Suchergebnisse

Abstract Addressing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) through the pandemic treaty is a crucial aspect of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. At the moment, AMR-related provisions in the draft text do not go far enough and will likely lead countries to commit to the status-quo of AMR action. We suggest that the protocol mechanism of the treaty proposed under Article 31 offers an opportunity to develop a subsidiary agreement (or protocol) to further codify the specific obligations and enforcement mechanisms necessary to meet the treaty's AMR provisions. We also highlight experiences with previous treaty implementation that relied on protocols to inform design of a future AMR protocol.

Abstract Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has the potential to threaten tens of millions of lives and poses major global economic and development challenges. As the AMR threat grows, it is increasingly important to strengthen the scientific evidence base on AMR policy interventions, to learn from existing policies and programmes, and to integrate scientific evidence into the global AMR response. While rigorous evaluations of AMR policy interventions are the ideal, they are far from the current reality. To strengthen this evidence base, we describe a framework for planning, conducting and disseminating research on AMR policy interventions. The framework identifies challenges in AMR research, areas for enhanced coordination and cooperation with decision-makers, and best practices in the design of impact evaluations for AMR policies. This framework offers a path forward, enabling increased local and global cooperation, and overcoming common limitations in existing research on AMR policy interventions.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global collective action problem with dire consequences for human health. This article considers how domestic and international legal mechanisms can be used to address antimicrobial resistance and overcome the governance and political economy challenges that accelerate it.

An international legal agreement governing the global antimicrobial commons would represent the strongest commitment mechanism for achieving collective action on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Since AMR has important similarities to climate change-both are common pool resource challenges that require massive, long-term political commitments-the first article in this special issue draws lessons from various climate agreements that could be applicable for developing a grand bargain on AMR. We consider the similarities and differences between the Paris Climate Agreement and current governance structures for AMR, and identify the merits and challenges associated with different international forums for developing a long-term international agreement on AMR. To be effective, fair, and feasible, an enduring legal agreement on AMR will require a combination of universal, differentiated, and individualized requirements, nationally determined contributions that are regularly reviewed and ratcheted up in level of ambition, a regular independent scientific stocktake to support evidence informed policymaking, and a concrete global goal to rally support.

We surveyed Canadian healthcare experts to identify policies to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Canada between 2008 and 2018. Respondents identified AMR policy interventions implemented in Canada during the previous 10 years. Additional policies were identified through systematic searches of seven electronic databases and a review of government documents. Fifty-two unique policies were identified, with at least one policy in most provinces and territories. This environmental scan suggests that Canadian AMR efforts are disjointed and inadequate, given the urgency of this public health threat. Governments have mostly refrained from using more powerful policy tools, including regulation, legislation and fiscal measures.

Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest public health crises of our time. The natural biological process that causes microbes to become resistant to antimicrobial drugs presents a complex social challenge requiring more effective and sustainable management of the global antimicrobial commons-the common pool of effective antimicrobials. This special issue of Health Care Analysis explores the potential of two legal approaches-one long-term and one short-term-for managing the antimicrobial commons. The first article explores the lessons for antimicrobial resistance that can be learned from recent climate change agreements, and the second article explores how existing international laws can be adapted to better support global action in the short-term.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has rapidly and radically changed the face of human health and social interaction. As was the case with COVID-19, the world is similarly unprepared to respond to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and the challenges it will produce. COVID-19 presents an opportunity to examine how the international community might better respond to the growing AMR threat. MAIN BODY: The impacts of COVID-19 have manifested in health system, economic, social, and global political implications. Increasing AMR will also present challenges in these domains. As seen with COVID-19, increasing healthcare usage and resource scarcity may lead to ethical dilemmas about prioritization of care; unemployment and economic downturn may disproportionately impact people in industries reliant on human interaction (especially women); and international cooperation may be compromised as nations strive to minimize outbreaks within their own borders. CONCLUSION: AMR represents a slow-moving disaster that offers a unique opportunity to proactively develop interventions to mitigate its impact. The world's attention is currently rightfully focused on responding to COVID-19, but there is a moral imperative to take stock of lessons learned and opportunities to prepare for the next global health emergency.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a recognized threat to global public health. Increasing AMR and a dry pipeline of novel antimicrobial drugs have put AMR in the international spotlight. One strategy to combat AMR is to reduce antimicrobial drug consumption. Governments around the world have been experimenting with different policy interventions, such as regulating where antimicrobials can be sold, restricting the use of last-resort antimicrobials, funding AMR stewardship programs, and launching public awareness campaigns. To inform future action, governments should have access to synthesized data on the effectiveness of large-scale AMR interventions. This planned systematic review will (1) identify and describe previously evaluated government policy interventions to reduce human antimicrobial use and (2) estimate the effectiveness of these different strategies. Methods: An electronic search strategy has been developed in consultation with two research librarians. Seven databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PAIS Index, Web of Science, and PubMed excluding MEDLINE) will be searched, and additional studies will be identified using several gray literature search strategies. To be included, a study must (1) clearly describe the government policy and (2) use a rigorous design to quantitatively measure the impact of the policy on human antibiotic use. The intervention of interest is any policy intervention enacted by a government or government agency in any country to change human antimicrobial use. Two independent reviewers will screen for eligibility using criteria defined a priori. Data will be extracted with Covidence software using a customized extraction form. If sufficient data exists, a meta-analysis by intervention type will be conducted as part of the effectiveness review. However, if there are too few studies or if the interventions are too heterogeneous, data will be tabulated and a narrative synthesis strategy will be used. Discussion: This evidence synthesis is intended for use by policymakers, public health practitioners, and researchers to inform future government policies aiming to address antimicrobial resistance. This review will also identify gaps in the evidence about the effectiveness of different policy interventions to inform future research priorities. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42017067514.

The constitutional right to health in Brazil has entitled patients to litigate against the government-funded national health system (SUS), claiming access to various health treatments including those excluded from the health system's benefits package. Courts have tended to rely on a single medical prescription to judge these cases in favor of individual patients and against the health system. The large volume of cases has had a substantial financial impact on the government's health budget and has created unfairness in accessing healthcare. To change courts' behavior, a new health technology assessment (HTA) body – CONITEC – was created in 2011. Its creation was accompanied by an administrative procedure that made decisions about the health system's benefits package more transparent, accountable, participative and evidence-informed. It was expected that this HTA system would bring more legitimacy to the government's priority-setting decisions and promote deference from the courts. This study tests whether Brazil's new HTA system succeeded in encouraging judicial deference by analyzing a stratified random sample of 13,263 court decisions for whether the existence of a CONITEC report resulted in less frequent court orders to provide treatment for individual litigants. The results show that the creation of CONITEC did not change courts' behavior; courts still decide in favor of patients in most cases. Indeed, even when there was a CONITEC report recommending against government funding for a particular healthcare treatment, the vast majority of the relatively few patients who were unsuccessful in obtaining a health benefit at their first court hearing later obtained a favorable decision after appealing to a higher court. This finding was confirmed through an interrupted time-series analysis that did not find an impact of having a CONITEC report on courts' willingness to override a government priority-setting decision. In fact, CONITEC was rarely cited in court decisions, even when litigants mentioned the existence ...

This article uses quantitative and qualitative approaches to review 75 years of international policy reports on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Our review of 248 policy reports and expert consultation revealed waves of political attention and repeated reframings of AMR as a policy object. AMR emerged as an object of international policy-making during the 1990s. Until then, AMR was primarily defined as a challenge of human and agricultural domains within the Global North that could be overcome via 'rational' drug use and selective restrictions. While a growing number of reports jointly addressed human and agricultural AMR selection, international organisations (IOs) initially focused on whistleblowing and reviewing data. Since 2000, there has been a marked shift in the ecological and geographic focus of AMR risk scenarios. The Global South and One Health (OH) emerged as foci of AMR reports. Using the deterritorialised language of OH to frame AMR as a Southern risk made global stewardship meaningful to donors and legitimised pressure on low-income and middle-income countries to adopt Northern stewardship and surveillance frameworks. It also enabled IOs to move from whistleblowing to managing governance frameworks for antibiotic stewardship. Although the environmental OH domain remains neglected, realisation of the complexity of necessary interventions has increased the range of topics targeted by international action plans. Investment nonetheless continues to focus on biomedical innovation and tends to leave aside broader socioeconomic issues. Better knowledge of how AMR framings have evolved is key to broadening participation in international stewardship going forward.

"The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us the terrible cost of being unprepared for global health emergencies. The lack of treatments, vaccines, and sufficiently coordinated responses resulted in many unprecedented challenges that must now be analyzed and tackled rapidly. The crisis has raised awareness of the urgent need to improve the design of health systems, as well as the practical implementation of new strategies and technical solutions to better prepare for future pandemics. These preparations must also consider harms secondary to the pandemic, including the resulting effects on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While drug-resistant infections pose a well-known and severe threat to human and animal health, the COVID-19 pandemic is compounding this already problematic situation. Although often considered only a medical problem, antimicrobial resistance is an evolutionary challenge accelerated by social, cultural and economic factors that lead to the misuse, overuse and abuse of life-saving antimicrobial medicines. The antimicrobial resistance challenge is compounded by inadequate attention to disease prevention and response, global circulation of people and products, differences in industry and market regulations across countries, and a fragile pipeline of new antibiotics and their alternatives. While the discovery of new antimicrobials will provide temporary solutions, sustainable success requires rigorous social science research that explores the drivers of antimicrobial resistance. These solutions should promote balance between equitable access to, conservation of, and innovation for antimicrobials, adapted to local conditions across the globe. To encourage collaboration and to address this challenge, we have created the International Network for Antimicrobial Resistance Social Science (INAMRSS).12 The network is an open consortium of social science researchers focused on addressing the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. We believe antimicrobial resistance is only surmountable through efforts that consider social, political and economic factors. We intend to champion social science as part of a broadly defined One Health perspective to inform global initiatives. INAMRSS is a member of the Global AMR R&D Hub stakeholder group, which has built a system to track antimicrobial resistance research investment, but has not yet started monitoring relevant social science research funding. We endorse the recommendation of the United Nations Interagency Coordination Group on Antimicrobial Resistance for creating an Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against such resistance, with appropriate expertise across disciplines including the social sciences, and with a focus on the ways that humans are driving this problem and can contribute to solutions"

There are over 250,000 international treaties that aim to foster global cooperation. But are treaties actually helpful for addressing global challenges? This systematic field-wide evidence synthesis of 224 primary studies and meta-analysis of the higher-quality 82 studies finds treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects. The only exceptions are treaties governing international trade and finance, which consistently produced intended effects. We also found evidence that impactful treaties achieve their effects through socialization and normative processes rather than longer-term legal processes and that enforcement mechanisms are the only modifiable treaty design choice with the potential to improve the effectiveness of treaties governing environmental, human rights, humanitarian, maritime, and security policy domains. This evidence synthesis raises doubts about the value of international treaties that neither regulate trade or finance nor contain enforcement mechanisms.

Funding received from the Research Council of Norway (RCN) through the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR) under the fourth call (2016). Costs included travel costs, running face-to-face meetings and dissemination of results. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. J.M.G. holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. E.C. is funded by the National Institute of Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Imperial College London and the Economic and Social Research Council. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the report. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF