RESUMO
In 2022, WHO released the WHO AWaRe (Access, Watch, Reserve) antibiotic book to promote the rational use of antibiotics. Here, we review the AWaRe antibiotic book from the perspective of implementation in low-resource settings, using the Lao PDR (Laos) as a case study. Not all recommendations in the AWaRe antibiotic book match the epidemiology of infectious diseases and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in Laos and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), e.g. melioidosis, rickettsial disease and leptospirosis are common causes of sepsis and febrile illness in Laos but do not feature in the AWaRe book. Conversely, some infectious diseases like Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhoea are in the AWaRe antibiotic book but rarely considered in Laos with no diagnostic tests available. Only 29/39 antibiotics in the AWaRe book are available in Laos, with no Reserve group antimicrobials available. The AWaRe book stimulates countries such as Laos to consider alternative diagnoses and include additional antimicrobials in the national essential medicines list (NEML). However, it should be updated to include regional important pathogens that are not included. Comprehensive antibiotic use guidelines alone might not assure appropriate use or control overuse of antibiotics. Access to antibiotics is challenging in low-resource settings in terms of unavailability in the country (low demand or small market size), patchy access, especially for those living in remote areas, and unaffordability. All these systemic factors can contribute to inappropriate use of antibiotics. Improved access to antibiotics, strengthening diagnostic capacity and promoting antibiotic stewardship should be combined.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant global health threat with substandard and falsified (SF) antibiotics being neglected contributing factors. With their relationships poorly understood, more research is needed in order to determine how interventions to reduce SF antibiotics should be ranked as priorities in national AMR action plans. We assessed the evidence available on the global prevalence of SF antibiotics, examined the quality of the evidence and discussed public health impact. MATERIALS/METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Google and Google Scholar for publications on antibiotic quality up to 31 December 2020. Publications reporting on the prevalence of SF antibiotics were evaluated for quantitative analysis and assessed using the Medicines Quality Assessment Reporting Guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 10 137 screened publications, 648 were relevant to antibiotic quality. One hundred and six (16.4%) surveys, published between 1992 and 2020 and conducted mainly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) (89.9% (480/534) of the data points), qualified for quantitative analysis. The total number of samples tested for quality in prevalence surveys was 13 555, with a median (Q1-Q3) number of samples per survey of 47 (21-135). Of the 13 555 samples, 2357 (17.4%) failed at least one quality test and the median failure frequency (FF) per survey was 19.6% (7.6%-35.0%). Amoxicillin, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim and ciprofloxacin were the most surveyed antibiotics, with FF of 16.1% (355/2208), 26.2% (329/1255) and 10.4% (366/3511), respectively. We identified no SF survey data for antibiotics in the WHO 'Reserve' group. The mean Medicine Quality Assessment Reporting Guidelines score was 11 (95% CI 10.1 to 12.2) out of 26. CONCLUSIONS: SF antibiotics are widely spread with higher prevalence in LMICs. The quality of the evidence is poor, and these data are not generalisable that 17.4% of global antibiotic supply is SF. However, the evidence we have suggests that interventions to enhance regulatory, purchasing and financial mechanisms to improve the global antibiotic supply are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019124988.
