Evidence Hub

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial usage: an international patient-level cohort study

Refath Farzana, Stephan Jürgen Harbarth, Ly‐Mee Yu, Edoardo Carretto, Catrin E. Moore, Nicholas Feasey, Ana Cristina Gales, Ushma Galal et al.

JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance, 2025

100 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate the trends in antimicrobial prescription during the first 1.5 years of COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This was an observational, retrospective cohort study using patient-level data from Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Italy, Malawi, Nigeria, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey from patients with pneumonia and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome and/or sepsis, regardless of COVID-19 positivity, who were admitted to critical care units or COVID-19 specialized wards. The changes of antimicrobial prescription between pre-pandemic and pandemic were estimated using logistic or linear regression. Pandemic effects on month-wise antimicrobial usage were evaluated using interrupted time series analyses (ITSAs). Results Antimicrobials for which prescriptions significantly increased during the pandemic were as follows: meropenem in Bangladesh (95% CI: 1.94–4.07) with increased prescribed daily dose (PDD) (95% CI: 1.17–1.58) and Turkey (95% CI: 1.09–1.58), moxifloxacin in Bangladesh (95% CI: 4.11–11.87) with increased days of therapy (DOT) (95% CI: 1.14–2.56), piperacillin/tazobactam in Italy (95% CI: 1.07–1.48) with increased DOT (95% CI: 1.01–1.25) and PDD (95% CI: 1.05–1.21) and azithromycin in Bangladesh (95% CI: 3.36–21.77) and Brazil (95% CI: 2.33–8.42). ITSA showed a significant drop in azithromycin usage in India (95% CI: −8.38 to −3.49 g/100 patients) and South Korea (95% CI: −2.83 to −1.89 g/100 patients) after WHO guidelines v1…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 100 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free