Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
BackgroundEvidence around prevalence of bacterial coinfection and pattern of antibiotic use in COVID-19 is controversial although high prevalence rates of bacterial coinfection have been reported in previous similar global viral respiratory pandemics. Early data on the prevalence of antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 indicates conflicting low and high prevalence of antibiotic prescribing which challenges antimicrobial stewardship programmes and increases risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).AimTo determine current prevalence of bacterial coinfection and antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 patientsData SourceOVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, Cochrane and MedRxiv between January 2020 and June 2021.Study EligibilityEnglish language studies of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients which reported (a) prevalence of bacterial coinfection and/or (b) prevalence of antibiotic prescribing with no restrictions to study designs or healthcare settingParticipantsAdults (aged ≥ 18 years) with RT-PCR confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, regardless of study setting.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. Proportion (prevalence) data was pooled using random effects meta-analysis approach; and stratified based on region and study design.ResultsA total of 1058 studies were screened, of which 22, hospital-based studies were eligible, compromising 76,176 of COVID-19 patients. Pooled estimates for the prevalence of bacterial co-infection and antibiotic use were 5.62% (95% CI 2.26 – 10.31) and 61.77% (CI 50.95 – 70.90), respectively. Sub-group analysis by region demonstrated that bacterial co-infection was more prevalent in North American studies (7.89%, 95% CI 3.30-14.18).ConclusionPrevalence of bacterial coinfection in COVID-19 is low, yet prevalence of antibiotic prescribing is high, indicating the need for targeted COVID-19 antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to reduce the global threat of AMR.
BackgroundEvidence around prevalence of bacterial coinfection and pattern of antibiotic use in COVID-19 is controversial although high prevalence rates of bacterial coinfection have been reported in previous similar global viral respiratory pandemics. Early data on the prevalence of antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 indicates conflicting low and high prevalence of antibiotic prescribing which challenges antimicrobial stewardship programmes and increases risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).AimTo determine current prevalence of bacterial coinfection and antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 patientsData SourceOVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, Cochrane and MedRxiv between January 2020 and June 2021.Study EligibilityEnglish language studies of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients which reported (a) prevalence of bacterial coinfection and/or (b) prevalence of antibiotic prescribing with no restrictions to study designs or healthcare settingParticipantsAdults (aged ≥ 18 years) with RT-PCR confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, regardless of study setting.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. Proportion (prevalence) data was pooled using random effects meta-analysis approach; and stratified based on region and study design.ResultsA total of 1058 studies were screened, of which 22, hospital-based studies were eligible, compromising 76,176 of COVID-19 patients. Pooled estimates for the prevalence of bacterial co-infection and antibiotic use were 5.62% (95% CI 2.26 – 10.31) and 61.77% (CI 50.95 – 70.90), respectively. Sub-group analysis by region demonstrated that bacterial co-infection was more prevalent in North American studies (7.89%, 95% CI 3.30-14.18).ConclusionPrevalence of bacterial coinfection in COVID-19 is low, yet prevalence of antibiotic prescribing is high, indicating the need for targeted COVID-19 antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to reduce the global threat of AMR.
There is an increasing focus on researching children admitted to hospital with new variants of COVID-19, combined with concerns with hyperinflammatory syndromes and the overuse of antimicrobials. Paediatric guidelines have been produced in Bangladesh to improve their care. Consequently, the objective is to document the management of children with COVID-19 among 24 hospitals in Bangladesh. Key outcome measures included the percentage prescribed different antimicrobials, adherence to paediatric guidelines and mortality rates using purposely developed report forms. The majority of 146 admitted children were aged 5 years or under (62.3%) and were boys (58.9%). Reasons for admission included fever, respiratory distress and coughing; 86.3% were prescribed antibiotics, typically parenterally, on the WHO ‘Watch’ list, and empirically (98.4%). There were no differences in antibiotic use whether hospitals followed paediatric guidance or not. There was no prescribing of antimalarials and limited prescribing of antivirals (5.5% of children) and antiparasitic medicines (0.7%). The majority of children (92.5%) made a full recovery. It was encouraging to see the low hospitalisation rates and limited use of antimalarials, antivirals and antiparasitic medicines. However, the high empiric use of antibiotics, alongside limited switching to oral formulations, is a concern that can be addressed by instigating the appropriate programmes.
The capacity for social media to influence the utilization of re-purposed medicines to manage COVID-19, despite limited availability of safety and efficacy data, is a cause for concern within health care systems. This study sought to ascertain links between social media reports and utilization for three re-purposed medicines: hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin and colchicine. A combined retrospective analysis of social media posts for these three re-purposed medicines was undertaken, along with utilization and clinical trials data, in South Africa, between January 2020 and June 2021. In total, 77,257 posts were collected across key social media platforms, of which 6884 were relevant. Ivermectin had the highest number of posts (55%) followed by HCQ (44%). The spike in ivermectin use was closely correlated to social media posts. Similarly, regarding chloroquine (as HCQ is not available in South Africa), social media interest was enhanced by local politicians. Sentiment analysis revealed that posts regarding the effectiveness of these repurposed medicines were positive. This was different for colchicine, which contributed only a small number of mentions (1%). Of concern is that the majority of reporters in social media (85%) were unidentifiable. This study provides evidence of social media as a driver of re-purposed medicines. Healthcare professionals have a key role in providing evidence-based advice especially with unidentifiable posts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.