Search

OBJECTIVES: Community-level antibiotic use contributes to antimicrobial resistance, but is rarely monitored as part of efforts to optimize antibiotic use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We investigated antibiotic use in the 4 weeks before study inclusion for persistent fever. METHODS: The NIDIAG-Fever (Neglected Infectious diseases DIAGnosis-Fever) study investigated aetiologies of infections in patients ≥5 years old with fever ≥1 week in six healthcare facilities in Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Nepal, and Sudan. In the present nested cross-sectional study, we describe prevalence and choice of antibiotics before and at study inclusion, applying the Access/Watch/Reserve (AWaRe) classification of the WHO List of Essential Medicines. Factors associated with prior antibiotic use were analysed. RESULTS: Of 1939 participants, 428 (22.1%) reported the prior use of one or more antibiotics, ranging from 6.3% (24/382, Cambodia) to 35.5% (207/583, Nepal). Of 545 reported antibiotics, the most frequent were Watch group antibiotics (351/545, 64.4%), ranging from 23.6% (DRC) to 82.1% (Nepal). Parenteral administration ranged from 5.9% to 69.6% between study sites. Antibiotic use was most frequent among young patients (5-17 years of age; risk ratio 1.42, 95%CI 1.19-1.71) and men (RR 1.29; 95%CI 1.09-1.53). No association was found with specific symptoms. Of 555 antibiotics started before study inclusion, 275 (49.5%) were discontinued at study inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Watch antibiotics were frequently used, and discontinued upon study inclusion. The antibiotic use frequency and choice varied importantly between LMICs. Data on local antibiotic use are essential to guide efforts to optimize antibiotic use in LMICs, should not be restricted to hospitals, and need to take local healthcare utilization into account. ispartof: CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION vol:27 issue:9 pages:1293-1300 ispartof: location:England status: published

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) based on the detection of specific antibodies in serum are commonly used for the diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis (VL). Several commercial kits are available, and some of them allow the use of whole-blood samples instead of serum. An RDT is much more user-friendly for blood samples than for serum samples. In this study, we examined the sensitivities and specificities of six different commercially available immunochromatographic tests for their accuracy in detecting Leishmania infection in whole blood and serum of parasitologically confirmed VL cases. This study was performed in areas of India and Nepal where VL is endemic. A total of 177 confirmed VL cases, 208 healthy controls from areas of endemicity (EHCs), 26 malaria patients (MP), and 37 tuberculosis (TB) patients were enrolled. The reproducibilities of the blood and serum results and between-reader and between-laboratory results were tested. In India, the sensitivities of all the RDTs ranged between 94.7 and 100.0%, with no significant differences between whole blood and serum. The specificities ranged between 92.4 and 100.0%, except for the specificity of the Onsite Leishmania Ab RevB kit, which was lower (33.6 to 42.0%). No differences in specificities were observed for blood and serum. In Nepal, the sensitivities of all the test kits, for whole-blood as well as serum samples, ranged between 96.3 and 100.0%, and the specificities ranged between 90.1 and 96.1%, again with the exception of that of the Onsite Leishmania Ab RevB test, which was markedly lower (48.7 to 49.3%). The diagnostic accuracies of all the tests, except for one brand, were excellent for the whole-blood and serum samples. We conclude that whole blood is an adequate alternative for serum in RDTs for VL, with sensitivities and specificities comparable to those obtained in serum samples, provided that the test kit is of overall good quality.

Persistent digestive disorders can be defined as any diarrhea (i.e., three or more loose stools per day) lasting for at least two weeks and/or abdominal pain that persists for two weeks or longer [1–3]. These disorders cause considerable morbidity and human suffering, and hence, are reasons why people might seek primary health care. However, in resource-constrained settings of the tropics and subtropics, accurate point-of-care diagnostics are often lacking and treatment is empiric, particularly in remote rural areas with no laboratory infrastructure. As a result, the relative contribution of selected pathogens to the syndrome of persistent digestive disorders is poorly understood, and evidence-based guidelines for patient management in different social-ecological settings are scarce [4–6]. In order to improve the clinical management of patients with disorders caused by neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), the European Commission (EC) funded a five-year study—the Neglected Infectious diseases DIAGnosis (NIDIAG) research consortium. The overarching goal of the NIDIAG consortium is to develop and validate patient-centered diagnosis–treatment guidelines for use at the primary health care level in low- and middle-income countries (http://www.nidiag.org) [3,7–9]. Emphasis is placed on three syndromes: (i) persistent digestive disorders described here; (ii) persistent fever; and (iii) neurological disorders, the latter two of which are detailed in companion pieces published in the same issue of PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. With regard to the study on persistent digestive disorders, the main aims are (i) to identify the most important NTDs and other infectious agents that give rise to this clinical syndrome, including their relative frequency; (ii) to assess and compare the accuracy of different diagnostic methods; and (iii) to determine clinical responses to commonly employed empiric treatment options for persistent digestive disorders [9]. To this end, a case–control study has been implemented in four countries: Cote d’Ivoire and Mali in West Africa and Indonesia and Nepal in Asia. An integral part of the NIDIAG consortium is to ensure that good clinical practice (GCP) and good clinical laboratory practice (GCLP) are adhered to while conducting the studies [10,11]. A quality assurance system, which included the development and implementation of a set of standard operating procedures (SOPs), along with on-the-spot staff training and internal and external quality control activities, has been developed at the project level and introduced at each study site. The development of, and adherence to, SOPs within harmonized study protocols were considered crucial steps for maximizing the integrity of laboratory and clinical data across study settings. They also provided the basis on which quality control activities could be performed. For Which Procedures Have SOPs Been Developed? For the study on persistent digestive disorders, 33 specific SOPs have been developed (Supporting Information). As summarized in Table 1, detailed steps on clinical and laboratory procedures, data management, and quality assurance were described. With regard to clinical investigations, SOPs on history taking and clinical examination, assessing inclusion and exclusion criteria, patient recruitment, and study flow were developed (S1-S6). Detailed instructions on how to perform a set of laboratory diagnostic techniques for the detection of helminth and intestinal protozoa infections were included in the laboratory SOPs. Different conventional stool microscopy techniques were combined with more recent rapid antigen detection tests to encompass a broad spectrum of potentially implicated pathogens with high diagnostic accuracy (S7-S20). An overview of the employed diagnostic methods is provided in Table 2. Pertaining to data management, SOPs on completion of case report forms (CRFs) and on various activities (such as data entry, data cleaning, querying, database locking, and backing up data) were also included. To ensure quality control, SOPs on internal quality control activities, external monitoring, and laboratory supervision visits were jointly developed for the three syndromes (S21-S33). Table 1 Set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) used in the NIDIAG study on persistent digestive disorders. Table 2 Laboratory diagnostic techniques used and internally compared in the NIDIAG study on persistent digestive disorders. Of note, all SOPs were developed in English (for use in Nepal) and subsequently translated into French (for use in Cote d’Ivoire and Mali) and Bahasa Indonesia (for use in Indonesia). This comprehensive set of closely interconnected SOPs—which provides guidance on all essential procedures from the first presentation of an individual at a health care center until the final processing of all patient and laboratory data—is displayed in Fig 1. Fig 1 Principal elements of the NIDIAG digestive study and the respective standard operating procedures (SOPs) used. How Was the Development of SOPs Coordinated, and Which Quality Control Measures Were Adopted? The development and harmonization of the various SOPs was coordinated by the quality assurance group of the NIDIAG consortium and the trial management group (TMG) of the digestive syndrome study and followed a standard template and consortium-wide guidelines stipulated in the SOP entitled “SOP on SOP” (S24). This allowed different authors with varied background and writing styles to convey key messages and pass on their expert knowledge in a systematic, standardized manner for the benefit of the end user of all the SOPs. In addition, it provided clear instructions on how the SOPs should be numbered, reviewed, and approved to allow for strict version control. The authors of the SOPs were chosen from within the NIDIAG consortium, and allocation of topics was based on expertise and track record in the clinical, laboratory, data management, and quality assurance components of the study. Experts in the field, at the bench, and at the bedside carefully reviewed and revised the draft SOPs. Before the start of recruitment, local clinical and laboratory teams were trained on the set of SOPs through two hands-on workshops lasting three days each that were conducted on site by relevant experts of the NIDIAG consortium. During these workshops, feedback from the local partners was incorporated to refine the already developed SOPs, and additional SOPs were jointly developed to meet specific demands of local clinical, epidemiologic, and laboratory conditions. For example, in Indonesia, where Kinyoun staining was not available, an SOP pertaining to a slightly modified acid-fast staining technique was developed for the local team instead. Finally, once an SOP was finalized, a member of the TMG would approve it. A quality assurance member of the NIDIAG consortium was tasked to compile and keep updated the final set of SOPs and ensure that the latest versions were available on the NIDIAG intranet for distribution among the different country partners.