WHO's essential medicines and AWaRe: recommendations on first- and second-choice antibiotics for empiric treatment of clinical infections

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment.

Core outcome measurement set for research and clinical practice in post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID) in children and young people: an international Delphi consensus study "PC-COS Children"

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic substantially impacted different age groups, with children and young people not exempted. Many have experienced enduring health consequences. Presently, there is no consensus on the health outcomes to assess in children and young people with post-COVID-19 condition. Furthermore, it is unclear which measurement instruments are appropriate for use in research and clinical management of children and young people with post-COVID-19. To address these unmet needs, we conducted a consensus study, aiming to develop a core outcome set (COS) and an associated core outcome measurement set (COMS) for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people. Our methodology comprised of two phases. In phase 1 (to create a COS), we performed an extensive literature review and categorisation of outcomes, and prioritised those outcomes in a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by a consensus meeting. In phase 2 (to create the COMS), we performed another modified Delphi consensus process to evaluate measurement instruments for previously defined core outcomes from phase 1, followed by an online consensus workshop to finalise recommendations regarding the most appropriate instruments for each core outcome. In phase 1, 214 participants from 37 countries participated, with 154 (72%) contributing to both Delphi rounds. The subsequent online consensus meeting resulted in a final COS which encompassed seven critical outcomes: fatigue; post-exertion symptoms; work/occupational and study changes; as well as functional changes, symptoms, and conditions relating to cardiovascular, neuro-cognitive, gastrointestinal and physical outcomes. In phase 2, 11 international experts were involved in a modified Delphi process, selecting measurement instruments for a subsequent online consensus workshop where 30 voting participants discussed and independently scored the selected instruments. As a result of this consensus process, four instruments met a priori consensus criteria for inclusion: PedsQL multidimensional fatigue scale for "fatigue"; PedsQL gastrointestinal symptom scales for "gastrointestinal"; PedsQL cognitive functioning scale for "neurocognitive" and EQ-5D for "physical functioning". Despite proposing outcome measurement instruments for the remaining three core outcomes ("cardiovascular", "post-exertional malaise", "work/occupational and study changes"), a consensus was not achieved. Our international, consensus-based initiative presents a robust framework for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people in research and clinical practice via a rigorously defined COS and associated COMS. It will aid in the uniform measurement and reporting of relevant health outcomes worldwide.

WHO standards-based tools to measure service providers' and service users' views on the quality of hospital child care: development and validation in Italy

OBJECTIVES

Evidence showed that, even in high-income countries, children and adolescents may not receive high quality of care (QOC). We describe the development and initial validation, in Italy, of two WHO standards-based questionnaires to conduct an assessment of QOC for children and young adolescents at inpatient level, based on the provider and user perspectives.

DESIGN

Multiphase, mixed-methods study.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

The two questionnaires were developed in four phases equally conducted for each tool. Phase 1 which included the prioritisation of the WHO Quality Measures according to predefined criteria and the development of the draft questionnaires. In phase 2 content face validation of the draft questionnaires was assessed among both experts and end-users. In phase 3 the optimised questionnaires were field tested to assess acceptability, perceived utility and comprehensiveness (N=163 end-users). In phase 4 intrarater reliability and internal consistency were evaluated (N=170 and N=301 end-users, respectively).

RESULTS

The final questionnaires included 150 WHO Quality Measures. Observed face validity was excellent (kappa value of 1). The field test resulted in response rates of 98% and 76% for service users and health providers, respectively. Among respondents, 96.9% service users and 90.4% providers rated the questionnaires as useful, and 86.9% and 93.9%, respectively rated them as comprehensive. Intrarater reliability was good, with Cohen's kappa values exceeding 0.70. Cronbach alpha values ranged from 0.83 to 0.95, indicating excellent internal consistency.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings suggest these tools developed have good content and face validity, high acceptability and perceived utility, and good intrarater reliability and internal consistency, and therefore could be used in health facilities in Italy and similar contexts. Priority areas for future research include how tools measuring paediatric QOC can be more effectively used to help health professionals provide the best possible care.

Increasing antimalarial drug resistance in Uganda and revision of the national drug policy

Chloroquine (CQ) resistance was first documented in Uganda in 1988. Subsequent surveillance of antimalarial drug resistance, conducted by the Ugandan Ministry of Health and several research organizations, suggests that resistance to CQ is now widespread, reaching critical levels in many areas of the country. In June 2000, the Ministry of Health held a National Consensus Meeting to evaluate the available drug efficacy data and review the national antimalarial drug policy. After extensive debate, the combination of CQ + sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) was chosen to replace CQ as the first-line treatment of uncomplicated malaria as an interim policy. This review evaluates the in vivo drug efficacy studies conducted in Uganda since 1988 and issues confronted in revision of the drug policy. The Ugandan experience illustrates the challenges faced by sub-Saharan African countries confronted with rising CQ resistance but limited data on potential alternative options. The choice of CQ + SP as a provisional policy in the absence of prerequisite efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness data reflects the urgency of the malaria treatment problem, and growing pressure to adopt combination therapies. Surveillance of CQ + SP treatment efficacy, collection of additional data on alternative regimens and active consensus building among key partners in the malaria community will be necessary to develop a rational long-term antimalarial treatment policy in Uganda.