Safety and efficacy of primaquine against repeated attacks of Plasmodium vivax depends upon co-administered blood schizontocidal therapy in radical cure. We assessed primaquine (PQ) as hypnozoitocide when administered with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (Eurartesim®, DHA-PP) or artesunate-pyronaridine (Pyramax®, AS-PYR) to affirm its good tolerability and efficacy. A third arm, artesunate followed by primaquine, was not intended as therapy for practice, but addressed a hypothesis concerning primaquine efficacy without co-administration of blood schizontocide. During March to July 2013, an open-label, randomized trial enrolled Indonesian soldiers with vivax malaria at Sragen, Central Java, after six months duty in malarious Papua, Indonesia. No malaria transmission occurred at the study site and P. vivax recurrences in the 12 months following therapy were classified as relapses. A historic relapse control derived from a cohort of soldiers who served in the same area of Papua was applied to estimate risk of relapse among randomized treatment groups. Those were: 1) AS followed 2d later by PQ (0.5 mg/kg daily for 14d); 2) co-formulated AS-PYR concurrent with the same regimen of PQ; or 3) co-formulated DHA-PP concurrent with the same regimen of PQ. Among 532 soldiers, 219 had vivax malaria during the four months following repatriation to Java; 180 of these were otherwise healthy and G6PD-normal and enrolled in the trial. Subjects in all treatment groups tolerated the therapies well without untoward events and cleared parasitemia within three days. First relapse appeared at day 39 post-enrollment, and the last at day 270. Therapeutic efficacy of PQ against relapse by incidence density analysis was 92 % (95 %CI = 83–97 %), 94 %(95 %CI = 86–97 %), and 95 %(95 %CI = 88–98 %) when combined with AS, AS-PYR, or DHA-PP, respectively. This trial offers evidence of good tolerability and efficacy of PQ against P. vivax relapse when administered concurrently with DHA-PP or AS-PYR. These offer alternative partner drugs for radical cure with primaquine. The AS arm demonstrated efficacy with a total dose of 7 mg/kg PQ without concurrently administered blood schizontocide, another option when primaquine therapy is removed in time from the treatment of the acute malaria or applied presumptively without an attack. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82366390 , assigned 20 March 2013.

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding blood culture utilization and antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) infections in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition, there has been a concern for increasing AMR infections among COVID-19 cases in LMICs. Here, we investigated epidemiology of AMR bloodstream infections (BSI) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Indonesian national referral hospital. Methods: We evaluated blood culture utilization rate, and proportion and incidence rate of AMR-BSI caused by WHO-defined priority bacteria using routine hospital databases from 2019 to 2020. A patient was classified as a COVID-19 case if their SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result was positive. The proportion of resistance was defined as the ratio of the number of patients having a positive blood culture for a WHO global priority resistant pathogen per the total number of patients having a positive blood culture for the given pathogen. Poisson regression models were used to assess changes in rate over time. Results: Of 60,228 in-hospital patients, 8,175 had at least one blood culture taken (total 17,819 blood cultures), giving a blood culture utilization rate of 30.6 per 1,000 patient-days. A total of 1,311 patients were COVID-19 cases. Blood culture utilization rate had been increasing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (both p < 0.001), and was higher among COVID-19 cases than non-COVID-19 cases (43.5 vs. 30.2 per 1,000 patient-days, p < 0.001). The most common pathogens identified were K. pneumoniae (23.3%), Acinetobacter spp. (13.9%) and E. coli (13.1%). The proportion of resistance for each bacterial pathogen was similar between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases (all p > 0.10). Incidence rate of hospital-origin AMR-BSI increased from 130.1 cases per 100,000 patient-days in 2019 to 165.5 in 2020 (incidence rate ratio 1.016 per month, 95%CI:1.016–1.017, p < 0.001), and was not associated with COVID-19 (p = 0.96). Conclusions: In our setting, AMR-BSI incidence and etiology were similar between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases. Incidence rates of hospital-origin AMR-BSI increased in 2020, which was likely due to increased blood culture utilization. We recommend increasing blood culture utilization and generating AMR surveillance reports in LMICs to inform local health care providers and policy makers.

The WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) aims to describe antimicrobial resistance (AMR) patterns and trends in common bacterial pathogens, but data remain limited in many low and middle-income countries including Indonesia. We systematically searched Embase, PubMed and Global Health Database and three Indonesian databases for original peer-reviewed articles in English and Indonesian, published between January 1, 2000 and May 25, 2023, that reported antimicrobial susceptibility for the 12 GLASS target pathogens from human samples. Pooled AMR prevalence estimates were calculated for relevant pathogen-antimicrobial combinations accounting for the sampling weights of the studies (PROSPERO: CRD42019155379). Of 2182 search hits, we included 102 papers, comprising 19,517 bacterial isolates from hospitals (13,647) and communities (5870). In hospital settings, 21.6% of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates, 18.3% of Escherichia coli isolates, 35.8% of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates and 70.7% of Acinetobacter baumannii isolates were carbapenem-resistant; 29.9% of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates were penicillin-resistant; and 22.2% of Staphylococcus aureus isolates were methicillin-resistant. Hospital prevalence of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and E. coli, and penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae increased over time. In communities, 28.3% of K. pneumoniae isolates and 15.7% of E. coli isolates were carbapenem-resistant, 23.9% of S. pneumoniae isolates were penicillin-resistant, and 11.1% of S. aureus isolates were methicillin-resistant. Data were limited for the other pathogens. AMR prevalence estimates were high for critical gram-negative bacteria. However, data were insufficient to draw robust conclusions about the full contemporary AMR situation in Indonesia. Implementation of national AMR surveillance is a priority to address these gaps and inform context-specific interventions. Wellcome Africa Asia Programme Vietnam.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the leading global public health threats of the 21st Century. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes have been shown to improve antibiotic use and clinical outcomes in high-income settings, but context-specific evidence is lacking on the value and effectiveness of current AMS programmes in low-resource settings. This study sought to explore context-specific underlying barriers to AMS implementation in Indonesian hospitals with a focus on governance practices and structural vulnerabilities. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with physicians, surgeons, clinical microbiologists, pharmacists, AMS team leaders, hospital managers, medical students, and national AMR stakeholders, and performed a thematic analysis. Results: Based on 51 interviews conducted between January and October 2020, four main barriers to AMS implementation were evident in the participants' experiences: (1) Ineffective resourcing and institutional buy-in regarding mandatory AMS under hospital accreditation; (2) Entangled priorities to generate profits and interprofessional relationships between doctors and hospital managers or AMS leaders; (3) Cost-prohibitive bacterial culture testing and thresholds of national health insurance coverage; (4) Unreliable infrastructures, including microbiology laboratory and surgical facilities, ensuring high antibiotic usage to cover structural vulnerabilities. Conclusions: Limited progress will be made with implementing AMS in Indonesian hospitals, and in settings with similar structural features, without addressing concerns around governance, competing interests, cost and structural vulnerabilities.

Objective Blood culture (BC) sampling is recommended for all suspected sepsis patients prior to antibiotic administration. We examine barriers and enablers to BC sampling in three Southeast Asian countries. Design A Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)-based survey, comprising a case scenario of a patient presenting with community-acquired sepsis and all 14 TDF domains of barriers/enablers to BC sampling. Setting Hospitals in Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam, December 2021 to 30 April 2022. Participants 1070 medical doctors and 238 final-year medical students were participated in this study. Half of the respondents were women (n=680, 52%) and most worked in governmental hospitals (n=980, 75.4%). Outcome measures Barriers and enablers to BC sampling. Results The proportion of respondents who answered that they would definitely take BC in the case scenario was highest at 89.8% (273/304) in Thailand, followed by 50.5% (252/499) in Viet Nam and 31.3% (157/501) in Indonesia (p<0.001). Barriers/enablers in nine TDF domains were considered key in influencing BC sampling, including ‘priority of BC (TDF-goals)’, ‘perception about their role to order or initiate an order for BC (TDF-social professional role and identity)’, ‘perception that BC is helpful (TDF-beliefs about consequences)’, ‘intention to follow guidelines (TDF-intention)’, ‘awareness of guidelines (TDF-knowledge)’, ‘norms of BC sampling (TDF-social influence)’, ‘consequences that discourage BC sampling (TDF-reinforcement)’, ‘perceived cost-effectiveness of BC (TDF-environmental context and resources)’ and ‘regulation on cost reimbursement (TDF-behavioural regulation)’. There was substantial heterogeneity between the countries. In most domains, the lower (higher) proportion of Thai respondents experienced the barriers (enablers) compared with that of Indonesian and Vietnamese respondents. A range of suggested intervention types and policy options was identified. Conclusions Barriers and enablers to BC sampling are varied and heterogenous. Cost-related barriers are more common in more resource-limited countries, while many barriers are not directly related to cost. Context-specific multifaceted interventions at both hospital and policy levels are required to improve diagnostic stewardship practices.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has proved ineffective in treating patients hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but uncertainty remains over its safety and efficacy in chemoprevention. Previous chemoprevention randomised controlled trials (RCTs) did not individually show benefit of HCQ against COVID-19 and, although meta-analysis did suggest clinical benefit, guidelines recommend against its use. Methods and findings: Healthy adult participants from the healthcare setting, and later from the community, were enrolled in 26 centres in 11 countries to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of COVID-19 chemoprevention. HCQ was evaluated in Europe and Africa, and chloroquine (CQ) was evaluated in Asia, (both base equivalent of 155 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by PCR or seroconversion during the 3-month follow-up period. The secondary and tertiary endpoints were: asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; severity of COVID-19 symptoms; all-cause PCR-confirmed symptomatic acute respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2 infection); participant reported number of workdays lost; genetic and baseline biochemical markers associated with symptomatic COVID-19, respiratory illness and disease severity (not reported here); and health economic analyses of HCQ and CQ prophylaxis on costs and quality of life measures (not reported here). The primary and safety analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Recruitment of 40,000 (20,000 HCQ arm, 20,000 CQ arm) participants was planned but was not possible because of protracted delays resulting from controversies over efficacy and adverse events with HCQ use, vaccine rollout in some countries, and other factors. Between 29 April 2020 and 10 March 2022, 4,652 participants (46% females) were enrolled (HCQ/CQ n = 2,320; placebo n = 2,332). The median (IQR) age was 29 (23 to 39) years. SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 1,071 (23%) participants. For the primary endpoint the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 240/2,320 in the HCQ/CQ versus 284/2,332 in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.05]). For the secondary and tertiary outcomes asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 11.5% of HCQ/CQ recipients and 12.0% of placebo recipients: RR: 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.6). There were no differences in the severity of symptoms between the groups and no severe illnesses. HCQ/CQ chemoprevention was associated with fewer PCR-confirmed all-cause respiratory infections (predominantly SARS-CoV-2): RR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88; p = 0.009) and fewer days lost to work because of illness: 104 days per 1,000 participants over 90 days (95% CI, 12 to 199 days; p < 0.001). The prespecified meta-analysis of all published pre-exposure RCTs indicates that HCQ/CQ prophylaxis provided a moderate protective benefit against symptomatic COVID-19: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91). Both drugs were well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Study limitations include the smaller than planned study size, the relatively low number of PCR-confirmed infections, and the lower comparative accuracy of serology endpoints (in particular, the adapted dried blood spot method) compared to the PCR endpoint. The COPCOV trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT04303507. Interpretation: In this large placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial, HCQ and CQ were safe and well tolerated in COVID-19 chemoprevention, and there was evidence of moderate protective benefit in a meta-analysis including this trial and similar RCTs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04303507; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10207947.