No abstract

Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 globally has prompted policymakers to evaluate the capacity of health care infrastructure in their communities. Many hard-hit localities have witnessed a large influx of severe cases that strained existing hospitals. As COVID-19 spreads in India, it is essential to evaluate the country's capacity to treat severe cases. Methods We combined data on public and private sector hospitals in India to produce state level estimates of hospital beds, ICU beds, and mechanical ventilators. Based on the number of public sector hospitals from the 2019 National Health Profile (NHP) of India and the relative proportions of public and private health care facilities from the National Sample Survey (NSS) 75th round (2017-2018), we estimated capacity in each Indian state and union territory (UT). We assumed that 5% of all hospital beds were ICU beds and that 50% of ICU beds were equipped with ventilators. Results We estimated that India has approximately 1.9 million hospital beds, 95,000 ICU beds and 48,000 ventilators. Nationally, resources are concentrated in the private sector (hospital beds: 1,185,242 private vs 713,986 public; ICU beds: 59,262 private vs 35,699 public; ventilators: 29,631 private vs. 17,850 public). Our findings suggest substantial variation in available resources across states and UTs. Conclusion Some projections shave suggested a potential need for approximately 270,000 ICU beds in an optimistic scenario, over 2.8 times the estimated number of total available ICU beds in India. Additional resources will likely be required to accommodate patients with severe COVID-19 infections in India.

No abstract

These results on microbiologic profile and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of the isolates will be extremely helpful in revision of antibiotic guidelines for our patients and in developing strategies for coping with high prevalence of multi-drug resistance. Antibiotic stewardship and strict implementation of infection control practices will be important components of this effort.

Objective To identify and compare antimicrobial treatment guidelines from African Union (AU) Member States. Methods We reviewed national government agency and public health institutes’ websites and communicated with country or regional focal points to identify existing treatment guidelines from AU Member States. We included guidelines if they contained disease-, syndrome- or pathogen-specific treatment recommendations and if those recommendations included antimicrobial name or class, dosage and therapy duration. The scope of the review was limited to infections and clinical syndromes that often have a bacterial cause. We assessed treatment guidelines for alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. We compared treatment recommendations for various common bacterial infections or clinical syndromes described across national guidelines and those described in three World Health Organization guidelines. Findings We identified 31 treatment guidelines from 20 of the 55 (36%) AU Member States; several countries had more than one treatment guideline that met our inclusion criteria. Fifteen (48%) guidelines from 10 countries have been published or updated since 2015. Methods used to develop the guidelines were not well described. No guidelines were developed according to the GRADE approach. Antimicrobial selection, dosage and duration of recommended therapies varied widely across guidelines for all infections and syndromes. Conclusion AU Member States lack antimicrobial treatment guidelines that meet internationally accepted methods and that draw from local evidence about disease burden and antimicrobial susceptibility.