Objectives: The WHO Access, Watch and Reserve (AWaRe) classification has been developed to support countries and hospitals in promoting rational use of antibiotics while improving access to these essential medicines. We aimed to describe patterns of worldwide antibiotic use according to the AWaRe classification in the adult inpatient population.Methods: The Global Point Prevalence Survey on Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) collects hospital antibiotic use data using a standardized PPS methodology. Global-PPS 2015, 2017 and 2018 data, collected by 664 hospitals in 69 countries, were categorized into AWaRe groups to calculate proportional AWaRe use, Access-to-Watch ratios and the most common indications for treatment with selected Watch antibiotics. Only prescriptions for systemic antibiotics on adult inpatient wards were analysed.Results: Regional Access use ranged from 28.4% in West and Central Asia to 57.7% in Oceania, whereas Watch use was lowest in Oceania (41.3%) and highest in West and Central Asia (66.1%). Reserve use ranged from 0.03% in sub-Saharan Africa to 4.7% in Latin America. There were large differences in AWaRe prescribing at country level. Watch antibiotics were prescribed for a range of very different indications worldwide, both for therapeutic and prophylactic use.Conclusions: We observed considerable variations in AWaRe prescribing and high use of Watch antibiotics, particularly in lower- and upper-middle-income countries, followed by high-income countries. The WHO AWaRe classification has an instrumental role to play in local and national stewardship activities to assess prescribing patterns and to inform and evaluate stewardship activities.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remains an important global public health issue with antimicrobial misuse and overuse being one of the main drivers. The Global Point Prevalence Survey (G-PPS) of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance assesses the prevalence and the quality of antimicrobial prescriptions across hospitals globally. G-PPS was carried out at 17 hospitals across Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and Tanzania. The overall prevalence of antimicrobial use was 50% (30–57%), with most antibiotics prescribed belonging to the WHO ‘Access’ and ‘Watch’ categories. No ‘Reserve’ category of antibiotics was prescribed across the study sites while antimicrobials belonging to the ‘Not Recommended’ group were prescribed infrequently. Antimicrobials were most often prescribed for prophylaxis for obstetric or gynaecological surgery, making up between 12 and 18% of total prescriptions across all countries. The most prescribed therapeutic subgroup of antimicrobials was ‘Antibacterials for systemic use’. As a result of the programme, PPS data are now readily available for the first time in the hospitals, strengthening the global commitment to improved antimicrobial surveillance. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions developed included the formation of AMS committees, the provision of training and the preparation of new AMS guidelines. Other common interventions included the presentation of findings to clinicians for increased awareness, and the promotion of a multi-disciplinary approach to successful AMS programmes. Repeat PPS would be necessary to continually monitor the impact of interventions implemented. Broader participation is also encouraged to strengthen the evidence base.

Background: The Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) provides a methodology to support hospitals worldwide in collecting antimicrobial use data. We aim to evaluate the impact of the Global-PPS on local antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes and assess health care professionals’ educational needs and barriers for implementing AMS. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was disseminated within the Global-PPS network. The target audience consisted of hospital healthcare workers, involved in local surveillance of antimicrobial consumption and resistance. This included contacts from hospitals that already participated in the Global-PPS or were planning to do so. The survey contained 24 questions that addressed the hospital’s AMS activities, experiences conducting the PPS, as well as the learning needs and barriers for implementing AMS. Results: A total of 248 hospitals from 74 countries participated in the survey, of which 192 had already conducted the PPS at least once. The survey response rate was estimated at 25%. In 96.9% of these 192 hospitals, Global-PPS participation had led to the identification of problems related to antimicrobial prescribing. In 69.3% at least one of the hospital’s AMS components was initiated as a result of Global-PPS findings. The level of AMS implementation varied across regions. Up to 43.1% of all hospitals had a formal antimicrobial stewardship strategy, ranging from 10.8% in Africa to 60.9% in Northern America. Learning needs of hospitals in high-income countries and in low-and middle-income countries were largely similar and included general topics (e.g. ‘optimising antibiotic treatment’), but also PPS-related topics (e.g. ‘translating PPS results into meaningful interventions’). The main barriers to implementing AMS programmes were a lack of time (52.7%), knowledge on good prescribing practices (42.0%), and dedicated funding (39.9%). Hospitals in LMIC more often reported unavailability of prescribing guidelines, insufficient laboratory capacity and suboptimal use of the available laboratory services. Conclusions: Although we observed substantial variation in the level of AMS implementation across regions, the Global-PPS has been very useful in informing stewardship activities in many participating hospitals. More is still to be gained in guiding hospitals to integrate the PPS throughout AMS activities, building on existing structures and processes.

Antibiotic use during pregnancy is widespread with notable variations across regions. This systematic review and meta-analysis (Prospero protocol CRD42023418979) examines the prevalence and variability of antibiotic use in pregnancy globally and regionally, considering different methodologies and maternal characteristics. We searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for observational studies published in English from the year 2000 and onwards. Random-effect meta-analyses were used to pool the prevalence of antibiotic consumption during pregnancy, presented as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies was used for bias assessment. Overall, 116 studies (14 from Africa, 24 from the Americas, six from Eastern Mediterranean, 57 from Europe, four from South-East Asia and 11 from Western Pacific) were included (33,821,194 pregnancies). The majority of studies (84.5%) were appraised with a low risk of bias. The prevalence of antibiotic consumption during pregnancy ranged between 0.04 to 90%, with a pooled estimate of 23.6% (95% CI: 20.1-27.5, I²=100%). Low-income countries had the highest pooled prevalence (45.3%, 95% CI: 15.4-79.1, I²=99.6%). Regionally, the Western Pacific had the highest pooled prevalence (34.4%, 95% CI: 13.4-64.1, I²=100%). The prevalence of antibiotic consumption during pregnancy increased over time in the Americas and Western Pacific. The studies exhibited considerable heterogeneity (I²>95%), and the trim-and-fill method estimated a potential 10% underestimation of the overall pooled prevalence, suggesting publication bias. This meta-analysis suggests that about 1/4 of women worldwide use antibiotics during pregnancy. This study suggests a high prevalence of antibiotic consumption during pregnancy with disparities according to region and level of country income, ethnicity and whether antibiotics were prescribed or self-medicated. There was a variability in reported findings across age categories, potential bias from small sample sizes, and language bias from including only studies published in English.

Background: Hospitals in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) face context-specific challenges in implementing antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes. The Global Point Prevalence Survey (Global-PPS) project has established a network of hospitals across 90 countries, using point prevalence surveys to monitor antimicrobial use and guide AMS activities. However, little is known about AMS implementation in these hospitals. Using qualitative research, we aim to explore the implementation process in LMIC hospitals within the Global-PPS network and the factors influencing it, identify potential implementation strategies, and evaluate the role of Global-PPS in this process. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured online interviews with healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in AMS in LMIC hospitals within the Global-PPS network. Participants were selected using a combination of convenience and purposive sampling and included clinicians, microbiologists, pharmacists, and nurses. Interviews followed a topic guide based on the integrated checklist of determinants of practice (TICD Checklist). Transcripts were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analyses. Findings: Twenty-two HCWs from 16 countries were interviewed. Hospitals were in different stages of the AMS implementation process at the time of the study, from pre-implementation to institutionalisation of AMS as part of the continuous quality improvement process. While the Global-PPS provided a valuable tool for education and implementation, contextual barriers often hindered the translation of findings into targeted interventions. Four themes influenced AMS implementation, “institutional support and resource allocation”, “AMS team functioning, roles, and expertise”, “adoption and integration of AMS recommendations”, and “data-driven decision-making” as a cross-cutting theme. Key determinants included AMS team competencies, multidisciplinary teams, sustainable funding and leadership support, diagnostic capacity, and reliable data to inform interventions. We also identified various strategies employed by local AMS teams to enhance implementation. Conclusions: This study examines AMS implementation in LMIC hospitals in the Global-PPS network and identifies key determinants. AMS teams address challenges through task shifting, local engagement and ownership. While empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies is limited, these insights can guide future AMS interventions and studies within LMIC hospitals. Strengthening AMS requires bridging the gap between measurement and action and expanding research on behaviour change.

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.