Background: There is limited data on antibiotic treatment in hospitalized neonates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to describe patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens, and clinical outcomes, and to develop a severity score predicting mortality in neonatal sepsis to inform future clinical trial design. Methods and findings: Hospitalized infants <60 days with clinical sepsis were enrolled during 2018 to 2020 by 19 sites in 11 countries (mainly Asia and Africa). Prospective daily observational data was collected on clinical signs, supportive care, antibiotic treatment, microbiology, and 28-day mortality. Two prediction models were developed for (1) 28-day mortality from baseline variables (baseline NeoSep Severity Score); and (2) daily risk of death on IV antibiotics from daily updated assessments (NeoSep Recovery Score). Multivariable Cox regression models included a randomly selected 85% of infants, with 15% for validation. A total of 3,204 infants were enrolled, with median birth weight of 2,500 g (IQR 1,400 to 3,000) and postnatal age of 5 days (IQR 1 to 15). 206 different empiric antibiotic combinations were started in 3,141 infants, which were structured into 5 groups based on the World Health Organization (WHO) AWaRe classification. Approximately 25.9% (n = 814) of infants started WHO first line regimens (Group 1—Access) and 13.8% (n = 432) started WHO second-line cephalosporins (cefotaxime/ceftriaxone) (Group 2—“Low” Watch). The largest group (34.0%, n = 1,068) started a regimen providing partial extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)/pseudomonal coverage (piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, or fluoroquinolone-based) (Group 3—“Medium” Watch), 18.0% (n = 566) started a carbapenem (Group 4—“High” Watch), and 1.8% (n = 57) a Reserve antibiotic (Group 5, largely colistin-based), and 728/2,880 (25.3%) of initial regimens in Groups 1 to 4 were escalated, mainly to carbapenems, usually for clinical deterioration (n = 480; 65.9%). A total of 564/3,195 infants (17.7%) were blood culture pathogen positive, of whom 62.9% (n = 355) had a gram-negative organism, predominantly Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 132) or Acinetobacter spp. (n = 72). Both were commonly resistant to WHO-recommended regimens and to carbapenems in 43 (32.6%) and 50 (71.4%) of cases, respectively. MRSA accounted for 33 (61.1%) of 54 Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Overall, 350/3,204 infants died (11.3%; 95% CI 10.2% to 12.5%), 17.7% if blood cultures were positive for pathogens (95% CI 14.7% to 21.1%, n = 99/564). A baseline NeoSep Severity Score had a C-index of 0.76 (0.69 to 0.82) in the validation sample, with mortality of 1.6% (3/189; 95% CI: 0.5% to 4.6%), 11.0% (27/245; 7.7% to 15.6%), and 27.3% (12/44; 16.3% to 41.8%) in low (score 0 to 4), medium (5 to 8), and high (9 to 16) risk groups, respectively, with similar performance across subgroups. A related NeoSep Recovery Score had an area under the receiver operating curve for predicting death the next day between 0.8 and 0.9 over the first week. There was significant variation in outcomes between sites and external validation would strengthen score applicability. Conclusion: Antibiotic regimens used in neonatal sepsis commonly diverge from WHO guidelines, and trials of novel empiric regimens are urgently needed in the context of increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The baseline NeoSep Severity Score identifies high mortality risk criteria for trial entry, while the NeoSep Recovery Score can help guide decisions on regimen change. NeoOBS data informed the NeoSep1 antibiotic trial (ISRCTN48721236), which aims to identify novel first- and second-line empiric antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT03721302).

There are serious concerns with rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) across countries increasing morbidity, mortality and costs. These concerns have resulted in a plethora of initiatives globally and nationally including national action plans (NAPs) to reduce AMR. Africa is no exception, especially with the highest rates of AMR globally. Key activities in NAPs include gaining a greater understanding of current antimicrobial utilization patterns through point prevalence surveys (PPS) and subsequently instigating antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Consequently, there is a need to comprehensively document current utilization patterns among hospitals across Africa coupled with ASP studies. In total, 33 PPS studies ranging from single up to 18 hospitals were documented from a narrative review with typically over 50% of in-patients prescribed antimicrobials, up to 97.6% in Nigeria. The penicillins, ceftriaxone and metronidazole, were the most prescribed antibiotics. Appreciable extended prescribing of antibiotics up to 6 days or more post-operatively was seen across Africa to prevent surgical site infections. At least 19 ASPs have been instigated across Africa in recent years to improve future prescribing utilizing a range of prescribing indicators. The various findings resulted in a range of suggested activities that key stakeholders, including governments and healthcare professionals, should undertake in the short, medium and long term to improve future antimicrobial prescribing and reduce AMR across Africa.

Neonatal invasive candidiasis (NIC) has significant morbidity and mortality. Reports have shown a different profile of those neonates affected with NIC and of fluconazole resistant Candida spp. isolates in low-and-middle-income -countries (LMICs) compared to high-income-countries (HIC). We describe the epidemiology, Candida spp. distribution, treatment and outcomes of neonates with NIC from LMICs enrolled in a global, prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study (NeoOBS) of hospitalised infants < 60 days postnatal age with sepsis (August 2018-February 2021). 127 neonates from 14 hospitals in 8 countries with Candida spp. isolated from blood culture were included. Median gestational age of affected neonates was 30 weeks (IQR: 28-34) and median birth weight was 1270 g (IQR: 990–1692). Only a minority had high risk criteria, such as being born < 28 weeks, 19% (24/127), or birth weight < 1000 g, 27% (34/127). The most common Candida species were C. albicans (n = 45, 35%), C. parapsilosis (n = 38, 30%) and Candida auris (n = 18, 14%). The majority of C. albicans isolates were fluconazole susceptible, whereas 59% of C. parapsilosis isolates were fluconazole resistant. Amphotericin B was the most common antifungal used [74% (78/105)], followed by fluconazole [22% (23/105)]. Death by day 28 post-enrolment was 22% (28/127). To our knowledge, this is the largest multi-country cohort of NIC in LMICs. Most of the neonates would not have been considered at high risk for NIC in HICs. A substantial proportion of isolates was resistant to first choice fluconazole. Understanding the burden of NIC in LMIC is essential to guide future research and treatment guidelines. Our study describes neonates from LMIC with neonatal invasive candidiasis (NIC). Most of them were outside the groups considered at high risk for NIC described in HIC. Candida spp. epidemiology was also different. The mortality was high (22%). Further research in these settings is required.

Background: There are concerns globally with rising rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). AMR is driven by high rates of inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of antibiotics, particularly Watch antibiotics. To develop future interventions, it is important to document current knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) among key stakeholder groups in LMICs. Methods: We undertook a narrative review of published papers among four WHO Regions including African and Asian countries. Relevant papers were sourced from 2018 to 2024 and synthesized by key stakeholder group, country, WHO Region, income level and year. The findings were summarized to identify pertinent future activities for all key stakeholder groups. Results: We sourced 459 papers, with a large number coming from Africa (42.7%). An appreciable number dealt with patients’ KAP (33.1%), reflecting their influence on the prescribing and dispensing of antibiotics. There was marked consistency of findings among key stakeholder groups across the four WHO Regions, all showing concerns with high rates of prescribing of antibiotics for viral infections despite professed knowledge of antibiotics and AMR. There were similar issues among dispensers. Patients’ beliefs regarding the effectiveness of antibiotics for self-limiting infectious diseases were a major challenge, although educational programmes did improve knowledge. The development of the AWaRe (Access, Watch and Reserve) system, including practical prescribing guidance, provides a future opportunity for the standardization of educational inputs. Conclusions: Similar KAP regarding the prescribing and dispensing of antibiotics across LMICs and stakeholder groups presents clear opportunities for standardization of educational input and practical training programmes based on the AWaRe system.

Introduction: Quality indicators (QIs) are widely used tools for antibiotic stewardship programmes. The Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) system has been developed by the WHO to classify antibiotics based on their spectrum of activity and potential selection of antibiotic resistance. This review aimed to identify existing indicators for optimal antibiotic use to inform the development of future AWaRe QIs. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed. We included articles describing QIs for hospital and primary healthcare antibiotic use. We extracted information about (i) the type of infection; (ii) setting; (iii) target for quality assessment; and (iv) methodology used for the development. We then identified the indicators that reflected the guidance provided in the AWaRe system. Results: A total of 773 indicators for antibiotic use were identified. The management of health services and/or workers, the consumption of antibiotics, and antibiotic prescribing/dispensing were the principal targets for quality assessment. There was a similar distribution of indicators across primary and secondary care. For infection-specific indicators, about 50% focused on respiratory tract infections. Only a few QIs included information on review treatment or microbiological investigations. Although only 8 (1%) indicators directly cited the AWaRe system in the wording of the indicators, 445 (57.6%) indicators reflected the guidance provided in the AWaRe book. Conclusions: A high number of indicators for appropriate antibiotic use have been developed. However, few are currently based directly on the WHO AWaRe system. There is a clear need to develop globally applicable AWaRe based indicators that can be integrated into antibiotic stewardship programmes.

There are concerns with the current prescribing of antibiotics in both the private and public primary care settings in South Africa. These concerns need to be addressed going forward to reduce rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates in South Africa. Concerns include adherence to current prescribing guidelines. Consequently, there is a need to comprehensively summarise current antibiotic utilization patterns from published studies as well as potential activities to improve prescribing, including indicators and antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Published studies showed that there was an appreciable prescribing of antibiotics for patients with acute respiratory infections, i.e., 52.9% to 78% or more across the sectors. However, this was not universal, with appreciable adherence to prescribing guidelines in community health centres. Encouragingly, the majority of antibiotics prescribed, albeit often inappropriately, were from the ‘Access’ group of antibiotics in the AWaRe (Access/Watch/Reserve) classification rather than ‘Watch’ antibiotics to limit AMR. Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics in primary care is not helped by concerns with current knowledge regarding antibiotics, AMR and ASPs among prescribers and patients in primary care. This needs to be addressed going forward. However, studies have shown it is crucial for prescribers to use a language that patients understand when discussing key aspects to enhance appropriate antibiotic use. Recommended activities for the future include improved education for all groups as well as regularly monitoring prescribing against agreed-upon guidelines and indicators.