Centre of Defence Pathology, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2WB, England.
Centre of Excellence in Infectious Diseases Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England.
Bull World Health Organ. 2023 Aug 1;101(8):501-512F. doi: 10.2471/BLT.22.289403. Epub 2023 May 29.
To assess how national antimicrobial susceptibility data used to inform national action plans vary across surveillance platforms.
We identified available open-access, supranational, interactive surveillance platforms and cross-checked their data in accordance with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Data Quality Assurance: module 1. We compared platform usability and completeness of time-matched data on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of four blood isolate species: , and from WHO's Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System, European Centre for Disease Control's (ECDC's) network and Pfizer's Antimicrobial Testing Leadership and Surveillance database. Using Bland-Altman analysis, paired -tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, we assessed susceptibility data and number of isolate concordances between platforms.
Of 71 countries actively submitting data to WHO, 28 also submit to Pfizer's database; 19 to ECDC; and 16 to all three platforms. Limits of agreement between WHO's and Pfizer's platforms for organism-country susceptibility data ranged from -26% to 35%. While mean susceptibilities of WHO's and ECDC's platforms did not differ (bias: 0%, 95% confidence interval: -2 to 2), concordance between organism-country susceptibility was low (limits of agreement -18% to 18%). Significant differences exist in isolate numbers reported between WHO-Pfizer (mean of difference: 674, -value: < 0.001, and WHO-ECDC (mean of difference: 192, -value: 0.04) platforms.
The considerable heterogeneity of nationally submitted data to commonly used antimicrobial resistance surveillance platforms compromises their validity, thus undermining local and global antimicrobial resistance strategies. Hence, we need to understand and address surveillance platform variability and its underlying mechanisms.
评估用于为国家行动计划提供信息的国家抗菌药物敏感性数据在不同监测平台之间的差异。
我们确定了可用的开放获取、超国家、互动监测平台,并按照世界卫生组织(WHO)的数据质量保证模块 1 对其数据进行了交叉核对。我们比较了四个血源分离物种的抗菌药物敏感性的平台可用性和时间匹配数据的完整性:来自 WHO 的全球抗菌药物耐药性和使用监测系统、欧洲疾病预防控制中心(ECDC)网络和辉瑞抗菌药物测试领导和监测数据库的 、 、 。使用 Bland-Altman 分析、配对检验和 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验,我们评估了平台之间的敏感性数据和分离物一致性数量。
在积极向 WHO 提交数据的 71 个国家中,有 28 个国家也向辉瑞数据库提交数据;19 个国家向 ECDC 提交数据;16 个国家向所有三个平台提交数据。WHO 和辉瑞平台之间的国家-生物体抗菌药物敏感性数据的一致性范围从-26%到 35%。虽然 WHO 和 ECDC 平台的平均敏感性没有差异(偏差:0%,95%置信区间:-2 至 2),但生物体-国家抗菌药物敏感性的一致性较低(一致性范围为-18%至 18%)。在 WHO-辉瑞(差异平均值:674,-值:<0.001)和 WHO-ECDC(差异平均值:192,-值:0.04)平台之间,报告的分离物数量存在显著差异。
向常用抗菌药物耐药性监测平台提交的国家数据存在相当大的异质性,这影响了其有效性,从而破坏了地方和全球抗菌药物耐药性策略。因此,我们需要了解和解决监测平台的变异性及其潜在机制。