Antimicrobial stewardship interventions in least developed and low-income countries: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is increasing in low resource settings. It complicates the management of infectious diseases and is an increasing cause of death. This is due to, among other things, lack of health resources for appropriate diagnosis and unregulated access to antimicrobials in the public sphere. Developing context-specific interventions that enable judicious use of antimicrobials is important to curb this problem. METHODS We will conduct a systematic review of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) approaches in Development Assistance Committee in least developed and low-income countries. The inclusion criteria are antimicrobial stewardship interventions in hospitalised patients of all age groups and exclusion criteria are community-based trials and studies that solely focus on viral, fungal or parasite infections. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions will be classified as structural, enabling, persuasive, restrictive or combined. Outcomes of included studies will be classified as clinical, microbiological or behavioural outcomes. The studies to be included will be randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series trials, cohort and qualitative studies. Data will be extracted using forms adapted from the Cochrane collaboration data collection form. This systematic review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and risk of bias will be done according to the Integrated quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Our findings will be presented to clinicians and policymakers, to support developing AMS protocols for low resource settings. We will publish our results in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42020210634

Protocols, policies and practices for antimicrobial stewardship in hospitalized patients in least-developed and low-income countries: a systematic review

Background: We aimed to identify interventions used to implement antimicrobial stewardship practices among hospitalized patients in least-developed countries. Methods: The research team searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of AMS interventions in the least developed and low-income countries, published between 2000 and 2023. Included studies had a population of hospitalized patients of all age groups in least-developed countries, implemented an AMS intervention, and reported its impact on prescription practices, clinical outcomes, or microbiological results. The risk of bias was assessed using the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs. A total of 443 articles were identified, 386 articles were screened, 16 full-text papers were reviewed, and 10 studies were included in the analysis. Results: The ten studies included three controlled before and after, two qualitative, one controlled interrupted time series, two non-controlled interrupted time series, one quasi-experimental study, and one randomized controlled trial. Three studies implemented either enabling, persuasive, or structural interventions respectively. The rest used bundled strategies, including a combination of persuasive, enabling, structural, and restrictive interventions. Bundled interventions using enabling and persuasive strategies were the most common. These involved creating a prescription guideline, training prescribers on updated methods, and subsequent review and feedback of patient files by members of an AMS team. Improved microbiological surveillance was important to most studies but, sustained improvement in appropriate prescriptions was dependent on enabling or persuasive efforts. Studies noted significant improvements in appropriate prescriptions and savings on the costs of antibiotics. None evaluated the impact of AMS on AMR. Conclusion: AMS practices generally involve multiple strategies to improve prescription practices. In the setting of least-developed countries, enabling and persuasive interventions are popular AMS measures. However, measured outcomes are heterogeneous, and we suggest that further studies assessing the impact of AMS should report changes in AMR patterns (microbiological outcomes), patient length of stay and mortality (patient outcomes), and changes in prescription practices (prescription outcomes). Reporting on these as outcomes of AMS interventions could make it easier for policymakers to compare which interventions have desirable outcomes that can be generalized to similar settings