Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship programme in three regional hospitals in the south-east of Liberia: lessons learned.

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes can improve the use of antimicrobial agents. However, there is limited experience in the implementation of such programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objectives: To assess the effect of AMS measures in south-east Liberia on the quality of antimicrobial use in three regional hospitals. Methods: A bundle of three measures (local treatment guideline, training and regular AMS ward rounds) was implemented and quality indicators of antimicrobial use (i.e. correct compounds, dosage and duration) were assessed in a case series before and after AMS ward rounds. Primary endpoints were (i) adherence to the local treatment guideline; (ii) completeness of the microbiological diagnostics (according to the treatment guideline); and (iii) clinical outcome. The secondary endpoint was reduction in ceftriaxone use. Results: The majority of patients had skin and soft tissue infections (n = 108) followed by surgical site infections (n = 72), pneumonia (n = 64), urinary tract infection (n = 48) and meningitis (n = 18). After the AMS ward rounds, adherence to the local guideline improved for the selection of antimicrobial agents (from 34.5% to 61.0%, P < 0.0005), dosage (from 15.2% to 36.5%, P < 0.0005) and duration (from 13.2% to 31.0%, P < 0.0005). In total, 79.7% of patients (247/310) had samples sent for microbiological analysis. Overall, 92.3% of patients improved on Day 3 (286/310). The proportion of patients receiving ceftriaxone was significantly reduced after the AMS ward rounds from 51.3% to 14.2% (P < 0.0005). Conclusions: AMS measures can improve the quality of antimicrobial use in LMICs. However, long-term engagement is necessary to make AMS programmes in LMICs sustainable.

Will Africans take COVID-19 vaccination?

The economic and humanistic impact of COVID-19 pandemic is enormous globally. No definitive treatment exists, hence accelerated development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, offers a unique opportunity for COVID-19 prevention and control. Vaccine hesitancy may limit the success of vaccine distribution in Africa, therefore we assessed the potentials for coronavirus vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among Africans. An online cross-sectional African-wide survey was administered in Arabic, English, and French languages. Questions on demographics, self-reported health status, vaccine literacy, knowledge and perception on vaccines, past experience, behavior, infection risk, willingness to receive and affordability of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine were asked. Data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 5,416 individuals completed the survey. Approximately, 94% were residents of 34 African countries while the other Africans live in the Diaspora. Only 63% of all participants surveyed were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible and 79% were worried about its side effects. Thirty-nine percent expressed concerns of vaccine-associated infection. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.30) among those who believed their risk of infection was very high, compared to those who believed otherwise. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was one-fifth (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) among those who believed their risk of falling sick was very high, compared to those who believed their risk of falling very sick was very low. The OR of vaccine hesitancy was 2.72 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.31) among those who have previously refused a vaccine for themselves or their child compared to counterparts with no self-reported history of vaccine hesitancy. Participants want the vaccines to be mandatory (40%), provided free of charge (78%) and distributed in homes and offices (44%). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is substantial among Africans based on perceived risk of coronavirus infection and past experiences.