{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020179372197309416, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.664179104477612, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Innovation, Nontraditional Antibacterial Drugs, and Clinical Utility.

In this Viewpoint, I argue that our view of antibacterial discovery, development, and commercial potential requires a balance between innovation and clinical utility. I suggest that important new clinical utility may be more important to value than whether the compound in question belongs to a novel chemical class or attacks a novel antibacterial target. Novelty in this regard may increase the risk of scientific or clinical failure. So-called nontraditional approaches to antibacterial therapy are often innovative. The attendant challenges depend on whether the compound can be a stand-alone therapy, part of a fixed-dose combination, or whether it is adjunctive to standard therapy. Suitability for pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies and antimicrobial susceptibility testing is also an important consideration.