39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical and economic impact of antibiotic resistance in developing countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Despite evidence of the high prevalence of antibiotic resistant infections in developing countries, studies on the clinical and economic impact of antibiotic resistance (ABR) to inform interventions to contain its emergence and spread are limited. The aim of this study was to analyze the published literature on the clinical and economic implications of ABR in developing countries.

          Methods

          A systematic search was carried out in Medline via PubMed and Web of Sciences and included studies published from January 01, 2000 to December 09, 2016. All papers were considered and a quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS).

          Results

          Of 27 033 papers identified, 40 studies met the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and were finally included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Mortality was associated with resistant bacteria, and statistical significance was evident with an odds ratio (OR) 2.828 (95%CI, 2.231–3.584; p = 0.000). ESKAPE pathogens was associated with the highest risk of mortality and with high statistical significance (OR 3.217; 95%CIs; 2.395–4.321; p = 0.001). Eight studies showed that ABR, and especially antibiotic-resistant ESKAPE bacteria significantly increased health care costs.

          Conclusion

          ABR is associated with a high mortality risk and increased economic costs with ESKAPE pathogens implicated as the main cause of increased mortality. Patients with non-communicable disease co-morbidities were identified as high-risk populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references80

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Terminology The terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration.9 A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. Developing the PRISMA Statement A 3-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed. The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Website. Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant.10 For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update11 of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol. Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper. Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available,12,13 the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)14 now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability.15 Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question16,17 and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews. The PRISMA Statement The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Text S1 for a downloadable template for researchers to re-use) and a 4-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1 for a downloadable template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review. Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA Figure 1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review Table 1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis From QUOROM to PRISMA The new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report. Table 2 Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA) The flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process. Endorsement The PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Website. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA web address in their Instructions to Authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper In addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced18 following the style used for other reporting guidelines.19-21 The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face-to-face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA. Discussion The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal.22-27 In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias,22 even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence28 and its impact on the results of systematic reviews.29 Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately.30 Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review. Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness,31 diagnostic32 or prognostic questions,33 genetic associations,34 and policy-making.35 The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis.36 We have developed an explanatory document18 to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors. Like any evidence-based endeavour, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA website. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development. Note: To encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Open Medicine website and the PLoS Medicine website and is also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA website. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper is available at the PLoS Medicine website. Supporting Information Figure S1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use) Text S1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in EpidemiologyA Proposal for Reporting

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens

              The ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species) are the leading cause of nosocomial infections throughout the world. Most of them are multidrug resistant isolates, which is one of the greatest challenges in clinical practice. Multidrug resistance is amongst the top three threats to global public health and is usually caused by excessive drug usage or prescription, inappropriate use of antimicrobials, and substandard pharmaceuticals. Understanding the resistance mechanisms of these bacteria is crucial for the development of novel antimicrobial agents or other alternative tools to combat these public health challenges. Greater mechanistic understanding would also aid in the prediction of underlying or even unknown mechanisms of resistance, which could be applied to other emerging multidrug resistant pathogens. In this review, we summarize the known antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of ESKAPE pathogens.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                21 December 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 12
                : e0189621
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Antimicrobial Research Unit, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
                [2 ] Department of Clinical Microbiology, Centre of Expertise and Biological Diagnostic of Cameroon, Yaoundé, Cameroon
                [3 ] Department of Food Safety and Environmental Microbiology, Centre of Expertise and Biological Diagnostic of Cameroon, Yaoundé, Cameroon
                Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: S.Y. Essack is a member of the Global Respiratory Infection Partnership and Global Analgesic Steering Committee sponsored by Reckitt and Benckiser. The other authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9866-2103
                Article
                PONE-D-17-22226
                10.1371/journal.pone.0189621
                5739407
                29267306
                d13acb98-6833-45d8-9376-88611eb1dc6d
                © 2017 Founou et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 10 June 2017
                : 28 November 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001321, National Research Foundation;
                Award ID: 98342
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: University of Kwazulu-Natal
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: University of kwazulu-Natal
                Award Recipient :
                This study was supported by the Antimicrobial Research Unit and the College of Health Sciences of the University of KwaZulu-Natal through a scholarship awarded to R.C. Founou and L.L. Founou as well as the National Research Foundation South African Research Chair in Antibiotic Resistance and One Health Grant No: 98342 awarded to SY Essack. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Infectious Diseases
                Nosocomial Infections
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Facilities
                Hospitals
                Intensive Care Units
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Bacteria
                Klebsiella
                Klebsiella Pneumoniae
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Microbiology
                Medical Microbiology
                Microbial Pathogens
                Bacterial Pathogens
                Klebsiella
                Klebsiella Pneumoniae
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
                Pathogens
                Microbial Pathogens
                Bacterial Pathogens
                Klebsiella
                Klebsiella Pneumoniae
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Population Biology
                Population Metrics
                Death Rates
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Microbiology
                Microbial Control
                Antimicrobial Resistance
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Antimicrobial Resistance
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Adults
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Microbiology
                Medical Microbiology
                Microbial Pathogens
                Bacterial Pathogens
                Pseudomonas Aeruginosa
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
                Pathogens
                Microbial Pathogens
                Bacterial Pathogens
                Pseudomonas Aeruginosa
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Bacteria
                Pseudomonas
                Pseudomonas Aeruginosa
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Hematology
                Bloodstream Infections
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article