against phage infection, including CRISPR-Cas systems and biofilm-mediated protection [19][21]. Consequently, ongoing research explores engineering “next-generation” phages equipped with mechanisms to evade bacterial immunity, as well as the use of adjuvant substances to potentiate phage penetration of biofilms [2][17][20].

Scientific Consensus and Research Imperatives

Leading scholars and international reports converge on the view that bacteriophage therapy should not be conceptualized as a wholesale replacement for antibiotics but rather as an essential component of integrated antimicrobial stewardship [14][19][23][25]. Innovative models advocate for combined phage-antibiotic protocols, personalized phage cocktails, and hybrid biotechnological solutions that can adapt dynamically to evolving bacterial resistance patterns [4][13][19][25].

The relevance of this paradigm is reinforced by emerging initiatives such as compassionate phage therapy programs, biobanking networks, and translational research collaborations bridging academia, biotechnology companies, and regulatory bodies [9][20][22][24]. These efforts align with the broader “One Health” framework, which recognizes the interconnections between human health, animal health, and environmental microbiomes in the global spread of AMR [1][7][26].

METHODOLOGY

The present study adopts a documentary research design, aiming to synthesize, critically interpret, and contextualize existing knowledge on bacteriophage therapy as an emerging response to the global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crisis. This methodological approach allows for a comprehensive exploration of theoretical, empirical, and practical dimensions of the topic without the collection of new empirical data from human subjects or experimental settings.

Participants

In documentary research, the concept of “participants” is replaced by the body of documents and scientific works that constitute the primary units of analysis. For this investigation, the “participants” include peer-reviewed articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical case studies, and position papers published primarily in the last decade. These sources provide robust insights into the molecular mechanisms, clinical applications, regulatory considerations, and real-world challenges associated with the implementation of bacteriophage therapy in combating resistant bacterial infections.

Selection criteria for these documents emphasized relevance, scientific rigor, and impact within the field. Only works published in reputable, indexed journals with demonstrable contributions to the understanding of phage biology, phage-antibiotic synergy, therapeutic design, or public health integration were considered. Priority was given to sources providing empirical evidence from controlled trials, compassionate-use cases, or translational research programs. Exclusion criteria included works lacking peer review, publications with obsolete data not grounded in current scientific consensus, and opinion pieces without supporting data.

By focusing on a diverse corpus of literature spanning multiple regions and healthcare contexts, this study ensures that the synthesized perspective reflects both global challenges and region-specific experiences in deploying bacteriophage therapies.

Sampling Procedure

A purposive, non-probabilistic sampling strategy was applied to identify and select the most pertinent documents. Searches were conducted systematically across multidisciplinary databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, employing Boolean operators and keyword combinations like bacteriophage therapy, phage resistance, multi-drug resistant infections, and phage-antibiotic synergy. Inclusion was limited to sources available in English, ensuring direct accessibility for detailed review.

To maintain thematic saturation and ensure the triangulation of perspectives, the final corpus was intentionally limited to thirty carefully selected references. This number was deemed sufficient to capture the breadth and depth of the topic without sacrificing focus or analytical coherence. Selection emphasized a balance between foundational theoretical works and the most recent clinical and technological advancements, thereby anchoring the discussion in historical context while highlighting emerging frontiers.

Data Collection Techniques and Instruments

The primary instrument for data collection was a structured protocol for systematic document retrieval and content analysis. An extraction matrix was designed to capture key information from each selected source, including study type, methodological design, key findings, limitations, and stated implications for practice or policy. This matrix enabled a standardized approach to comparing diverse studies and identifying recurring themes and knowledge gaps.

Reference management software, including Mendeley and Zotero, was used to organize bibliographic information and ensure consistency in citation and cross-referencing. Each source was independently reviewed in full-text format to verify its contribution to the research objectives and to assess methodological quality where applicable. Where discrepancies arose in interpretation, cross-checking among multiple credible sources helped maintain the validity and reliability of extracted information.

No standardized questionnaires or surveys were used, given the non-empirical nature of the study. However, methodological rigor was ensured through careful source triangulation, transparent documentation of search terms, and explicit reporting of inclusion and exclusion decisions.

Research Design

The research design is non-experimental, qualitative, and descriptive-analytical, consistent with the nature of documentary investigations. The approach is guided by an interpretive paradigm that combines inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductively, emerging themes, patterns, and contradictions are identified across the collected literature. Deductively, these themes are analyzed in relation to the central research question and underlying hypothesis that bacteriophage therapy represents a viable adjunct or alternative to conventional antibiotics in addressing AMR.

Particular emphasis was placed on comparing and contrasting studies that report clinical outcomes, describe pharmacological synergies, or address regulatory frameworks and ethical considerations. The analysis framework also considered the technological feasibility of phage production, delivery, and personalization as critical dimensions for real-world adoption.

As this study does not involve human participants or direct patient data, formal ethical approval was not required. Nonetheless, academic integrity was maintained by ensuring all sources were properly attributed and that the review process adhered strictly to scholarly standards of transparency and intellectual honesty.

To ensure methodological transparency, this study applied explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria during the document selection process. Sources were included if they were published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and 2024, written in English, and directly addressed bacteriophage therapy in the context of human or translational infection control. Studies focusing exclusively on veterinary or environmental applications were excluded unless they offered clear insights transferable to human health contexts. The literature search strategy employed Boolean operators and controlled vocabulary terms—such as phage therapy, multi-drug resistance, antimicrobial alternatives, and phage-antibiotic synergy—across multidisciplinary databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Potential sources of selection bias were mitigated by cross-checking articles across databases, triangulating findings, and transparently excluding duplicates or grey literature lacking peer review. Nonetheless, as with any documentary review, the possibility of residual bias remains due to language restrictions, database coverage, and the inherent limitations of relying solely on secondary sources. These measures strengthen the study’s internal consistency and offer a clear framework for replicability in future reviews.

Rationale for Methodological Coherence

By employing a rigorous, well-defined documentary research design, this study aligns its methodological approach with its central aim: to synthesize current knowledge, identify practical barriers and opportunities, and provide a reasoned perspective on how bacteriophage therapy can be effectively integrated into global infection control strategies. The structured sampling, careful source appraisal, and systematic thematic analysis provide a reliable foundation for the interpretations and conclusions presented in subsequent sections.

RESULTS

The results of this documentary investigation are presented as a structured synthesis of the thematic patterns, empirical findings, and critical insights derived from the reviewed literature. Given the documentary nature of this study, the results do not comprise novel experimental data but rather an integrated account of evidence from diverse, high-quality sources.

This section begins by highlighting the current scope and clinical relevance of bacteriophage therapy, with emphasis on the types of infections most frequently addressed, the bacterial strains targeted, and the therapeutic contexts in which phages have demonstrated promising outcomes. The synthesis then examines key trends in phage-antibiotic synergy, which is increasingly reported as a strategy to overcome multi-drug resistance and biofilm-associated persistence.

Furthermore, the results section outlines the main barriers and enablers identified across the literature regarding the regulatory landscape, production challenges, and acceptance of phage therapy as a mainstream medical intervention. By aggregating evidence from multiple contexts, this section provides a clear view of the extent to which bacteriophage therapy has transitioned from experimental and compassionate-use scenarios to more structured clinical frameworks.

To complement the narrative synthesis, quantitative summaries derived from the selected literature will be visualized through tables and graphs. These will illustrate, for example, the distribution of studies by bacterial species, the frequency of clinical trial phases, and documented success rates in treating resistant infections. Such visual representations enhance the clarity of the evidence presented and help to situate bacteriophage therapy within the broader landscape of infection control innovations.

Collectively, these findings lay the groundwork for a critical discussion of the practical feasibility, scientific robustness, and policy implications of integrating bacteriophage therapy into global antimicrobial stewardship strategies.

Figure 1 illustrates the relative distribution of bacterial infections most frequently treated with bacteriophage therapy, based on the synthesis of key clinical case reports, compassionate-use programs, and controlled trials identified in the reviewed literature. As shown, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections constitute the largest proportion of documented cases, reflecting its notorious prevalence as a multidrug-resistant pathogen commonly associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia, cystic fibrosis, and chronic wound infections [3][18][29].

Following P. aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus represents another significant target for phage-based interventions, particularly in the context of prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis, and skin and soft tissue infections [8][11][17]. Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli infections are also prominently represented, underscoring the expanding interest in applying phage therapy to combat Gram-negative pathogens implicated in hospital-acquired infections and urinary tract infections [3][27][29].

The inclusion of Enterococcus spp. and Salmonella spp. highlights emerging but less widespread applications, often documented in compassionate-use scenarios or early-phase trials [18][23]. The “Other” category encompasses additional bacterial species that have been targeted experimentally or in highly specialized clinical settings but for which the body of evidence remains comparatively limited [1][9].

This distribution confirms the tendency reported in the literature to prioritize phage development against high-priority pathogens as designated by the World Health Organization and other international bodies addressing the AMR crisis [7]. The predominance of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus aligns with current research funding priorities and illustrates the strategic focus of phage therapy research on infections that are particularly challenging to treat with conventional antibiotics alone.

Figure 2 presents the estimated geographical distribution of documented studies on bacteriophage therapy, as derived from the reviewed literature and major clinical reports. The distribution highlights that Europe accounts for the largest share of scientific production and clinical application of phage therapy, representing approximately 35% of reported studies. This predominance is largely explained by Eastern Europe’s historical legacy in pioneering phage research and clinical implementation, with institutions in Georgia and Poland maintaining operational phage therapy centers since the early 20th century [23][30].

North America, representing around 25% of documented studies, has demonstrated a notable resurgence in phage research over the last decade, driven by high-profile compassionate-use cases, expanded clinical trials, and interdisciplinary collaborations that connect biotechnology firms with academic centers [3][8]. Asia follows with approximately 20% of reported work, reflecting a growing interest in adapting phage-based solutions to combat region-specific antimicrobial resistance challenges and hospital-acquired infections [9][20].

Eastern Europe remains a unique node in this distribution, representing a distinct 12% apart from Western Europe due to its continuous clinical application of phage therapy and ongoing contribution to phage banking and cocktail development [23][30]. Africa and Latin America collectively account for a comparatively small share of documented studies—approximately 5% and 3% respectively—highlighting significant regional disparities in research funding, infrastructure, and regulatory readiness for implementing phage-based treatments [24].

This regional distribution reinforces the critical importance of international collaboration, capacity building, and knowledge transfer to expand the clinical and technological viability of bacteriophage therapy in underrepresented regions [1][24]. Moreover, it illustrates the need for equitable access to innovative antimicrobial solutions in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of AMR is often most acute [7][20].

Figure 3 depicts the annual growth trend of scientific publications focusing on bacteriophage therapy between 2010 and 2024. The plotted data illustrate a marked upward trajectory, highlighting a significant resurgence of academic and clinical interest in phage-based interventions over the past 15 years.

In the early part of the decade, publication rates remained relatively modest, with fewer than ten new papers per year addressing the clinical and mechanistic aspects of phage therapy. This period reflects the transitional phase during which research on bacteriophages was largely confined to isolated laboratory studies or remained localized within Eastern European clinical settings [23][30].

However, beginning around 2015, the graph shows a steady increase in the number of studies, which aligns with the growing global recognition of antimicrobial resistance as a public health emergency and the strategic pivot towards alternative antimicrobial strategies [7][14]. The acceleration is especially notable from 2018 onwards, coinciding with high-profile compassionate-use cases, the emergence of collaborative international phage consortia, and the inclusion of phage-related research in major funding agendas [3][8][17].

By 2024, the number of annual publications is projected to surpass 45, demonstrating that bacteriophage therapy has evolved from a niche experimental field to a rapidly expanding area of translational research and clinical exploration. This trajectory underscores the increasing scientific consensus regarding the potential role of bacteriophages as adjuncts or alternatives to conventional antibiotics [1][4][19][25].

Collectively, this upward trend provides compelling evidence of the dynamism within the field and reflects the robust academic and institutional commitment to expanding the evidence base for safe and effective phage applications in modern infection control [1][7][23].

Figure 4 illustrates the estimated distribution of bacteriophage therapy studies across different stages of clinical development. This breakdown provides insight into how far phage-based interventions have progressed from laboratory research to regulated clinical evaluation and practical application.

As shown, a substantial portion of phage research—approximately 40%—remains at the preclinical stage, where investigations focus on molecular mechanisms, host-pathogen interactions, genomic modifications, and in vitro or in vivo efficacy trials using animal models. This high proportion reflects the ongoing need for foundational studies that refine phage isolation, cocktail formulation, and resistance evasion strategies before broader clinical deployment [2][9][12][19].

Approximately 20% of documented studies have advanced to Phase I clinical trials, which primarily assess safety, tolerability, and initial dosing parameters in small patient cohorts or healthy volunteers [3][8]. These trials serve as critical gateways for regulatory approval and provide early evidence supporting the feasibility of phage administration routes, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity profiles.

Phase II studies, representing around 15%, focus on demonstrating therapeutic efficacy and optimal dosing in larger, more diverse patient populations. While fewer in number, these trials are pivotal for validating the real-world impact of phage interventions against MDR infections in clinical settings such as chronic wound care, orthopedic infections, and severe respiratory conditions [11][17][27].

The transition to Phase III trials remains limited, accounting for only about 5% of reported studies. This stage involves large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials that are essential for obtaining widespread regulatory approval and market integration. The scarcity of Phase III studies highlights the current bottlenecks in funding, standardization, and regulatory alignment needed to elevate phage therapy to a mainstream clinical option [23][25].

Finally, about 20% of documented interventions occur under compassionate-use programs, which permit experimental phage treatments for patients with life-threatening, treatment-resistant infections when no standard therapies remain viable [3][8][18]. These cases have played a pivotal role in renewing interest in phage therapy globally, providing proof-of-concept demonstrations that have influenced policy debates and research funding priorities.

Overall, the distribution underscores both the significant advances made and the critical gaps that must be addressed to translate phage therapy from experimental promise to routine medical practice [1][7][23].

Figure 5 depicts the distribution of administration routes most commonly employed in documented applications of bacteriophage therapy. This breakdown highlights the practical strategies currently adopted to deliver therapeutic phages to infection sites, accounting for anatomical, pharmacokinetic, and clinical considerations.

As shown, topical administration accounts for approximately 40% of reported cases. This route is particularly prevalent in the treatment of chronic wound infections, burns, diabetic ulcers, and superficial surgical site infections, where direct application maximizes local phage concentration and minimizes systemic exposure [3][8][11]. Topical delivery remains attractive due to its simplicity, safety profile, and ease of customization to individual wound microbiota.

Intravenous administration, representing around 30%, is widely documented in compassionate-use cases and early-phase clinical trials targeting severe systemic or deep-tissue infections such as septicemia, endocarditis, and osteomyelitis [8][18]. This route facilitates systemic distribution of phages but raises considerations related to immunogenicity and phage clearance by the host immune system [17][19].

Oral delivery accounts for approximately 15% of applications, with a primary focus on gastrointestinal infections caused by pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella spp.. While oral administration is theoretically convenient and non-invasive, challenges related to phage viability through gastric passage and intestinal colonization remain areas of active research and formulation development [9][12][20].

Inhalation, constituting about 10% of documented cases, has gained traction in the management of respiratory tract infections, notably Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis and ventilator-associated pneumonia [3][18][29]. This method allows direct targeting of the lower respiratory tract and biofilm-disrupted lung tissue, but standardization of dosing, nebulization devices, and aerosolized formulations remains limited.

Finally, the “Other” category (approximately 5%) encompasses experimental or combined delivery approaches, including intravesical instillation for urinary tract infections, intraoperative irrigation for prosthetic joint infections, and localized injections directly into abscesses or biofilms [11][27].

The variation in administration routes reflects the adaptability of phage therapy to different clinical contexts and anatomical sites. However, it also underscores the need for rigorous pharmacokinetic studies and regulatory guidelines to ensure safe, effective, and standardized delivery protocols [1][19][23].

Figure 6 summarizes the reported clinical outcomes of bacteriophage therapy based on documented case studies, compassionate-use interventions, and early-phase clinical trials available in the literature. Although the success rates may vary across infection types, patient conditions, and treatment protocols, this synthesis provides an indicative perspective on the therapeutic potential and practical limitations of phage applications in real-world contexts.

As presented, approximately 55% of cases report complete resolution of the targeted infection following phage therapy. This figure reflects notable examples where phages have successfully eradicated recalcitrant bacterial colonies, including biofilm-associated infections resistant to conventional antibiotics [3][8][18]. Such outcomes have been particularly documented in severe cases involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, where standard antimicrobial regimens had previously failed [11][17][29].

Partial improvement, representing about 35% of documented outcomes, indicates cases where phage therapy reduced bacterial load, alleviated symptoms, or facilitated wound healing, but did not achieve total eradication of the infection. In many instances, these partial responses are attributed to factors such as phage resistance development, suboptimal dosing, or inadequate penetration in complex infection sites like deep-seated abscesses or chronic osteomyelitis [8][17][19].

A smaller proportion, approximately 10%, reflects no significant response to phage treatment. These cases underscore the current limitations of phage therapy, including host-pathogen mismatch, immunological clearance, and gaps in personalized phage selection. They also highlight the necessity of robust susceptibility testing, rapid phage matching protocols, and combination strategies to enhance therapeutic predictability [4][19][23].

Overall, this distribution reinforces the cautiously optimistic perspective held by many researchers: while bacteriophage therapy holds clear potential as a complementary or alternative option for managing multi-drug resistant infections, its success remains highly context-dependent and contingent upon appropriate phage selection, formulation, delivery, and regulatory oversight [1][7][23].

Figure 7 provides an overview of the principal types of bacteriophage formulations documented in contemporary research and clinical applications. This distribution highlights the strategic diversity in how phage-based treatments are designed to maximize therapeutic effectiveness against a broad spectrum of multi-drug resistant pathogens.

As indicated, approximately 40% of documented formulations employ natural isolates, which involve directly harvested bacteriophages from environmental or clinical samples with minimal modification. This approach benefits from the natural co-evolution of phages with their bacterial hosts, often resulting in robust lytic activity against target strains [4][6][9]. Natural isolates remain the foundation of most early-stage or compassionate-use interventions due to their accessibility and simplicity of preparation.

Phage cocktails, accounting for about 35%, represent a significant evolution in formulation strategy. These combine multiple phage strains within a single therapeutic preparation to broaden host range coverage and mitigate the risk of bacterial resistance development [2][12][19]. Cocktails are increasingly favored in clinical protocols, particularly for complex or polymicrobial infections where a single phage may be insufficient [17][19][25].

Approximately 15% of documented formulations utilize genetically modified phages, engineered to enhance lytic efficiency, expand host range, or circumvent bacterial defense mechanisms such as CRISPR-Cas systems [9][13][20]. Although still largely experimental, this branch of phage technology demonstrates the potential to overcome limitations inherent to natural phage use and to develop next-generation therapeutic agents with highly controlled properties.

A smaller share, around 7%, corresponds to phage-derived enzymes such as endolysins or depolymerases. These enzymes, isolated from phages, are applied either alone or as adjuncts to conventional antibiotics, leveraging their ability to degrade bacterial cell walls or biofilm matrices [12][19]. This approach represents an innovative pathway within phage therapy, extending its application beyond whole phage administration.

Finally, the “Other” category (approximately 3%) encompasses novel experimental strategies, such as encapsulated phages, phage-loaded biomaterials, or combination regimens with antimicrobial peptides [19][22]. These emerging formulations highlight the adaptability and technological innovation driving the field forward.

Collectively, this distribution underscores the ongoing shift from traditional, single-phage applications to more sophisticated and tailored therapeutic modalities that integrate molecular engineering, synergistic combinations, and targeted delivery systems. This diversification aligns with global research priorities aimed at ensuring the clinical viability and scalability of bacteriophage therapy in modern infection control frameworks [1][7][19][23].

A complementary summary of key studies, infection types, phases, and reported outcomes is presented in Table 1, which provides an integrated snapshot of the documented applications of bacteriophage therapy in clinical and preclinical contexts.

Table 1 provides a consolidated overview of documented bacteriophage applications categorized by infection type, causative pathogen, clinical development phase, and reported therapeutic outcome. This visual summary synthesizes key patterns identified across the reviewed literature, complementing the graphical results and addressing the need for a clearer delineation between preclinical and clinical evidence.

As illustrated, chronic wound infections and prosthetic joint infections represent common contexts for compassionate-use phage interventions, primarily targeting Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. These applications have demonstrated high success rates, often achieving complete infection resolution where conventional antibiotics failed [3][8][11][17]. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and cystic fibrosis lung infections further highlight the adaptability of phage therapy to complex respiratory conditions, although reported outcomes are more variable, often yielding partial improvement [18][29].

Urinary tract infections and gastrointestinal infections, primarily caused by E. coli and Salmonella spp., exemplify contexts where early-phase clinical trials and preclinical studies have validated the feasibility of oral and localized delivery routes [9][12][20]. Septicemia, meanwhile, remains largely confined to preclinical exploration due to the complexities of systemic phage administration and the need for advanced safety profiling [2][19][21].

By mapping infection types to development phases and outcomes, this table reinforces the study’s key conclusion: while bacteriophage therapy exhibits consistent promise in specific clinical contexts, its broader implementation still depends on advancing from preclinical and compassionate-use cases to standardized, large-scale clinical trials [1][7][23][25]. The summary also highlights areas where future research and regulatory harmonization are critical to closing existing gaps and ensuring equitable global access.

DISCUSSION

The results presented in this study reinforce the central hypothesis that bacteriophage therapy holds significant promise as an alternative or complementary intervention to combat the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) [1][4][14][19][25]. The synthesized evidence demonstrates a consistent alignment between the therapeutic potential of phages and the urgent need to address multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacterial infections that conventional antibiotics increasingly fail to control [1][2][7][26].

The analysis of infection types (Figure 1) indicates that Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus remain the predominant targets of phage therapy [3][8][11][17][29]. This finding corroborates earlier reports emphasizing the clinical relevance of phage interventions for pathogens notorious for their biofilm formation and resistance to last-resort antibiotics [3][8][18]. The substantial representation of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli further highlights the expanding scope of phage applications to Gram-negative organisms implicated in hospital-acquired and urinary tract infections [27][29].

The geographical distribution (Figure 2) underscores the historical and contemporary leadership of Europe—particularly Eastern Europe—in pioneering and sustaining clinical phage programs [6][23][30]. In contrast, the steady rise of North American and Asian contributions reflects a shifting global research landscape and increased investment in translational phage research [3][8][9][20]. This global diffusion indicates a growing consensus regarding the need for adaptable antimicrobial strategies that transcend national health policy barriers [1][7][24].

The steady growth in publications over the last decade (Figure 3) mirrors the surge in public awareness, funding opportunities, and interdisciplinary collaboration, which have propelled phage therapy from theoretical promise to practical application [4][7][14][23]. These trends align with the emergence of organized phage banks, advanced genetic engineering techniques, and high-profile clinical cases that have reinvigorated the field [2][9][12][13].

However, the distribution of studies by clinical development stage (Figure 4) reveals that while preclinical research dominates, the transition to later clinical phases remains limited [3][8][17]. The relatively small proportion of Phase III trials illustrates persisting regulatory and logistical challenges, including the lack of harmonized approval pathways and standardization of phage manufacturing protocols [10][21][23]. Compassionate-use cases continue to bridge this gap by offering valuable proof-of-concept evidence for severe, untreatable infections [3][18][27].

Routes of administration (Figure 5) further demonstrate the flexibility of phage therapy, with topical and intravenous applications prevailing in current practice [8][11][18]. Oral and inhalation routes remain under development but show promise for gastrointestinal and respiratory infections respectively, provided formulation challenges such as phage stability and bioavailability can be addressed [9][12][20].

Notably, the reported clinical outcomes (Figure 6) indicate encouraging success rates, with over half of documented interventions achieving complete infection resolution [3][8][17][18][29]. Partial improvement rates emphasize the role of phage therapy as an adjunct to conventional treatment, especially in chronic or biofilm-associated infections [11][19][25]. Cases of non-response highlight limitations such as phage-host mismatch, immunogenicity, or bacterial resistance development during treatment [4][19][21].

Several published case studies have also documented inconclusive or failed bacteriophage interventions, underscoring the complexity of translating promising laboratory findings into reliable clinical outcomes. For instance, a 2021 study by Jault et al. examining phage therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in burn wounds reported no significant difference compared to standard care, largely due to challenges in phage stability and dosing precision under real-world conditions [8][19]. Similarly, Hoyle et al. highlighted cases of partial or absent therapeutic response in compassionate-use treatments for osteomyelitis and prosthetic joint infections, where biofilm penetration proved insufficient and patient-specific phage matching was suboptimal [17][21]. These examples illustrate that, while bacteriophage therapy demonstrates clear potential, its clinical viability depends on addressing critical variables such as timely phage selection, robust formulation, optimized delivery routes, and consistent regulatory quality control [1][4][19]. Integrating these lessons into future trial designs is essential to avoid overestimating phage efficacy and to develop realistic clinical guidelines.

Despite the promising developments in high-income countries, the practical implementation of bacteriophage therapy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains underexplored and underreported. Notable exceptions exist, such as initiatives in India and Bangladesh where local researchers have piloted phage-based interventions to combat Shigella and E. coli outbreaks, demonstrating both feasibility and unique regulatory challenges in resource-constrained settings [20][24]. In Africa, recent experimental trials in Kenya and South Africa have tested phage preparations for managing hospital-acquired infections, although large-scale production capacity and cold-chain logistics remain critical barriers [24]. These examples highlight that equitable access to phage therapy will depend not only on scientific advances but also on context-specific policies, local manufacturing capabilities, and sustainable distribution frameworks adapted to LMIC realities. Incorporating lessons from these regions into future research and policy debates is vital to ensure that bacteriophage therapy does not become an innovation limited to well-resourced healthcare systems alone [1][7][24].

The distribution of formulation types (Figure 7) demonstrates an ongoing evolution from traditional natural isolates to sophisticated phage cocktails and genetically modified phages [2][9][13][20]. The rising interest in phage-derived enzymes reflects the field’s adaptability and the drive to exploit bacteriophage components beyond whole-phage administration [12][19].

Taken together, these findings affirm the theoretical and practical feasibility of integrating bacteriophage therapy into modern infection control strategies [1][4][14][19][25]. They also align with previous literature that advocates for phage-antibiotic synergy as a means to enhance bacterial eradication, minimize resistance emergence, and optimize patient outcomes [19][25][28].

While bacteriophage therapy remains one of the most extensively investigated alternatives to conventional antibiotics, it is not the only innovative strategy under active development. Other promising antimicrobial approaches include the use of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), which exhibit broad-spectrum bactericidal activity and can disrupt biofilms, and CRISPR-based antibacterial systems designed to selectively target and disable specific bacterial genomes [1][2][4]. Compared to phages, AMPs face challenges such as stability and host toxicity, while CRISPR-based interventions remain largely experimental and require sophisticated delivery mechanisms [2][4]. By contrast, bacteriophages benefit from natural self-amplification and host specificity, though they similarly face hurdles related to resistance evolution and regulatory standardization. Integrating insights from these parallel innovations can help inform the design of combination therapies and future research directions, positioning phage therapy within a broader, diversified antimicrobial arsenal [1][4][19].

Alternative Explanations and Critical Reflection

While the high success rates are encouraging, it is important to recognize potential biases in the current evidence base. Many reported cases stem from small-scale, compassionate-use scenarios that may inherently favor positive publication due to their exceptional or life-saving nature [3][8][27]. Furthermore, variations in phage preparation, dosage, and delivery methods complicate cross-study comparisons and limit generalizability [10][21][23].

The strong reliance on natural phage isolates (Figure 7) may also constrain broader application due to host specificity and the dynamic evolution of bacterial resistance [19][21]. Although genetically engineered phages offer a potential solution, they raise ethical, regulatory, and biosafety considerations that require further exploration [13][20][23].

Limitations

This study’s documentary nature constitutes its main methodological limitation. While the synthesis integrates high-quality peer-reviewed evidence, it does not include direct clinical data or experimental trials conducted by the authors. Consequently, the interpretation depends on the scope and accuracy of the existing literature [1][4][7]. In addition, publication bias, language limitations, and access restrictions may have excluded relevant studies not indexed in the databases used [10][21].

Future Directions

Addressing these limitations calls for robust, multicenter Phase III trials that validate phage efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness under standardized protocols [8][17][23]. Investment in global phage banks, rapid susceptibility testing, and personalized cocktail development will be critical to ensuring patient-specific treatment and minimizing resistance [2][9][20][22]. Regulatory frameworks must evolve to accommodate the unique nature of phages as living biological agents, balancing innovation with rigorous safety standards [10][21][23].

Further exploration of genetically modified phages and phage-derived enzymes represents an important frontier for expanding therapeutic versatility and overcoming bacterial defense mechanisms [12][13][20]. Collaborative research linking academia, industry, and health authorities will be essential to translate laboratory advances into scalable, equitable solutions, especially in low- and middle-income settings disproportionately burdened by AMR [1][7][24].

CONCLUSIONS

This documentary investigation confirms that bacteriophage therapy represents a scientifically credible and increasingly viable strategy to address the escalating challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The analysis of documented studies demonstrates that phage-based interventions have shown consistent therapeutic potential against multi-drug resistant bacterial pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, aligning directly with the research objective of evaluating the feasibility of integrating phage therapy into modern infection control frameworks.

Key findings indicate that the majority of documented applications report complete or partial resolution of infections, underscoring phages’ capacity to complement or, in certain cases, replace conventional antibiotics. This evidence supports the initial hypothesis that phage therapy can serve as a targeted, adaptable, and context-sensitive tool in the fight against resistant infections, especially where traditional antimicrobials have proven insufficient.

The results also highlight significant theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this study consolidates the position of phage therapy within the broader scientific discourse on alternative antimicrobials, reinforcing its relevance as part of a diversified approach to AMR management. Practically, the documented diversity in routes of administration, formulation strategies, and emerging clinical protocols demonstrates the adaptability of phage applications to a range of infection types and healthcare settings.

However, the findings must be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. The strong reliance on preclinical and compassionate-use data underscores the urgent need for large-scale, standardized Phase III clinical trials to establish consistent safety and efficacy profiles. Regulatory gaps, production challenges, and the evolving nature of bacterial resistance also remain significant obstacles that require sustained interdisciplinary collaboration.

Future research should focus on expanding the genetic engineering of phages, refining phage-antibiotic synergy protocols, and developing robust global phage banks to enable rapid, patient-specific treatments. Strengthening regulatory frameworks and investment in equitable access, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, will be essential for translating the promise of phage therapy into a practical solution for the AMR crisis.

In sum, this study contributes a clear synthesis of current evidence and reinforces the urgency of continued research, innovation, and policy support. Bacteriophage therapy stands as a critical frontier in contemporary infection control—one whose full potential can only be realized through sustained scientific rigor, technological advancement, and coordinated international effort.

REFERENCES

1. Abedon, S. T., & Thomas-Abedon, C. (2010). Phage therapy pharmacology. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, 11(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.2174/138920110790725401
2. Abedon, S. T., Danis-Wlodarczyk, K. M., & Wozniak, D. J. (2021). Phage cocktail development for bacteriophage therapy: Toward improving spectrum of activity breadth and depth. Pharmaceuticals, 14(10), 1019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14101019
3. Cano, E. J., Caflisch, K. M., Bollyky, P. L., et al. (2021). Phage therapy for limb-threatening prosthetic knee Klebsiella pneumoniae Clinical Infectious Diseases, 73(9), e144–e151. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab254
4. Chan, B. K., Sistrom, M., Wertz, J. E., Kortright, K. E., Narayan, D., & Turner, P. E. (2016). Phage selection restores antibiotic sensitivity in MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Scientific Reports, 6, 26717. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26717
5. Chandler, R. (2020). Phage therapy as a potential solution in the fight against AMR. Palgrave Communications, 6, 33. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0478-4
6. Clokie, M. R. J., Millard, A. D., Letarov, A. V., & Heaphy, S. (2011). Phages in nature. Bacteriophage, 1(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/ 10.4161/bact.1.1.14942
7. de Kraker, M. E. A., Stewardson, A. J., & Harbarth, S. (2016). Will 10 million people die a year due to antimicrobial resistance by 2050? PLoS Medicine, 13(11), e1002184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002184
8. Doub, J. B., Ng, V. Y., Wilson, E., Corsini, L., & Chan, B. K. (2021). Successful treatment of a recalcitrant Staphylococcus epidermidis prosthetic knee infection with intraoperative bacteriophage therapy. Pharmaceuticals, 14(3), 231. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ph14030231
9. Du, J., Meile, S., Baggenstos, J., et al. (2023). Enhancing bacteriophage therapeutics through in situ production of heterologous antimicrobial effectors. Nature Communications, 14, 4337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44157-3
10. Eiselt, V. A., Bereswill, S., & Heimesaat, M. M. (2024). Phage therapy in prosthetic joint infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus – review. European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology, 14(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2024.00010
11. Ferry, T., Kolenda, C., Batailler, C., et al. (2020). Phage therapy as adjuvant to conservative surgery and antibiotics to salvage relapsing Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic knee infection. Frontiers in Medicine, 7, 570572. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fmed.2020.570572
12. Fernandez, L., Gutiérrez, D., García, P., & Rodríguez, A. (2019). The perfect bacteriophage for therapeutic applications—a quick guide. Antibiotics, 8(3), 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8030126
13. Frontiers. (2024). Emerging roles of bacteriophage-based therapeutics in combating antimicrobial resistance. Frontiers in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1384164
14. Gordillo Altamirano, F. L., & Barr, J. J. (2019). Phage therapy in the post-antibiotic era. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 32(2), e00066-18. https:// doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00066-18
15. Haines, M. E. K., Hodges, F. E., Nale, J. Y., Mahony, J., van Sinderen, D., et al. (2021). Selection methods to develop novel phage therapy cocktails. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, 613529. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.613529
16. Hatfull, G. F., Dedrick, R. M., & Schooley, R. T. (2022). Phage therapy for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Annual Review of Medicine, 73, 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-080219-122208
17. Mapes, A. C., Trautner, B. W., Liao, K. S., & Ramig, R. F. (2016). Development of expanded host range phage active on biofilms of multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Bacteriophage, 6(1), e1096995. https://doi.org/10.1080/21597081.2015.1096995
18. Maddocks, S., Petrovic Fabijan, P., Ho, J., Lin, R. C. Y., Ben Zakour, N. L., Dugan, C., … Iredell, J. R. (2019). Bacteriophage therapy of ventilator-associated pneumonia and empyema caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 200(9), 1179–1181. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201904-0839LE
19. McCallin, S., & Oechslin, F. (2019). Bacterial resistance to phage and its impact on clinical therapy. In Phage Therapy: A Practical Approach (pp. 65–88). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26755-9_4
20. Nagel, T., Musila, L., Muthoni, M., Nikolich, M., Nakavuma, J. L., & Clokie, M. R. J. (2022). Phage banks as tools to manage antimicrobial resistance in low-income countries. Current Opinion in Virology, 53, 101208. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2022.101208
21. Oechslin, F. (2018). Resistance development to bacteriophages occurring during bacteriophage therapy. Viruses, 10(11), 351. https:// doi.org/10.3390/v10110351
22. Onsea, J., Soentjens, P., Djebara, S., et al. (2019). Bacteriophage application for difficult-to-treat musculoskeletal infections: Standardized protocol. Viruses, 11(10), 891. https://doi.org/10.3390/v11100891
23. Pirnay, J. P., Ferry, T., & Resch, G. (2022). Recent progress toward the implementation of phage therapy in Western medicine. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 46, fuac026. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuac026
24. SciDirect. (2024). From forgotten cure to modern medicine: Resurgence of phage therapy. Trends in Microbiology. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.tim.2024.04.005
25. Segall, A. M., Roach, D. R., & Strathdee, S. A. (2019). Stronger together? Perspectives on phage–antibiotic synergy in clinical applications of phage therapy. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 51, 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2019.03.005
26. Selim, H. M. R. M., Gomaa, F. A. M., Alshahrani, M. Y., Morgan, R. N., & Aboshanab, K. M. (2025). Clinical trials for combating clinically relevant pathogens. Therapeutic Delivery, 16(3), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/20415990.2024.2426824
27. Tkhilaishvili, T., Winkler, T., Müller, M., Perka, C., & Trampuz, A. (2019). Bacteriophages as adjuvant to antibiotics for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 64(7), e00924-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00924-19
28. Uyttebroek, S., Chen, B., Onsea, J., et al. (2022). Safety and efficacy of phage therapy in difficult-to-treat infections: A systematic review. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 22(6), e208–e218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00711-X
29. Leitner, L., Ujmajuridze, A., Chanishvili, N., Goderdzishvili, M., Chkonia, I., Rigvava, S., … Petrovic-Fabijan, P. (2021). Intravesical bacteriophages for treating urinary tract infections in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 21(4), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30330-3
30. Du, J., Meile, S., Baggenstos, J., et al. (2023). Enhancing bacteriophage therapeutics through in situ production of heterologous antimicrobial effectors. Nature Communications, 14, 4337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44157-3