Poverty increases the risk of contracting infectious diseases and therefore exposure to antibiotics. Yet there is lacking evidence on the relationship between income and non-income dimensions of poverty and antimicrobial resistance. Investigating such relationship would strengthen antimicrobial stewardship interventions. A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EBSCO, HMIC, and Web of Science databases were searched in October 2016. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting on income or non-income dimensions of poverty and their influence on colonisation or infection with antimicrobial-resistant organisms were retrieved. Study quality was assessed with the Integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Nineteen articles were reviewed. Crowding and homelessness were associated with antimicrobial resistance in community and hospital patients. In high-income countries, low income was associated with Streptococcus pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii resistance and a seven-fold higher infection rate. In low-income countries the findings on this relation were contradictory. Lack of education was linked to resistant S. pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. Two papers explored the relation between water and sanitation and antimicrobial resistance in low-income settings. Despite methodological limitations, the results suggest that addressing social determinants of poverty worldwide remains a crucial yet neglected step towards preventing antimicrobial resistance.

The growing problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has led to calls for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) to control antibiotic use in healthcare settings. Key strategies include prospective audit with feedback and intervention, and formulary restriction and preauthorization. Education, guidelines, clinical pathways, de-escalation, and intravenous to oral conversion are also part of some programs. Impact and quality of ASP can be assessed using process or outcome measures. Outcome measures are categorized as microbiological, patient or financial outcomes. The objective of this review was to provide an overview of quality measures for assessing ASP and the reported impact of ASP in peer-reviewed studies, focusing particularly on patient outcomes. A literature search of papers published in English between 1990 and June 2015 was conducted in five databases using a combination of search terms. Primary studies of any design were included. A total of 63 studies were included in this review. Four studies defined quality metrics for evaluating ASP. Twenty-one studies assessed the impact of ASP on antimicrobial utilization and cost, 25 studies evaluated impact on resistance patterns and/or rate of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Thirteen studies assessed impact on patient outcomes including mortality, length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates. Six of these 13 studies reported non-significant difference in mortality between pre- and post-ASP intervention, and five reported reductions in mortality rate. On LOS, six studies reported shorter LOS post intervention; a significant reduction was reported in one of these studies. Of note, this latter study reported significantly (p < 0.001) higher unplanned readmissions related to infections post-ASP. Patient outcomes need to be a key component of ASP evaluation. The choice of metrics is influenced by data and resource availability. Controlling for confounders must be considered in the design of evaluation studies to adequately capture the impact of ASP and it is important for unintended consequences to be considered. This review provides a starting point toward compiling standard outcome metrics for assessing ASP.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess antimicrobial stewardship activities in Community Healthcare Organisations (CHOs) with focus on the implementation of the two national antimicrobial stewardship toolkits, TARGET (Treat Antibiotics Responsibly, Guidance, Education, Tools) and SSTF (Start Smart, then Focus). The study utilised a web-based survey comprising 34 questions concerning antimicrobial policies and awareness and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship toolkits. This was distributed to pharmacy teams in all 26 CHOs in England. Twenty CHOs (77%) responded. An antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) committee was active in 50% of CHOs; 25% employed a substantive pharmacist post and 70% had a local antibiotic policy. Fourteen of the responding CHOs were aware of both AMS toolkits, five organisations were aware of either SSTF or TARGET, and one organisation was not aware of either toolkit. Of the organisations aware of SSTF and TARGET, eight had formally reviewed both toolkits, though three had not reviewed either. Less than half of the respondents had developed local action plans for either toolkit. National guidance in England has focused attention on initiatives to improve AMS implementation in primary and secondary care; more work is required to embed AMS activities and the implementation of national AMS toolkit recommendations within CHOs.