Search

COVID-19 demanded urgent and immediate global attention, during which other public health crises such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) increased silently, undermining patient safety and the life-saving ability of several antimicrobials. In 2019, WHO declared AMR a top ten global public health threat facing humanity, with misuse and overuse of antimicrobials as the main drivers in the development of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. AMR is steadily on the rise, especially in low-income and middle-income countries across south Asia, South America, and Africa. Extraordinary circumstances often demand an extraordinary response as did the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the fragility of health systems across the world and forcing governments and global agencies to think creatively. The key strategies that helped to contain the increasing SARS-CoV-2 infections included a focus on centralised governance with localised implementation, evidence-based risk communication and community engagement, use of technological methods for tracking and accountability, extensive expansion of access to diagnostics, and a global adult vaccination programme. The extensive and indiscriminate use of antimicrobials to treat patients, particularly in the early phase of the pandemic, have adversely affected AMR stewardship practices. However, there were important lessons learnt during the pandemic, which can be leveraged to strengthen surveillance and stewardship, and revitalise efforts to address the AMR crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to quality-assured antimicrobials is regarded as part of the human right to health, yet universal access is often undermined in low-income and middle-income countries. Lack of access to the instruments necessary to make the correct diagnosis and prescribe antimicrobials appropriately, in addition to weak health systems, heightens the challenge faced by prescribers. Evidence-based interventions in community and health-care settings can increase access to appropriately prescribed antimicrobials. The key global enablers of sustainable financing, governance, and leadership will be necessary to achieve access while preventing excess antimicrobial use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing reliance on antibiotics of last resort to treat the rising numbers of multidrug-resistant bacterial infections in people has focused attention on how shared-use antibiotics are managed and regulated across human and animal health. Discussions at international and national levels have intensified since the identification of new plasmid-mediated genes for colistin resistance in 2016, first in China and subsequently in many other countries, removing the last line of defense against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections with carbapenem resistance. South Africa has reacted to this threat by doing a situational analysis and review of the existing legislation concerning colistin use in animals and people, to inform which course of action to take. The experiences shared in this Personal View outline the process, institution of governance with widespread stakeholder engagement, surveillance, and interventions that South Africa has taken towards optimising the shared use of colistin. The instigation of stewardship guided by the principles of the One Health concept for shared-use antibiotics at the country level is a crucial component of any action plan to combat antibiotic resistance, and is as relevant to other existing antibiotics and new chemical entities that will be forthcoming from an invigorated antibiotic pipeline as it is to colistin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The irrational use of antibiotics is a leading contributor to antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic stewardship (AS) interventions predominantly focus on prescribers. This study investigated the influence and participation of inpatients in infection‐related care, including antibiotic decision‐making, within and across two tertiary hospitals in South Africa (Cape Town) and India (Kerala). Methods: Through ethnographic enquiry of clinical practice in surgical pathways, including direct nonparticipant observation of clinical practices, healthcare worker (HCW), patient and carer interactions in surgical ward rounds and face‐to‐face interviews with participants (HCWs and patients), we sought to capture the implicit and explicit influence that patients and carers have in infection‐related care. Field notes and interview transcripts were thematically coded, aided by NVivo 12® Pro software. Results: Whilst observational data revealed the nuanced roles that patients/carers play in antibiotic decision‐making, HCWs did not recognize these roles. Patients and carers, though invested in patient care, are not routinely involved, nor are they aware of the opportunities for engagement in infection‐related decision‐making. Patients associated clinical improvement with antibiotic use and did not consider hospitalization to be associated with infection acquisition or transmission, highlighting a lack of understanding of the threat of infection and antibiotic resistance. Patients' economic and cultural positionalities may influence their infection‐related behaviours. In the study site in India, cultural norms mean that carers play widespread but unrecognized roles in inpatient care, participating in infection prevention activities. Conclusion: For patients to have a valuable role in AS and make informed decisions regarding their infection‐related care, a mutual understanding of their role in this process among HCWs and patients is crucial. The observed differences between the two study sites indicate the critical need for understanding and addressing the contextual drivers that impact effective patient‐centred healthcare delivery. Patient or Public Contribution: Ethnographic observations and interviews conducted in this study involved patients as participants. Patients were recruited for interviews after obtaining signed informed consent forms. Patients' identities were completely anonymized when presenting the study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The diagnostic gap hides the true extent of antimicrobial resistance in Africa. • Conventional laboratory diagnostics are unlikely to bridge this gap. • Various point-of-care assays for antimicrobial resistance applications are in development. • Implementation strategies for point-of-care assays are needed to close the diagnostic gap. Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries are severely impacted by antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Due to gaps in access to diagnostics in SSA, the true extent of AMR remains unknown. This diagnostic gap affects patient management and leads to significant antimicrobial overuse. This review explores how point-of-care (POC) testing for pathogen identification and AMR may be used to close the diagnostic gap in SSA countries. A narrative review exploring current clinical practice and novel developments in the field of POC testing for infectious diseases and AMR. POC assays for identification of various pathogens have been successfully rolled out in SSA countries. While implementation studies have mostly highlighted impressive test performance of POC assays, there is limited data on the impact of implementation on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. We did not encounter local studies of host-directed POC assays relevant to AMR. Novel POC assays using real-time polymerase chain reaction, isothermal amplification, microfluidics, and other technologies are in various stages of development. Available literature shows that POC testing for AMR applications is implementable in SSA and holds the potential to reduce the diagnostic gap. Implementation will require effective regulatory pathways, incorporation of POC testing in clinical and laboratory guidelines, and adequate value capture in existing health financing models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The COVID-19 pandemic has helped challenge the usual way of doing research. • A prolonged on-site presence at the early stage of projects is critical. • Research should rely on a capacity-building strategy to provide local skills. • Funding should be proportionate to the cost of resources and gaps in each low middle income countries setting. This article summarizes the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, on an international project to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The research leadership and process, the access to data, and stakeholders were deeply disrupted by the national and international response to the pandemic, including the interruption of healthcare delivery, lockdowns, and quarantines. The key principles to deliver the research through the pandemic were mainly the high degree of interdisciplinary engagement with integrated teams, and equitable partnership across sites with capacity building and leadership training. The level of preexisting collaboration and partnership were also keys to sustaining connections and involvements throughout the pandemic. The pandemic offered opportunities for realigning research priorities. Flexibility in funding timelines and projects inputs are required to accommodate variance introduced by external factors. The current models for research collaboration and funding need to be critically evaluated and redesigned to retain the innovation that was shown to be successful through this pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented in which the authors discuss several aspects of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that may be significant and applicable in global governance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors call for an international treaty concerning pandemics.

In 2013, a Lancet Infectious Diseases Commission described the state of antimicrobial resistance worldwide. Since then, greater awareness of the public health ramifications of antimicrobial resistance has led to national actions and global initiatives, including a resolution at the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2016. Progress in addressing this issue has ranged from a ban on irrational drug combinations in India to commitments to ban colistin as a growth promoter in animals, improve hospital infection control, and implement better antimicrobial stewardship. Funds have been mobilised, and regulatory barriers to new antibiotic development have been relaxed. These efforts have been episodic and uneven across countries, however. Sustained funding for antimicrobial resistance and globally harmonised targets to monitor progress are still urgently needed. Except for in a few leading countries, antimicrobial resistance has not captured the sustained focus of national leaders and country-level actors, including care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Extended-spectrum β-lactamases mediate resistance to third-generation cephalosporins (eg, ceftriaxone) in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Significant infections caused by these strains are usually treated with carbapenems, potentially selecting for carbapenem resistance. Piperacillin-tazobactam may be an effective "carbapenem-sparing" option to treat extended-spectrum β-lactamase producers.Objectives: To determine whether definitive therapy with piperacillin-tazobactam is noninferior to meropenem (a carbapenem) in patients with bloodstream infection caused by ceftriaxone-nonsusceptible E coli or K pneumoniae.Design, Setting, and Participants: Noninferiority, parallel group, randomized clinical trial included hospitalized patients enrolled from 26 sites in 9 countries from February 2014 to July 2017. Adult patients were eligible if they had at least 1 positive blood culture with E coli or Klebsiella spp testing nonsusceptible to ceftriaxone but susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam. Of 1646 patients screened, 391 were included in the study.Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam, 4.5 g, every 6 hours (n = 188 participants) or meropenem, 1 g, every 8 hours (n = 191 participants) for a minimum of 4 days, up to a maximum of 14 days, with the total duration determined by the treating clinician.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days after randomization. A noninferiority margin of 5% was used.Results: Among 379 patients (mean age, 66.5 years; 47.8% women) who were randomized appropriately, received at least 1 dose of study drug, and were included in the primary analysis population, 378 (99.7%) completed the trial and were assessed for the primary outcome. A total of 23 of 187 patients (12.3%) randomized to piperacillin-tazobactam met the primary outcome of mortality at 30 days compared with 7 of 191 (3.7%) randomized to meropenem (risk difference, 8.6% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 14.5%]; P = .90 for noninferiority). Effects were consistent in an analysis of the per-protocol population. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 5 of 188 patients (2.7%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group and 3 of 191 (1.6%) in the meropenem group.Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with E coli or K pneumoniae bloodstream infection and ceftriaxone resistance, definitive treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam compared with meropenem did not result in a noninferior 30-day mortality. These findings do not support use of piperacillin-tazobactam in this setting.Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifiers: ACTRN12613000532707 and ACTRN12615000403538 and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02176122. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria poses a substantial threat to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Due to its large public health and societal implications, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis has been long regarded by WHO as a global priority for investment in new drugs. In 2016, WHO was requested by member states to create a priority list of other antibiotic-resistant bacteria to support research and development of effective drugs.Methods: We used a multicriteria decision analysis method to prioritise antibiotic-resistant bacteria; this method involved the identification of relevant criteria to assess priority against which each antibiotic-resistant bacterium was rated. The final priority ranking of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria was established after a preference-based survey was used to obtain expert weighting of criteria.Findings: We selected 20 bacterial species with 25 patterns of acquired resistance and ten criteria to assess priority: mortality, health-care burden, community burden, prevalence of resistance, 10-year trend of resistance, transmissibility, preventability in the community setting, preventability in the health-care setting, treatability, and pipeline. We stratified the priority list into three tiers (critical, high, and medium priority), using the 33rd percentile of the bacterium's total scores as the cutoff. Critical-priority bacteria included carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and carbapenem-resistant and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. The highest ranked Gram-positive bacteria (high priority) were vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Of the bacteria typically responsible for community-acquired infections, clarithromycin-resistant Helicobacter pylori, and fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter spp, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Salmonella typhi were included in the high-priority tier.Interpretation: Future development strategies should focus on antibiotics that are active against multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and Gram-negative bacteria. The global strategy should include antibiotic-resistant bacteria responsible for community-acquired infections such as Salmonella spp, Campylobacter spp, N gonorrhoeae, and H pylori.Funding: World Health Organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Securing access to effective antimicrobials is one of the greatest challenges today. Until now, efforts to address this issue have been isolated and uncoordinated, with little focus on sustainable and international solutions. Global collective action is necessary to improve access to life-saving antimicrobials, conserving them, and ensuring continued innovation. Access, conservation, and innovation are beneficial when achieved independently, but much more effective and sustainable if implemented in concert within and across countries. WHO alone will not be able to drive these actions. It will require a multisector response (including the health, agriculture, and veterinary sectors), global coordination, and financing mechanisms with sufficient mandates, authority, resources, and power. Fortunately, securing access to effective antimicrobials has finally gained a place on the global political agenda, and we call on policy makers to develop, endorse, and finance new global institutional arrangements that can ensure robust implementation and bold collective action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In February, 2016, WHO released a report for the development of national action plans to address the threat of antibiotic resistance, the catastrophic consequences of inaction, and the need for antibiotic stewardship. Antibiotic stewardship combined with infection prevention comprises a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to optimise use of antibiotics. Efforts to mitigate overuse will be unsustainable without learning and coordinating activities globally. In this Personal View, we provide examples of international collaborations to address optimal prescribing, focusing on five countries that have developed different approaches to antibiotic stewardship-the USA, South Africa, Colombia, Australia, and the UK. Although each country's approach differed, when nurtured, individual efforts can positively affect local and national antimicrobial stewardship programmes. Government advocacy, national guidelines, collaborative research, online training programmes, mentoring programmes, and social media in stewardship all played a role. Personal relationships and willingness to learn from each other's successes and failures continues to foster collaboration. We recommend that antibiotic stewardship models need to evolve from infection specialist-based teams to develop and use cadres of health-care professionals, including pharmacists, nurses, and community health workers, to meet the needs of the global population. We also recommend that all health-care providers who prescribe antibiotics take ownership and understand the societal burden of suboptimal antibiotic use, providing examples of how countries can learn, act globally, and share best antibiotic stewardship practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]