Assessment of three antibiotic combination regimens against Gram-negative bacteria causing neonatal sepsis in low- and middle-income countries.

Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) are a major cause of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that over 80% of these sepsis deaths could be prevented through improved treatment, the efficacy of the currently recommended first- and second-line treatment regimens for this condition is increasingly affected by high rates of drug resistance. Here we assess three well known antibiotics, fosfomycin, flomoxef and amikacin, in combination as potential antibiotic treatment regimens by investigating the drug resistance and genetic profiles of commonly isolated GNB causing neonatal sepsis in LMICs. The five most prevalent bacterial isolates in the NeoOBS study (NCT03721302) are Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, E. coli, Serratia marcescens and Enterobacter cloacae complex. Among these isolates, high levels of ESBL and carbapenemase encoding genes are detected along with resistance to ampicillin, gentamicin and cefotaxime, the current WHO recommended empiric regimens. The three new combinations show excellent in vitro activity against ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae and E. coli isolates. Our data should further inform and support the clinical evaluation of these three antibiotic combinations for the treatment of neonatal sepsis in areas with high rates of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria.

An analysis of existing national action plans for antimicrobial resistance-gaps and opportunities in strategies optimising antibiotic use in human populations.

At the 2015 World Health Assembly, UN member states adopted a resolution that committed to the development of national action plans (NAPs) for antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The political determination to commit to NAPs and the availability of robust governance structures to assure sustainable translation of the identified NAP objectives from policy to practice remain major barriers to progress. Inter-country variability in economic and political resilience and resource constraints could be fundamental barriers to progressing AMR NAPs. Although there have been regional and global analyses of NAPs from a One Health and policy perspective, a global assessment of the NAP objectives targeting antimicrobial use in human populations is needed. In this Health Policy, we report a systematic evidence synthesis of existing NAPs that are aimed at tackling AMR in human populations. We find marked gaps and variability in maturity of NAP development and operationalisation across the domains of: (1) policy and strategic planning; (2) medicines management and prescribing systems; (3) technology for optimised antimicrobial prescribing; (4) context, culture, and behaviours; (5) operational delivery and monitoring; and (6) patient and public engagement and involvement. The gaps identified in these domains highlight opportunities to facilitate sustainable delivery and operationalisation of NAPs. The findings from this analysis can be used at country, regional, and global levels to identify AMR-related priorities that are relevant to infrastructure needs and contexts.

A one health framework to estimate the cost of antimicrobial resistance.

OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE: The costs attributable to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remain theoretical and largely unspecified. Current figures fail to capture the full health and economic burden caused by AMR across human, animal, and environmental health; historically many studies have considered only direct costs associated with human infection from a hospital perspective, primarily from high-income countries. The Global Antimicrobial Resistance Platform for ONE-Burden Estimates (GAP-ON€) network has developed a framework to help guide AMR costing exercises in any part of the world as a first step towards more comprehensive analyses for comparing AMR interventions at the local level as well as more harmonized analyses for quantifying the full economic burden attributable to AMR at the global level. METHODS: GAP-ON€ (funded under the JPIAMR 8th call (Virtual Research Institute) is composed of 19 international networks and institutions active in the field of AMR. For this project, the Network operated by means of Delphi rounds, teleconferences and face-to-face meetings. The resulting costing framework takes a bottom-up approach to incorporate all relevant costs imposed by an AMR bacterial microbe in a patient, in an animal, or in the environment up through to the societal level. RESULTS: The framework itemizes the epidemiological data as well as the direct and indirect cost components needed to build a realistic cost picture for AMR. While the framework lists a large number of relevant pathogens for which this framework could be used to explore the costs, the framework is sufficiently generic to facilitate the costing of other resistant pathogens, including those of other aetiologies. CONCLUSION: In order to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses to choose amongst different AMR-related interventions at local level, the costing of AMR should be done according to local epidemiological priorities and local health service norms. Yet the use of a common framework across settings allows for the results of such studies to contribute to cumulative estimates that can serve as the basis of broader policy decisions at the international level such as how to steer R&D funding and how to prioritize AMR amongst other issues. Indeed, it is only by building a realistic cost picture that we can make informed decisions on how best to tackle major health threats.