Antimicrobial resistance is one of the key issues limiting the successful treatment of infectious diseases and associated with adverse medical, social and economic consequences on a global scale. The present study aims to evaluate antimicrobials prescribing patterns and assess progress in quality indicators in Russian multidisciplinary hospitals using three repetitive point prevalence studies (PPSs) over 4 years (Global-PPS 2015, 2017 and 2018). Out of 13,595 patients from 21 hospitals surveyed over the three time points, 3542 (26.14%) received antimicrobials, predominantly third-generation cephalosporins (44.7% in 2015, 34.1% in 2017 and 41.8% in 2018). Compliance with the hospital antibiotic guidelines was 74.8%, 66.8% and 74.3%, respectively. Indication for treatment was recorded in 72.6%, 84.1% and 82.6%, while stop/review date was documented only in 40.5%, 46.5% and 61.1% of cases. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis exceeded 1 day in 92%, 84% and 81% of cases. Targeted therapy rate at all time points did not exceed 15.1%, treatment based on the biomarkers rate—19.9%. For the part of PPS-2017 and 2018 analyzed in dynamics, no prominent trends were noted. The results of the project provide the basis for the development of appropriate antimicrobial stewardship programs tailored according to local practices for each hospital in the project.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health challenge with understudied effects on antimicrobial usage. We aimed to analyze antimicrobial prescribing patterns in COVID-19 patients in Russian multi-field hospitals by means of the Global-PPS Project developed by the University of Antwerp. Out of 999 patients in COVID-19 wards in six hospitals surveyed in 2021, 51.3% received antimicrobials (79% in intensive care, 47.5% in medical wards). Systemic antivirals and antibiotics were prescribed to 31% and 35.1% of patients, respectively, and a combination of both to 14.1% of patients. The top antivirals administered were favipiravir (65%), remdesivir (19.2%), and umifenovir (15.8%); the top antibiotics were ceftriaxone (29.7%), levofloxacin (18%), and cefoperazone/sulbactam (10.4%). The vast majority of antibiotics was prescribed for treatment of pneumonia or COVID-19 infection (59.3% and 25.1%, respectively). Treatment was based on biomarker data in 42.7% of patients but was targeted only in 29.6% (6.7% for antibiotics). The rate of non-compliance with guidelines reached 16.6%. Antimicrobial prescribing patterns varied considerably in COVID-19 wards in Russian hospitals with groundlessly high rates of systemic antibiotics. Antimicrobial usage surveillance and stewardship should be applied to inpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective. To evaluate prescribing patterns of antimicrobials and quantify them in relation to quality indicators in Russian multi-field hospitals. Materials and Methods. Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption as a part of an international Global-PPS project was conducted in 8 multi-field hospitals in different Russian cities (Krasnoyarsk, Moscow, Omsk, Saratov, Smolensk, Ulan-Ude, Yakutsk) during the period from May till December 2021. Case records of patients who received therapeutic or prophylactic systemic antimicrobial agents were analyzed. Local practices of antimicrobials’ utilization were evaluated in relation to quality indicators defined by the study protocol. Results. Common mistakes requiring a prompt intervention included low adherence to clinical guidelines, absence of stop/review dates in the medical records, extended duration of surgical prophylaxis, III generation cephalosporin’s overuse and low rate of targeted therapy. Conclusions. The results of the project can be valuable for the improvement to antimicrobial utilization approaches at the study centers as well as for monitoring of antimicrobial stewardship programs’ implementation.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients have a high incidence of thromboembolic events, which significantly influence the risk of mortality. Anticoagulant therapy is generally recommended to these patients but the optimal dosing regimens require further investigations. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of prophylactic, intermediate and therapeutic dose anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. A systematic search for original prospective observational studies and clinical trials was performed in online databases from 2020 to 2022. A total of 13 studies (3239 patients) were included. The type of anticoagulant dosing showed no significant influence on short-term mortality (p = 0.84), deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.66), arterial thrombosis (p = 0.44), major bleeding (p = 0.35) and minor bleeding incidence (p = 0.46). An anticoagulation regimen significantly influenced pulmonary embolism occurrence (16% for prophylactic dose vs. 4% for therapeutic dose, p = 0.02), but the number of studies in the analysis was relatively low. In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted in the ICU have no benefit from therapeutic doses of anticoagulants and that all three thromboprophylaxis regimes have a comparable effect on short term mortality and venous thromboembolism incidence but for pulmonary embolism, for which the results were inconclusive.

Rachina S, et al. Infect Chemother. 2025 Apr;57:e29. https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2024.0144

Background: the objective of this study was to propose a methodology for the assessment of antimicrobial consumption (AMC) in pediatric inpatients and to estimate variances in consumption levels in multi-field hospitals with pediatric inpatients, calculated by means of the pediatric-adjusted methodology vs. the conventional methodology. Methods: the pediatric-adjusted methodology based on the conventional ATC/DDD method and children’s DDDs (cDDD) for antimicrobials were proposed and validated in a series of probabilistic sensitivity analyses of real clinical data extracted from the receipt notes of three multi-field hospitals. Differences in AMC in multi-field hospitals with pediatric inpatients, calculated by means of the proposed methodology vs. the conventional methodology, were assessed for a virtual cohort of inpatients, with the pediatric share increasing by 1%. Results: in children ≤12 years old, assessment by the standard methodology resulted in a 59% underestimation of AMC from the levels based on prescribed doses, vs. a 25% underestimation for the proposed methodology. In a mixed-age virtual population of inpatients, the underestimation of consumption levels rose to 321% for the ATC/DDD methodology compared to the proposed one. Conclusions: the proposed methodology demonstrated a higher accuracy of AMC estimates compared to the conventional one and can be considered for the quantification of antimicrobial utilization in pediatric institutions and multi-field hospitals with a substantial share of pediatric inpatients.