Evidences on Irrational Anti-Microbial Prescribing and Consumption among COVID-19 Positive Patients and Possible Mitigation Strategies: A Descriptive Cross Sectional Study

  1. Monira Parveen
  2. Md Maruf Ahmed Molla
  3. Mahmuda Yeasmin
  4. Tasnim Nafisa
  5. Arifa Akram Barna
  6. Asish Kumar Ghosh

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Increased antimicrobial consumption has increased the burden on worsening situation of antimicrobial resistance throughout the world. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the practice of irrational antibiotic prescribing and consumption among COVID-19 positive patients of Bangladesh and its possible impact on existing AMR. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among SARS-CoV-2 positive patients from a tertiary COVID-19 PCR testing center in Dhaka between 10th July 2020 and 20th July 2020. A validated questionnaire was used to gather data. Ethical approval was obtained. A total of 100 participants through random sampling was selected. Results: A total of 100 COVID-19 RT-PCR positive patients were participated in this study: 96% had mild symptoms, fever (81.0%) was the most common presenting symptoms, 45.0% patients did not consult with physicians even after knowing their positive test results and reported self medicating with antibiotics, and 36.0% were treated with multiple antibiotics and antiviral at a time. Azithromycin (46.0%), Ivermectin (22.0%) and doxycycline (21.0%) were the antibiotics most used, which were mainly obtained from local retail pharmacies. Conclusion: Practice of irrational antibiotic prescribing and self medication is relatively high among COVID-19 positive participants. Bangladesh Journal of Infectious Diseases, October 2020;7(suppl_2):S3-S7

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.09.20210377: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.3329/bjid.v7i00.50155
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.09.20210377 on medRxiv