BackgroundAntimicrobial self-medication is common in most low and middle income countries (LMICs). However there has been no systematic review on non-prescription antimicrobial use in these settings. This review thus intended to establish the burden, risk factors and effects of antimicrobial self-medication in Low and Middle Income Countries.MethodsIn 2012, we registered a systematic review protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42012002508). We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases using the following terms; “self-medication”, “non-prescription”, ‘self-treatment’, “antimicrobial”, “antimalarial”, “antibiotic”, “antibacterial” “2002-2012” and combining them using Boolean operators. We performed independent and duplicate screening and abstraction of study administrative data, prevalence, determinants, type of antimicrobial agent, source, disease conditions, inappropriate use, drug adverse events and clinical outcomes of antibiotic self-medication where possible. We performed a Random Effects Meta-analysis.ResultsA total of thirty four (34) studies involving 31,340 participants were included in the review. The overall prevalence of antimicrobial self-medication was 38.8 % (95 % CI: 29.5-48.1). Most studies assessed non-prescription use of antibacterial (17/34: 50 %) and antimalarial (5/34: 14.7 %) agents. The common disease symptoms managed were, respiratory (50 %), fever (47 %) and gastrointestinal (45 %). The major sources of antimicrobials included, pharmacies (65.5 %), leftover drugs (50 %) and drug shops (37.5 %). Twelve (12) studies reported inappropriate drug use; not completing dose (6/12) and sharing of medicines (4/12). The main determinants of antimicrobial self-medication include, level of education, age, gender, past successful use, severity of illness and income. Reported negative outcomes of antimicrobial self-medication included, allergies (2/34: 5.9 %), lack of cure (4/34: 11.8 %) and causing death (2/34: 5.9 %). The commonly reported positive outcome was recovery from illness (4/34: 11.8 %).ConclusionThe prevalence of antimicrobial self-medication is high and varies in different communities as well as by social determinants of health and is frequently associated with inappropriate drug use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2109-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Depressive disorders are highly prevalent in Africa where diseases such as HIV/AIDS are common. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of commonly used depression screening instruments in a setting characterized by low literacy, where patients may not be able to self-administer depression scales. We explored the validity of the Patient Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9), Centre for Epidemiological Surveys for Depression (CES-D), and the Kessler-10 (K-10), using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Instrument (MINI) as a gold standard in 368 persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in Uganda. The shorter versions of the K-10 and PHQ-9 were extracted to assess their performance in comparison to the longer versions. We used STATA 11.2 to analyze the data. The prevalence of a MINI defined depression in this patient sample was 17.4%. The three instruments all performed well, with areas under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.82 to 0.96. The PHQ-9 showed the best performance characteristics with an AUC of 0.96, a sensitivity of 91.6%, and specificity 81.2%. The extracted versions performed more modestly. All three instruments showed good properties as screening tools; the PHQ-9 has particularly high sensitivity and specificity, and so can be considered useful for screening HIV-positive patients for depression.

BackgroundGiven the high prevalence of depression in primary health care (PHC), the use of screening instruments has been recommended. Both brief and long depression screening instruments have been validated in low and middle income countries (LMIC), including within HIV care settings. However, it remains unknown whether the brief instruments validated in LMIC are as accurate as the long ones.MethodsWe conducted a search of PUBMED, the COCHRANE library, AIDSLINE, and PSYCH-Info from their inception up to July 2011, for studies that validated depression screening instruments in LMIC. Data were extracted into tables and analyzed using RevMan 5.0 and STATA 11.2 for the presence of heterogeneity.ResultsNineteen studies met our inclusion criteria. The reported prevalence of depression in LMIC ranged from 11.1 to 53%. The area under curve (AUC) scores of the validated instruments ranged from 0.69-0.99. Brief as well as long screening instruments showed acceptable accuracy (AUC≥0.7). Five of the 19 instruments were validated within HIV settings. There was statistically significant heterogeneity between the studies, and hence a meta-analysis could not be conducted to completion. Heterogeneity chi-squared = 189.23 (d.f. = 18) p<.001.ConclusionBrief depression screening instruments in both general and HIV-PHC are as accurate as the long ones. Brief scales may have an edge over the longer instruments since they can be administered in a much shorter time. However, because the ultra brief scales do not include the whole spectrum of depression symptoms including suicide, their use should be followed by a detailed diagnostic interview.

Clofazimine and beta-lactams may have unrealized potential in the treatment of DR-tuberculosis and warrant further study. Serious toxicities or intrinsic resistance limit the utility of other group 5 drugs. For several group 5 compounds, better understanding of structure-toxicity relationships may lead to better-tolerated analogs.