Objective. This scoping review aims to evaluate the existing literature outlining inclusion of Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) teaching and assessment within professional pharmacy curricula to provide a foundation for future scholarly research and to identify innovative teaching and assessment practices for AMS programming. Findings. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Two studies explored the extent, content and methods of AMS delivery, 4 studies described AMS elective courses, and 1 study described an interprofessional module. Most studies were conducted in the United States (US). 86.6% (n=15) pharmacy schools incorporated AMS into curricula in the United Kingdom (UK). As for the US, 68.1% (n=116) of pharmacy programs reported incorporation of AMS education into curriculum. Learning objectives of the elective courses focused on Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) guidelines, AMS literature appraisal and AMS principal application. The most used teaching strategy was didactic lectures followed by case studies. Active learning approaches like simulators, problem-based learning and presentations were also used but to a lesser extent. Summary. The scarcity of scholarly activity for AMS teaching and assessment provides a signal that curricular planning for AMS should be guided by national or international organizations. Furthermore, AMS learning should be considered as a required subject for all pharmacy students. AMS curricular reform may be influenced by timing of the course, teaching approaches and performance assessment of students.

Background: We intended to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of colistin versus tigecycline as monotherapy or combination therapy against multi-drug resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) pathogens. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and in the grey literature (i.e., ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar) up to May 2021. Outcomes were clinical response, mortality, infection recurrence, and renal and hepatic toxicity. We pooled odd ratios (OR) using heterogeneity-guided random or fixed models at a statistical significance of p < 0.05. Results: Fourteen observational studies involving 1163 MDR/XDR pathogens, receiving tigecycline versus colistin monotherapy or combination, were included. Base-case analyses revealed insignificant differences in the clinical response, reinfection, and hepatic impairment. The 30-day mortality was significantly relatively reduced with tigecycline monotherapy (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.16–0.75, p = 0.007). The colistin monotherapy significantly relatively reduced in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.27, 95%CI 1.24–4.16, p = 0.008). Renal impairment rates were lower with tigecycline monotherapy or in combination, and were lower with monotherapy versus colistin-tigecycline combination. Low-risk of bias and moderate/high evidence quality were associated with all studies. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that there were no statistically significant differences in main efficacy outcomes between colistin and tigecycline monotherapies or combinations against MDR/XDR infections, except for lower rates of 30-day mortality with tigecycline and in-hospital mortality with colistin. Tigecycline was associated with favourable renal toxicity outcomes.

Objectives: Antimicrobial resistance is a worldwide public health issue that requires emergent action. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have been proposed as a strategy to minimise resistance. Although ASPs were implemented in governmental hospitals in Qatar since 2015, a formal evaluation of these programs has not been conducted. We aimed to assess the status of ASPs in Qatar and to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges (SWOC) to further enhance ASPs within Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC). Methods: Lead stakeholders of ASPs in HMC filled a questionnaire adapted from the 2019 Centers for Disease Control Prevention checklist for ASPs. Notes were taken by research team to assist in formulating a SWOC analysis. Key findings: All hospitals (12/12) had an infectious diseases physician and pharmacist designated as an ASP leader (major strength identified). Almost all hospitals lack a financial statement and information technology resources to support ASPs (major weaknesses identified). Nine hospitals had an antibiotic pre-authorisation policy and adopted a prospective audit with feedback strategy. Among hospitals surveyed, 11 hospitals tracked antibiotic use by measuring the defined daily dose, and only four hospitals tracked rates of Clostridioides difficile infection. Qatar’s rich economy supports the allocation of financial resources and budgeting to improve ASPs despite the increased emergence of resistant organisms and the limited resources currently available to expand ASPs across the country’s healthcare settings. Conclusions: Although ASPs were implemented in all governmental hospitals in Qatar, national efforts and more resources are needed to further develop and improve these programs.

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious disease that can be treated with antivirals in addition to other antimicrobials in cases of secondary or concomitant infections. This creates potential for antimicrobials misuse, which increases antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Pharmacists are known to undertake prominent roles in combatting AMR. Aim: The aim of this review was to characterize pharmacist-driven interventions that have been performed in patients with COVID-19 globally and describe their impact on antimicrobial use. Method: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institutes manual framework for scoping reviews in our study. Studies that reported antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions performed by pharmacists in COVID-19 patients were included. Articles that did not report outcomes or did not mention pharmacists in the intervention were excluded. Restrictions included English-only articles from inception date until June 2022. Articles were searched from four databases. Results: Eleven publications were included in the review. The most common AMS intervention was pharmacist-driven interventions reported in 63.2% of all studies, followed by guideline development and application (26.3%), and medication supply coordination (10.5%), respectively. The outcomes of the interventions were difficult to compare but showed a reduction in antimicrobial use and prevention of adverse drug reactions with a relatively high acceptance rate from physicians. Conclusion: Pharmacists played an important role in performing AMS-related interventions in COVID-19 patients and helped in the fight against the worsening of AMR during the pandemic. The impact of pharmacist-driven AMS interventions in patients with COVID-19 seemed to be positive and improved outcomes related to antimicrobial use.

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) play a big role in minimizing antimicrobial resistance. Pharmacists are essential members of the health care team and in order for them to fulfill roles on ASP teams and become antimicrobial stewards, they must be prepared adequately by pharmacy schools prior to entry into actual practice. Although programming has been implemented into entry-to-practice programs worldwide, little is known about how students interpret antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) data and arrive at clinical decisions. We aimed to explore students’ cognitive processes and determine how they formulate therapeutic decisions when presented with AMS cases. Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted using a case study approach, in which a sample (n=20) of pharmacy students was recruited to interpret AMS cases. Semi-structured 1-on-1 interviews were arranged with each participant. A think-aloud procedure with verbal protocol analysis was adopted to determine students’ decision-making processes. Thematic analysis was used to interpret themes from the interview data. Results: Two themes were interpreted from the data: students’ focus and students’ approach to case interpretation. Students’ focus relates to external factors students consider when interpreting AMS case data and use to make and justify therapeutic decisions including patient-centered factors, drug-related factors, AMS interventions, and pharmacist’s role. Students’ clinical reasoning describes the approach that students use to interpret the data and the decision-making processes they employ to arrive at a clinical decision including a systematic approach versus non-systematic approach. Conclusions: Students vary in their focus and the cognitive strategies used to interpret AMS cases. Findings support the notion that clinical reasoning and decision-making should be explicitly taught in pharmacy curricula, in order to help students become aware of their own cognitive processes and decision-making abilities.