The Global Point Prevalence Survey (Global-PPS) established an international network of hospitals to measure antimicrobial prescribing and resistance worldwide. We aimed to assess antimicrobial prescribing and resistance in hospital inpatients. We used a standardised surveillance method to collect detailed data about antimicrobial prescribing and resistance from hospitals worldwide, which were grouped by UN region. The internet-based survey included all inpatients (adults, children, and neonates) receiving an antimicrobial who were on the ward at 0800 h on one specific day between January and September, 2015. Hospitals were classified as primary, secondary, tertiary (including infectious diseases hospitals), and paediatric hospitals. Five main ward types were defined: medical wards, surgical wards, intensive-care units, haematology oncology wards, and medical transplantation (bone marrow or solid transplants) wards. Data recorded included patient characteristics, antimicrobials received, diagnosis, therapeutic indication according to predefined lists, and markers of prescribing quality (eg, whether a stop or review date were recorded, and whether local prescribing guidelines existed and were adhered to). We report findings for adult inpatients. The Global-PPS for 2015 included adult data from 303 hospitals in 53 countries, including eight lower-middle-income and 17 upper-middle-income countries. 86 776 inpatients were admitted to 3315 adult wards, of whom 29 891 (34·4%) received at least one antimicrobial. 41 213 antimicrobial prescriptions were issued, of which 36 792 (89·3%) were antibacterial agents for systemic use. The top three antibiotics prescribed worldwide were penicillins with β-lactamase inhibitors, third-generation cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones. Carbapenems were most frequently prescribed in Latin America and west and central Asia. Of patients who received at least one antimicrobial, 5926 (19·8%) received a targeted antibacterial treatment for systemic use, and 1769 (5·9%) received a treatment targeting at least one multidrug-resistant organism. The frequency of health-care-associated infections was highest in Latin America (1518 [11·9%]) and east and south Asia (5363 [10·1%]). Overall, the reason for treatment was recorded in 31 694 (76·9%) of antimicrobial prescriptions, and a stop or review date in 15 778 (38·3%). Local antibiotic guidelines were missing for 7050 (19·2%) of the 36 792 antibiotic prescriptions, and guideline compliance was 77·4%. The Global-PPS showed that worldwide surveillance can be accomplished with voluntary participation. It provided quantifiable measures to assess and compare the quantity and quality of antibiotic prescribing and resistance in hospital patients worldwide. These data will help to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing through education and practice changes, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries that have no tools to monitor antibiotic prescribing in hospitals. bioMérieux.

Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) in well-resourced countries has been associated with reductions in antibiotic-resistant infections and improved patient outcomes. Several guidance documents providing recommendations on how to structure antimicrobial stewardship activities at the national and hospital level in resource-limited settings have been published. However, few hospitals in Latin America report having a structure or resources needed for a successful ASP. Given the alarming increases in antimicrobial resistance in Latin America, better understanding of barriers to promote implementation of effective ASPs is urgently needed. We have summarized past and present antimicrobial stewardship activities in Latin American hospitals, and we describe key elements needed in future efforts to strengthen antimicrobial stewardship in the region.

Objective: To assess the impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) in adult medical–surgical intensive care units (MS-ICUs) in Latin America.Design: Quasi-experimental prospective with continuous time series.Setting: The study included 77 MS-ICUs in 9 Latin American countries.Patients: Adult patients admitted to an MS-ICU for at least 24 hours were included in the study.Methods: This multicenter study was conducted over 12 months. To evaluate the ASPs, representatives from all MS-ICUs performed a self-assessment survey (0–100 scale) at the beginning and end of the study. The impact of each ASP was evaluated monthly using the following measures: antimicrobial consumption, appropriateness of antimicrobial treatments, crude mortality, and multidrug-resistant microorganisms in healthcare-associated infections (MDRO-HAIs). Using final stewardship program quality self-assessment scores, MS-ICUs were stratified and compared among 3 groups: ≤25th percentile, >25th to <75th percentile, and ≥75th percentile.Results: In total, 77 MS-ICU from 9 Latin American countries completed the study. Twenty MS-ICUs reached at least the 75th percentile at the end of the study in comparison with the same number who remain within the 25th percentile (score, 76.1 ± 7.5 vs 28.0 ± 7.3; P < .0001). Several indicators performed better in the MS-ICUs in the 75th versus 25th percentiles: antimicrobial consumption (143.4 vs 159.4 DDD per 100 patient days; P < .0001), adherence to clinical guidelines (92.5% vs 59.3%; P < .0001), validation of prescription by pharmacist (72.0% vs 58.0%; P < .0001), crude mortality (15.9% vs 17.7%; P < .0001), and MDRO-HAIs (9.45 vs 10.96 cases per 1,000 patient days; P = .004).Conclusion: MS-ICUs with more comprehensive ASPs showed significant improvement in antimicrobial utilization.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance has worsened in Latin America. There is an urgent need to understand the development of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) and the barriers to implementing effective ASPs in light of limited national action plans or policies to promote ASPs in the region. Methods: We performed a descriptive mixed-methods study of ASPs in 5 Latin American countries in March-July 2022. An electronic questionnaire with an associated scoring system (hospital ASP self-assessment) was used, and ASP development was classified based on the scores (inadequate, 0–25; basic, 26–50; intermediate, 51–75; or advanced, 76–100). Interviews among healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in antimicrobial stewardship (AS) inquired about behavioral and organizational factors that influence AS activities. Interview data were coded into themes. Results from the ASP self-assessment and interviews were integrated to create an explanatory framework. Results: Twenty hospitals completed the self-assessment, and 46 AS stakeholders from these hospitals were interviewed. ASP development was inadequate/basic in 35% of hospitals, intermediate in 50%, and advanced in 15%. For-profit hospitals had higher scores than not-for-profit hospitals. Interview data validated the self-assessment findings and provided further insight into ASP implementation challenges, which included limited formal hospital leadership support, inadequate staffing and tools to perform AS work more efficiently, limited awareness of AS principles by HCWs, and limited training opportunities. Conclusions: We identified several barriers to ASP development in Latin America, suggesting the need to create accurate business cases for ASPs to obtain the necessary funding for their effective implementation and sustainability.

Increasing bacterial resistance combined with a steady decline in the discovery of new antibiotics has resulted in a global healthcare crisis. Overuse of antibiotics, for example, in the poultry and cattle industry, and misuse and improper prescription of antibiotics are leading causes of multidrug resistance (MDR). The increasing use of antibiotics, particularly in developing countries, is a big concern for antibiotic resistance and can cause other health threats such as increased risk of recurrent infections and increased risk of cardiovascular death with chronic use of macrolides. Carbapenems are the last line of defense in many cases of resistant infection, but trends show that resistance against these agents is also increasing. This narrative review is based on relevant literature according to the experience and expertise of the authors and presents an overview of the current knowledge on antibiotic resistance, the key driving factors, and possible strategies to tackle antibiotic resistance. Collectively, studies show that hospital-wide antibiotic stewardship programs are effective in decreasing the spread of antibacterial resistance. As resistance varies according to local patterns of use, it is essential to observe the epidemiology at both a regional and an institutional level. Furthermore, adaptation of clinical guidelines is necessary, particularly for inpatient care. Future guidelines should include a justification step for continued treatment of antibiotic treatments and criteria for selection of antibiotics at the start of treatment. Nonantibiotic prevention strategies can limit infections and should also be considered in treatment plans. Vaccines against MDR organisms have shown some efficacy in phase II trials in critical care patients. Nonimmunogenic and microbiologic treatment options such as fecal transplants may be particularly important for elderly and immune-compromised patients.

Background: Infection prevention and control (IPC) programs are essential to prevent and control the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms in healthcare facilities (HCFs). The current implementation of these programs in Latin America remains largely unknown. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of IPC program implementation in HCFs from Guatemala, Panama, Ecuador, and Argentina, March-July 2022. We used the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC Assessment Framework (IPCAF) survey, a previously validated structured questionnaire with an associated scoring system that evaluates the eight core components of IPC (IPC program; IPC guidelines; IPC education and training; healthcare-associated infection [HAI] surveillance; multimodal strategies; monitoring and audit of IPC practices and feedback; workload, staffing, and bed occupancy; and the built environment and materials and equipment for IPC). Each section generates a score 0–100. According to the final score, the HCF IPC program implementation is categorized into four levels: inadequate (0–200), basic (201–400), intermediate (401–600), or advanced (601–800). Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews among IPC personnel and microbiologists using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model to evaluate barriers and facilitators for IPC program implementation. We performed directed content analysis of interview transcripts to identify themes that focused on barriers and facilitators of IPC program implementation which are summarized descriptively. Results: Thirty-seven HCFs (15 for-profit and 22 non-profit) completed the IPCAF survey. The overall median score was 614 (IQR 569, 693) which corresponded to an “advanced” level of IPC implementation (32% [7/22] non-profit vs. 93% [14/15] for-profit HCFs in this category). The lowest scores were in workload, staffing and bed occupancy followed by IPC training and multimodal strategies. Forty individuals from 16 HCFs were interviewed. They perceived inadequate staffing and technical resources, limited leadership support, and cultural determinants as major barriers to effective IPC guideline implementation, while external accreditation and technical support from public health authorities were perceived as facilitators. Conclusions: Efforts to strengthen IPC activities in Latin American HCFs should focus on improving support from hospital leadership and public health authorities to ensure better resource allocation, promoting safety culture, and improving training in quality improvement.