IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Giorgia Sulis
  • Pierrick Adam
  • Vaidehi Nafade
  • Genevieve Gore
  • Benjamin Daniels
  • Amrita Daftary
  • Jishnu Das
  • Sumanth Gandra
  • Madhukar Pai

Abstract

Background: The widespread use of antibiotics plays a major role in the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. However, important knowledge gaps still exist regarding the extent of their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly at the primary care level. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted in primary care in LMICs to estimate the prevalence of antibiotic prescriptions as well as the proportion of such prescriptions that are inappropriate. Methods and findings: We searched PubMed, Embase, Global Health, and CENTRAL for articles published between 1 January 2010 and 4 April 2019 without language restrictions. We subsequently updated our search on PubMed only to capture publications up to 11 March 2020. Studies conducted in LMICs (defined as per the World Bank criteria) reporting data on medicine use in primary care were included. Three reviewers independently screened citations by title and abstract, whereas the full-text evaluation of all selected records was performed by 2 reviewers, who also conducted data extraction and quality assessment. A modified version of a tool developed by Hoy and colleagues was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias of each included study. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were performed to identify the proportion of patients receiving antibiotics. The WHO Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) framework was used to classify prescribed antibiotics. We identified 48 studies from 27 LMICs, mostly conducted in the public sector and in urban areas, and predominantly based on medical records abstraction and/or drug prescription audits. The pooled prevalence proportion of antibiotic prescribing was 52% (95% CI: 51%–53%), with a prediction interval of 44%–60%. Individual studies’ estimates were consistent across settings. Only 9 studies assessed rationality, and the proportion of inappropriate prescription among patients with various conditions ranged from 8% to 100%. Among 16 studies in 15 countries that reported details on prescribed antibiotics, Access-group antibiotics accounted for more than 60% of the total in 12 countries. The interpretation of pooled estimates is limited by the considerable between-study heterogeneity. Also, most of the available studies suffer from methodological issues and report insufficient details to assess appropriateness of prescription. Conclusions: Antibiotics are highly prescribed in primary care across LMICs. Although a subset of studies reported a high proportion of inappropriate use, the true extent could not be assessed due to methodological limitations. Yet, our findings highlight the need for urgent action to improve prescription practices, starting from the integration of WHO treatment recommendations and the AWaRe classification into national guidelines. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019123269. Giorgia Sulis and colleagues report the prevalence of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care in low-middle income countries in a systematic review and meta-analysis.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Giorgia Sulis & Pierrick Adam & Vaidehi Nafade & Genevieve Gore & Benjamin Daniels & Amrita Daftary & Jishnu Das & Sumanth Gandra & Madhukar Pai, 2020. "Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-20, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003139
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003139
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003139&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003139?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Özçelik, Ece A & Doucet, Cédric & Kang, Hyunjin & Levy, Noémie & Feldhaus, Isabelle & Hashiguchi, Tiago Cravo Oliveira & Lerouge, Aliénor & Cecchini, Michele, 2022. "A comparative assessment of action plans on antimicrobial resistance from OECD and G20 countries using natural language processing," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(6), pages 522-533.
    2. Dixon, Justin & Manyau, Salome & Kandiye, Faith & Kranzer, Katharina & Chandler, Clare I.R., 2021. "Antibiotics, rational drug use and the architecture of global health in Zimbabwe," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    3. Giorgia Sulis & Brice Batomen & Anita Kotwani & Madhukar Pai & Sumanth Gandra, 2021. "Sales of antibiotics and hydroxychloroquine in India during the COVID-19 epidemic: An interrupted time series analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.