Display options
Share it on

Arch Public Health. 2021 Jan 03;79(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13690-020-00517-9.

The use of non-prescribed antibiotics; prevalence estimates in low-and-middle-income countries. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique

Neusa F Torres, Buyisile Chibi, Desmond Kuupiel, Vernon P Solomon, Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson, Lyn E Middleton

Affiliations

  1. Instituto Superior de Ciências de Saúde (ISCISA), Maputo, Mozambique. [email protected].
  2. Discipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa. [email protected].
  3. Discipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.
  4. Discipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.
  5. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

PMID: 33390176 PMCID: PMC7780654 DOI: 10.1186/s13690-020-00517-9

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The global increase in the utilization of non - prescribed antibiotics (NPA), is concerning, with high persistence within the low and middle-income countries (LMICs). With a negative impact on the health of individuals and communities the use of NPA paves the way to the  propagation of superbugs that potentially predisposes to changes in bacterial resistance patterns, antibiotic resistance (AR) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This study aimed at estimating through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the prevalence of NPA utilisation and describe its primary sources in LMICs.

METHODS: The study is a systematic review and meta-analysis which study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017072954). The review used The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.  The studies searched in databases were deemed eligible if reported evidence of practices of self-medication with antibiotics (SMA) and the prevalence of NPA utilisation within adult participants from LMICs, published between 2007 to 2017. The pooled analyses were carried out using Meta XL statistical software. The pooled prevalence was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

RESULTS: The review included a total of 11 cross-sectional studies, involving 5080 participants and conducted in LMICs from Asia (India, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Yemen), Latin America (Guatemala), Africa (Nigeria). All studies reported existing  practices of SMA, with reported prevalence ranging from 50% to 93,8%. The pooled prevalence of SMA was 78% (95% CI: 65-89%). The main sources of NPA were; pharmacies, family and friends, old prescriptions, home cabinet and leftover antibiotics.

CONCLUSION: This study revealed a high prevalence of utilisation of NPA in the studied LMICs, these were found to be twice as high in women than men and those participants aged between 18 and 40 years old. The review suggests f considering broader qualitative and comprehensive contextuallized research to better understand the nuances of NPA use. These would be benefitial to uncover uncover gray areas, inform decisions, support the (re) design and implementation of multifaceted interventions towards antibiotic stewardship and conservancy in LMICs.

Keywords: Antibiotic resistance; LMICs; Meta-analysis; Non-prescribed antibiotics; Prevalence; Self-medication; Sources

References

  1. BMC Public Health. 2020 Jul 29;20(1):1183 - PubMed
  2. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005 Sep;5(9):568-80 - PubMed
  3. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007 Nov;16(11):1234-43 - PubMed
  4. PLoS One. 2019 Aug 22;14(8):e0221452 - PubMed
  5. Ann Afr Med. 2008 Sep;7(3):120-7 - PubMed
  6. Infect Drug Resist. 2018 Oct 10;11:1645-1658 - PubMed
  7. Nature. 2011 Aug 31;477(7365):457-61 - PubMed
  8. BMJ. 1998 Sep 5;317(7159):609-10 - PubMed
  9. Health Policy. 2016 Aug;120(8):882-9 - PubMed
  10. PLoS One. 2018 Nov 21;13(11):e0207465 - PubMed
  11. J Infect. 2019 Jan;78(1):8-18 - PubMed
  12. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Aug;14(8):742-750 - PubMed
  13. Int J Clin Pharm. 2020 Apr;42(2):756-764 - PubMed
  14. Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Apr;82(2):182-6 - PubMed
  15. Trop Med Int Health. 2011 Jul;16(7):840-6 - PubMed
  16. Trends Microbiol. 2000 Dec;8(12):554-9 - PubMed
  17. East Mediterr Health J. 2014 Oct 12;20(9):547-53 - PubMed
  18. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015 Apr 27;16:11 - PubMed
  19. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Feb;79(2):173-81 - PubMed
  20. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2009 Aug 30;3(7):491-7 - PubMed
  21. Int J Infect Dis. 2017 Apr;57:3-12 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 May;10(5):OC08-13 - PubMed
  23. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2014 Dec 23;15:74 - PubMed
  24. BMC Public Health. 2015 Aug 01;15:742 - PubMed
  25. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2019 Jul-Sep;17(3):1540 - PubMed
  26. Am J Infect Control. 2017 Apr 1;45(4):384-388 - PubMed
  27. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 19;158(4):280-6 - PubMed
  28. Med Princ Pract. 2009;18(1):21-5 - PubMed
  29. Malawi Med J. 2019 Dec;31(4):225-232 - PubMed
  30. PLoS One. 2019 Feb 28;14(2):e0212875 - PubMed
  31. Ceylon Med J. ;62(1):70-72 - PubMed
  32. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013 Nov 1;67(11):974-8 - PubMed
  33. Public Health. 2019 Mar;168:92-101 - PubMed
  34. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019 Oct 21;8:161 - PubMed
  35. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009 Dec;18(12):1150-7 - PubMed
  36. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 20;171(4):257-263 - PubMed

Publication Types