Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Surveillance, Prevention and Control: A Global Survey ======================================================================================================================= * Sara Tomczyk * Angelina Taylor * Allison Brown * Marlieke de Kraker * Tim Eckmanns * Aiman El-Saed * Majid Alshamrani * Rene Hendriksen * Megan Jacob * Sonja Löfmark * Olga Perovic * Nandini Shetty * Dawn Sievert * Rachel Smith * John Stelling * Siddhartha Thakur * Barbara Tornimbene * Ann Christin Vietor * Sergey Eremin * on behalf of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centre Network ## Synopsis **Objectives** The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on health systems. The WHO Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Collaborating Centres Network conducted a survey to assess the effects of COVID-19 on AMR surveillance, prevention and control. **Methods** From October-December 2020, WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) national focal points completed a questionnaire including Likert-scales and open-ended questions. Data were descriptively analysed, income/regional differences were assessed, and free-text questions were thematically analysed. **Results** Seventy-three countries across income levels participated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 67% reported limited ability to work with AMR partnerships; decreases in funding were frequently reported by low- and middle-income countries (LMICs; p<0.01). Reduced availability of nursing, medical and public health staff for AMR was reported by 71%, 69% and 64%, respectively, whereas 67% reported stable cleaning staff availability. The majority (58%) reported reduced reagents/consumables, particularly LMICs (p<0.01). Decreased numbers of cultures, elective procedures, chronically ill admissions and outpatients and increased intensive care unit admissions reported could bias AMR data. Reported overall infection prevention and control (IPC) improvement could decrease AMR rates, whereas increases in selected inappropriate IPC practices and antibiotic prescribing could increase rates. Most did not yet have complete data on changing AMR rates due to COVID-19. **Conclusions** This was the first survey to explore the global impact of COVID-19 on AMR among GLASS countries. Responses revealed universal patterns but also captured country variability. Although focus is understandably on COVID-19, gains in detecting and controlling AMR, a global health priority, cannot afford to be lost. ## Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a substantial impact on health systems globally, affecting the management of other health threats such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The World Health Organization (WHO) declared that AMR is one of the top ten global health threats and, although often more silent than the COVID-19 pandemic, it can have equally devastating consequences.1 From 2017-2019, the number of countries reporting AMR rates to WHO’s Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) exponentially grew from 729 in 22 countries to more than 64,000 in 66 countries.2 However, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic threatens the progress made and is thought to be having wide-reaching impacts on AMR surveillance, prevention and control efforts. Experts have highlighted the link between COVID-19 and AMR, indicating that certain changes such as increased antibiotic use could drive an increase in AMR; while other activities such as improved infection prevention and control (IPC) might reduce AMR rates.3-6 This underlines the importance of maintaining AMR surveillance to monitor trends during the COVID-19 pandemic. The WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network is a global network of institutes with expertise in AMR, health care-associated infections, and antimicrobial consumption. It aims to support WHO’s efforts to combat AMR through the development and implementation of AMR surveillance and related activities.7 We conducted a survey among countries enrolled in GLASS to assess the global effects of COVID-19 on AMR surveillance, prevention and control, focusing on challenges as well as opportunities. ## Materials and methods A structured questionnaire was developed with expert input from Network members (Supplementary data). The WHO health system building blocks framework was considered to ensure that the impacts of COVID-19 on different health system areas were comprehensively addressed.8 Accordingly, the questionnaire consisted of compulsory Likert-scale questions to assess the impacts of COVID-19 in ten topic areas (i.e. 2-10 questions per topic area): Funding for AMR activities; Partnerships and oversight for AMR activities; Diagnostics and laboratory testing for AMR; Laboratory supplies and equipment for AMR activities; Availability of staff for AMR activities; AMR data information systems; Patient-case mix; IPC practices; Antibiotic consumption; and AMR rates (Supplementary data). Likert-scale responses included “Large decrease”, “Moderate decrease”, “No impact”, “Moderate increase”, “Large increase”, and “Do not know.” To further explore country experiences, each topic area ended with an optional open-ended question and three optional open-ended questions were included at the end of the questionnaire. Upon approval from the data protection office of the Network coordinator (Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany), the questionnaire was programmed using the online Voxco survey software including validity and completeness checks. From October-December 2020, the questionnaire link was sent to the national focal points of all countries enrolled in GLASS. Each GLASS national focal point was asked to consider input from their relevant country experts (e.g. epidemiology, clinical, laboratory, IPC) and submit one compiled response per country. There was active follow-up with reminders, and countries which submitted more than one response were requested to indicate their final response. The data collected were descriptively analysed using the statistical programme R (version 4.0.3). Completed Likert-scale responses were graphically displayed for each of the ten topic areas. Differences in responses between countries according to WHO regions and World Bank income levels9 were assessed using the Fisher’s exact test and significant differences (p<0.05) were reported. Free-text questions were reviewed to identify specific themes, coded accordingly and considered in relation to the corresponding topic area Likert-scale findings (Supplementary data). If minor typographical errors were corrected in quotations for comprehension, this was indicated with “sic”. ## Results A total of 73 countries responded to the survey, corresponding to 75% of countries enrolled in GLASS at the time of the survey (Table 1). The regional and income distribution of survey respondents was similar to those in GLASS, including 16% (12/73) low-income, 23% (17/73) lower middle-income, 21% (15/73) upper middle-income and 37% (27/73) high-income countries (Table 1). The median number of countries providing a response for each mandatory question was 66 (i.e. incompleteness included selection of “Do not know”). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.24.21253807/T1) Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of survey respondents (“Survey”; N=73) compared to total countries participating in GLASS at the time of the survey (“GLASS”; N=98) ### Funding for AMR activities Among those that responded, less than half of countries reported decreases in funding for AMR activities at the national (29/70; 41%) or local/facility level (30/69; 43%) (Figure 1a). Decreases in national and local funding were reported more frequently by low-(9/10; 9/10) and middle-income (15/30; 16/30) countries compared to high-income (3/27; 3/26) countries, respectively (p<0.01). Decreases were also more frequently reported by the African and Eastern Mediterranean regions compared to other regions (p<0.01). In the free-text questions (Table 2), various countries reported that funding was prioritized for COVID-19 over AMR. This ranged from selected low-income countries who reported being dependent on external funding for AMR that was impacted by COVID-19 to high-income countries that reported more indirect effects which reduced resources for AMR activities. In contrast, one middle-income country reported that the COVID-19 pandemic allowed them to secure additional AMR funding, and another was able to purchase resources for overall IPC with COVID-19 funds. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.24.21253807/T2) Table 2. Selected free-text reports by countries according to topic area and income level ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.24.21253807/F1/graphic-5.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.24.21253807/F1/graphic-5) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.24.21253807/F1/graphic-6.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.24.21253807/F1/graphic-6) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.24.21253807/F1/graphic-7.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.24.21253807/F1/graphic-7) Figure 1. Likert responses for the impacts of COVID-19 on AMR in GLASS countries (N=73)* *Only completed responses are shown and respective denominators are shown on the left axis per question. ### Partnerships and oversight for AMR activities More than half of responding countries reported decreases in their ability to work with new (44/73; 60%) or existing (48/72; 67%) partnerships, as well as in the ability of the national AMR coordinating body to have oversight of activities (44/70; 63%) (Figure 1b). In contrast, eleven (11/73; 15%) countries reported increases in the ability to create new partnerships since the COVID-19 pandemic. No significant income level or regional differences were seen. In the free-text questions (Table 2), a few low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) reported compounding challenges affecting partnerships, such as mobility restrictions and poor internet connections. Selected middle- and high-income countries described opportunities such as the creation of new partnership platforms, possibilities for data exchange, and identified gaps relevant for both COVID-19 and AMR action-planning. ### Diagnostics and laboratory testing for AMR A majority of countries responding reported decreases in the number of screening (65%; 44/68) and clinical (67%; 46/69) cultures requested (Figure 1c). Although more than half of countries (42/70; 60%) reported no impact on the turn-around time of antimicrobial susceptibility results (AST), many (48/69; 70%) reported decreases in their ability to provide training for laboratory personnel; 46% (27/59) and 43% (29/68) also reported decreases in the ability to carry out molecular testing and quality management activities, respectively. No significant income level or regional differences were seen. In the free-text questions (Table 2), countries across income levels described influencing factors such as fewer patients visiting hospitals and the need to divert staff, equipment and reagents for COVID-19 testing. In contrast, one low-middle-income country reported that the laboratory network was strengthened in their country and expected this to have a positive impact on the response against AMR. Selected countries across income levels also highlighted the potential for leveraging COVID-19 work for AMR, such as in the area of microbial genomics and rapid testing for co-infections or secondary bacterial infections. ### Laboratory supplies and equipment for AMR activities More than half of responding countries reported decreases in the availability of quality laboratory reagents and consumables for bacteriology and AST (41/71; 58%) and in the ability to service machines and equipment (35/67; 52%) (Figure 1d). In contrast, 41% (n=29) and 50% (n=33) of countries reported no impact on reagent/consumable availability and access to advanced technologies, respectively. Decreases in reagent/consumable availability were reported more frequently by low-(11/11) and middle-income (17/31) countries compared to high-income (11/26) countries, respectively (p<0.01). Decreases were also more frequently reported by the African and Eastern Mediterranean regions compared to other regions (p<0.01). In the free-text questions (Table 2), countries reported broad difficulties receiving supplies due to travel and import restrictions. High-income countries reported more specific impacts on particular supplies due to COVID-19 testing, such as the availability of molecular diagnostic platforms. ### Availability of staff responsible for AMR activities Responding countries reported the largest decreases in the availability of nursing (48/68; 71%), medical (47/68; 69%) and public health staff (43/67; 64%) for AMR activities such as stewardship, outbreak response and reporting (Figure 1e). In contrast, 67% of countries (45/67) reported no impact or increases in the availability of environmental cleaning workers. Increases in the availability of IPC focal points were reported by 56% (38/68) and more frequently by low-(4/11) and middle-income (5/32) countries compared to high-income (0/22) countries (p=0.03). In the free-text questions (Table 2), many countries across income levels described significant public health, medical, nursing and laboratory workforce challenges. One high-income country stated that there had been a reduction in staff due to closed borders. Selected countries across income levels highlighted the importance of aligning COVID-19 and AMR staff trainings. One middle-income country requested increased virtual communication between GLASS national focal points on AMR in the context of COVID-19. ### AMR data information systems Most countries who responded reported no impact on clinical (53/67; 79%) or laboratory (56/72; 78%) data information systems for AMR (Figure 1f). No significant income level or regional differences. In the free-text questions (Table 2), one low-income country reported decreases in the use of AMR data information systems during the pandemic, whereas one high-income country highlighted potential opportunities for integrating AMR and SARS-CoV-2 data. ### Patient-case mix Most responding countries reported decreases in the number of elective surgical procedures (60/66; 91%), outpatient visits (53/68; 78%) and chronically ill inpatient admissions (42/64; 66%), while more than half of countries reported increases in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (38/67; 57%) and the occupancy rate of ICU beds (41/63; 65%) (Figure 1g). Decreases in outpatient visits were reported more frequently by high-(21/24) and middle-income (24/30) countries compared to low-income (6/11) countries (p=0.04). In the free-text questions (Table 2), countries across income levels reported changes due to the reorganisation of healthcare services such as hospitals prioritising only COVID-19 patients, reducing non-emergency services, and diversion to online or phone consultations. A small number of LMICs reported the closure of primary health care facilities for several months as well as the perception that patients were avoiding all health care facilities during the pandemic. ### IPC practices Many responding countries reported improvements in IPC as a result of COVID-19. This included a majority reporting increases in hand hygiene compliance (53/66; 80%), availability of alcohol-based hand rub (54/69; 78%), availability of personal protective equipment (PPE; 50/69; 72%), and ability to carry out IPC training (47/66; 71%) (Figure 1h). More than half of countries reported no impact on the ability to cohort patients by multidrug-resistant organism status (33/55, 60%). In contrast, 45% (27/60) of countries reported an increase in inappropriate IPC practices such as double gowning or gloving and performing hand hygiene over gloved hands. No significant income level or regional differences were seen. In the free-text questions (Table 2), countries of all income levels highlighted the strengthening of IPC efforts through awareness campaigns and training. However, one middle-income country reported social distancing and poor internet connection as barriers to delivering training and one high-income country reported the use of peers and link nurses for training due to overworked IPC staff. Several middle-and high-income countries also highlighted IPC lessons learned from COVID-19 such as the need to better integrate IPC across the entire healthcare delivery system and the need for earlier focus on IPC implementation in long-term care facilities. ### Antibiotic consumption More than half of responding countries (35/56; 63%) reported increases in total prescribing of antibiotics (Figure 1i). More specifically, 47% (23/49), 57% (27/47) and 40% (18/45) of countries reported increased use of WHO Access, Watch, and Reserve antibiotics, respectively. More than half of countries (33/58; 57%) reported no impact on the availability of antibiotics. Increases in total prescribing were reported more frequently by low-(8/10) and middle-income (18/24) countries compared to high-income (7/20) countries (p=0.03). In the free-text questions (Table 2), countries across income levels highlighted preliminary data suggesting increases in antibiotic use although many were also not yet able to assess. Selected high-income countries specified increases in the use of watch and reserve antibiotics such as azithromycin at health care facilities. One middle-income country reported that antibiotics are being prescribed in almost all cases of COVID-19 regardless of indications and one low-income country reported that more people in the community were self-prescribing antibiotics. In contrast, a few middle- and high-income countries reported reductions in levels of prescribing due to less healthcare utilization. ### AMR rates Fewer countries were able to report on the impacts of COVID-19 on AMR rates. Among those that responded, 37% (13/35) and 40% (12/30) of countries reported increases in multi-drug resistant (MDR) healthcare-associated infections and MDR infections in long-term care facilities, respectively (Figure 1j). Approximately one third of countries reported increases in Gram negative organisms such as *Klebsiella pneumoniae* (15/42; 36%), *Acinetobacter* spp. (13/40; 32%), and *Escherichia coli* (13/42; 31%) and Gram-positive organisms such as *Staphylococcus aureus* (24%; 10/41) and *Streptococcus pneumoniae* (29%; 11/38). No impacts on selected organisms were reported more frequently by high- and middle-income countries compared to low-income countries (p<0.01). In the free-text questions (Table 2), many countries across income levels reported that they were not yet able to reliably report on AMR data. Several high-income countries suggested that resistance rates may be higher as a result of more patients being treated in ICUs or long-term care settings. A few LMICs suggested that there may be a reduction in resistance due to fewer patients presenting to the hospital overall. ### Long-term perspectives In the free-text questions (Table 2), predictions from countries across income levels on the long-term impacts of the pandemic on AMR were mixed, citing factors that could reduce resistance, such as improved IPC, versus factors that could increase resistance, such as worsening of antimicrobial stewardship practices, increased staff fatigue to detect AMR threats, and reduced prioritization of AMR initiatives in place of those on COVID-19. One middle-income country suggested that the negative effects on AMR were greatest at the start of the pandemic. Many countries across income levels highlighted the need to balance COVID-19 and AMR response activities and address gaps in funding, staffing, consumables, equipment and IT infrastructure. A few middle- and high-income countries suggested the need to develop tools such as improved guidelines on antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 patients and expanded rapid and molecular testing. A few countries across income levels emphasized the importance of continued health system strengthening and resiliency including IPC and AMR awareness. ## Discussion The COVID-19 pandemic is having wide-reaching impacts on all aspects of our health systems. These have upended various levels of AMR surveillance, prevention and control. Including a wide range of country settings, this survey gives an important initial picture of the global impacts that COVID-19 has on these AMR aspects. Responses from GLASS national focal points revealed some universal patterns but also captured the variability across countries which, in some cases, could be linked to income level. The reported impacts involved factors that could bias AMR reporting as well as potentially decrease or increase AMR rates. These findings provide a useful framework to inform the ongoing implementation of AMR surveillance and interpretation of data. They also present key country insights on how we might use the COVID-19 response to make continued gains in combatting AMR. Reported aspects which could bias AMR data included a range of changes in health care utilisation, testing activities and diagnostic resources. These included decreases in the number of cultures, elective surgeries, chronically ill admissions and outpatient visits (particularly in LMICs) as well as increases in ICU admissions. Other observational and quasi-experimental studies have similarly documented reductions in global surgical case volume proxies as well as hospital emergency department visits particularly in high-income countries.10-12 Such changes in patients and testing denominators should be considered where feasible when interpreting changes in AMR data and potential biases. Many countries reported IPC improvements which could favour the prevention of both AMR and COVID-19, such as hand hygiene, PPE use, the stable availability of environmental cleaning workers and increased availability of IPC focal points (particularly in LMICs). WHO has highlighted the importance of effective COVID-19 IPC measures including compliance with standard and transmission-based precautions,13 and many countries and facilities seem to be taking steps to promote this guidance. Improved IPC awareness and implementation has been shown to improve after large outbreaks, as also seen after the 2014/2016 Ebola outbreak.14 It is an opportunity that can be utilised to promote sustainable IPC programmes that can more effectively combat emerging threats such as COVID-19 and Ebola as well as AMR transmission. Increased total antibiotic prescribing was reported by more than half of countries, particularly by LMICs. Specific increases in WHO Watch antibiotics (e.g. azithromycin) were also seen despite conflicting evidence for COVID-19 patients.15 Meta-analyses by Langford et al. and Rawson et al. found that approximately three quarters of hospitalized COVID-19 patients received antibiotics, although 3.5% and 8.5% were estimated to have bacterial co-infections on presentation and bacterial/fungal co-infections during admission, respectively.16, 17 Hospital-based studies have shown significant increases in total antibiotic use, including broad-spectrum antibiotic use such as cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam and carbapenems.18-20 National outpatient studies have found both decreases in antibiotic prescriptions due to COVID-19 restrictions21, 22 and increases in expected prescriptions after controlling for changes in the number of telephone consultations versus in-person appointments.23 In light of these results, evidence-based guidelines such as the indications for antibacterial therapy in COVID-19 patients should be promoted globally to prevent the accelerated threat of AMR.24-26 Although improved IPC efforts should be leveraged for both COVID-19 and AMR, an overly simplistic approach should also be avoided. Not all IPC measures for respiratory disease will be effective against AMR transmission. Inappropriate IPC practices (e.g. double gloving) reported by half of countries in this survey should be avoided. Other studies have also reported the unintended consequences of inappropriate PPE practices during the COVID-19 and SARS outbreaks, leading to higher risks of contamination.27-29 Various programmatic and structural factors which could reduce AMR activities were also reported by countries. Decreases in the routine ability to work with partnerships, funding, staffing and supplies could lead to important gaps in communication, implementation and data exchange. Specific challenges related to border closures, blocked imports and competition for limited stocks of material leading to disparities across countries have been highlighted in other anecdotal reports.3-6, 30, 31 Despite these challenges, some countries reported efforts to identify areas where the COVID-19 and AMR responses overlap (e.g. integrated stewardship guidance, new partnership platforms, leverage of funding for health systems strengthening and overall laboratory network improvements). These strategies are critical to maintaining routine AMR control alongside the COVID-19 response. It is equally important to recognise where response activities are not the same and additional efforts are needed, such as investments in staffing and back-up suppliers. Most countries did not yet have complete data on AMR rates. It is still early in the course of the pandemic to reliably report on any changes. Although it will take time to effectively analyse these data, reported factors such as decreases in surveillance capacity could limit the ability to provide data on true AMR changes. It is critical that AMR activities remain a priority for countries and high on the global health agenda to ensure the necessary capacity to detect and respond to emerging threats. Outbreaks and increases in AMR acquisition, such as carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, during the COVID-19 pandemic have been reported by hospitals, demonstrating the importance of continuing routine AMR activities and closely monitoring these data.19, 32-35 Several survey limitations should be considered. Although these results provide a useful initial global snapshot of the impacts of COVID-19 on AMR, they could also be considered an oversimplification of complex and varying experiences across national and facility levels. Heterogeneity between countries in the robustness of their existing AMR surveillance systems and activities (i.e. capacity, experience, resources) may have affected survey interpretation. If national focal points did not coordinate their responses with other experts or did not have sufficient knowledge of the data or dynamics in their country, the validity and reliability of some responses may have been affected. Furthermore, self-reported perceptions of national focal points on the impacts of COVID-19 on AMR could have also been affected by self-desirability bias. This survey was the first concerted effort to explore the global impact of COVID-19 on AMR surveillance, prevention and control among GLASS countries. Although much focus is understandably placed on COVID-19 at present, we believe that AMR must remain high on the global health agenda. This survey included a wide range of country settings and responses which highlighted both the universal effects of COVID-19 on AMR as well as the heterogeneity of impacts across countries. The results underscore the importance of finding ways to leverage the COVID-19 response activities to also support routine AMR prevention and control, where possible, and advocate for continued investments in IPC and laboratory strengthening for overall health system preparedness. It is critical to continue to monitor the dynamic situation and update national action plans with lessons learned to include preparedness and mitigation for future emerging threats that may also affect routine AMR work. Countries are encouraged to engage with GLASS and the Network to work collectively towards leveraging opportunities and addressing present challenges to improve AMR surveillance, prevention and control. ## Supporting information Supplementary data [[supplements/253807_file05.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability The aggregated data is avaiable on a case-by-case basis upon consultation with the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network coordinator (Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany) ## Funding This work was supported by a working group belonging to the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network. It was led by the coordinator of the Network at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Germany, who received funding from the Global Protection Programme (GHPP) at the German Federal Ministry of Health. ## Transparency None to declare. ## Disclaimer The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of their affiliated institutions. ## Supplementary data Supplementary Materials are available at the end of this manuscript. ## Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge all of the WHO Collaborating Centres that are part of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network: [https://www.who.int/glass/collaborating-centres-network/en/](https://www.who.int/glass/collaborating-centres-network/en/). In addition, we would like to acknowledge Muna Abu Sin and Birgitta Schweickert (Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany) who provided feedback on the questionnaire structure. We would like to sincerely thank all of the participating countries enrolled in GLASS at the time of the survey. Those that agreed to be acknowledged included: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Djibouti, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Poland, Qatar, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, and Zambia. * Received March 24, 2021. * Revision received March 24, 2021. * Accepted March 26, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. [https://www.who.int/antimicrobial-resistance/global-action-plan/en/](https://www.who.int/antimicrobial-resistance/global-action-plan/en/). 2. 2.World Health Organization. Record number of countries contribute data revealing disturbing rates of antimicrobial resistance. [https://www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2020-record-number-of-countries-contribute-data-revealing-disturbing-rates-of-antimicrobial-resistance](https://www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2020-record-number-of-countries-contribute-data-revealing-disturbing-rates-of-antimicrobial-resistance). 3. 3.Getahun H, Smith I, Trivedi K et al. Tackling antimicrobial resistance in the COVID-19 pandemic. Bull World Health Organ 2020; 98: 442–a. 4. 4.Donà D, Di Chiara C, Sharland M. Multi-drug-resistant infections in the COVID-19 era: a framework for considering the potential impact. J Hosp Infect 2020; 106: 198–9. 5. 5.Monnet DL, Harbarth S. Will coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have an impact on antimicrobial resistance? Euro Surveill 2020; 25: 2001886. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.45.2001886&link_type=DOI) 6. 6.Chibabhai V, Duse AG, Perovic O et al. Collateral damage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Exacerbation of antimicrobial resistance and disruptions to antimicrobial stewardship programmes? S Afr Med J 2020; 110: 572–3. 7. 7.World Health Organization. WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network. [https://www.who.int/glass/collaborating-centres-network/en/](https://www.who.int/glass/collaborating-centres-network/en/). 8. 8.World Health Organization. Monitoring the building blocks of health systems. [https://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO\_MBHSS\_2010\_full\_web.pdf?ua=1](https://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/WHO\_MBHSS_2010_full_web.pdf?ua=1). 9. 9.World Bank. The world by income. [https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html](https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html). 10. 10. O’Reilly-Shah Vn, Van Cleve W, Long DR et al. Impact of COVID-19 response on global surgical volumes: an ongoing observational study. Bull World Health Organ 2020; 98: 671–82. 11. 11.Mulholland RH, Wood R, Stagg HR et al. Impact of COVID-19 on accident and emergency attendances and emergency and planned hospital admissions in Scotland: an interrupted time-series analysis. J R Soc Med 2020; 113: 444–53. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0141076820962447&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33012218&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F26%2F2021.03.24.21253807.atom) 12. 12.Sokolski M, Gajewski P, Zymlinski R et al. Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak on Acute Admissions at the Emergency and Cardiology Departments Across Europe. Am J Med. 13. 13.World Health Organization. Infection prevention and control during health care when coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is suspected or confirmed. [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC-2020.4](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC-2020.4). 14. 14.Tremblay N, Musa E, Cooper C et al. Infection prevention and control in health facilities in post-Ebola Liberia: don’t forget the private sector! Public Health Action 2017; 7: S94–s9. 15. 15.Verdejo C, Vergara-Merino L, Meza N et al. Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: a living, systematic review. Medwave 2020; 20: e8074. 16. 16.Langford BJ, So M, Raybardhan S et al. Antibiotic prescribing in patients with COVID-19: rapid review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 17. 17.Rawson TM, Moore LSP, Zhu N et al. Bacterial and Fungal Coinfection in Individuals With Coronavirus: A Rapid Review To Support COVID-19 Antimicrobial Prescribing. Clin Infect Dis 2020. 18. 18.Abelenda-Alonso G, Padullés A, Rombauts A et al. Antibiotic prescription during the COVID-19 pandemic: A biphasic pattern. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020; 41: 1371–2. 19. 19.Bork JT, Leekha S, Claeys K et al. Change in hospital antibiotic use and acquisition of multidrug-resistant gram-negative organisms after the onset of coronavirus disease 2019. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020: 1–3. 20. 20.Gonzalez-Zorn B. Antibiotic use in the COVID-19 crisis in Spain. Clin Microbiol Infect. 21. 21.King LM, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N et al. Trends in U.S. outpatient antibiotic prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Infect Dis 2020. 22. 22.Orubu ESF, Malik F, Figueras A et al. Antibacterial consumption in the context of COVID-19 in Pakistan: an analysis of national pharmaceutical sales data for 2019-20. medRxiv 2020: 2020.12.05.20244657. 23. 23.Armitage R, Nellums LB. Antibiotic prescribing in general practice during COVID-19. Lancet Infect Dis. 24. 24.Sieswerda E, de Boer Mgj, Bonten MMJ et al. Recommendations for antibacterial therapy in adults with COVID-19 -an evidence based guideline. Clin Microbiol Infect 2021; 27: 61–6. 25. 25.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK). COVID-19 rapid guideline: antibiotics for pneumonia in adults in hospital. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566162/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566162/). 26. 26.World Health Organization. COVID-19 Clinical management: living guidance. [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-clinical-2021-1](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-clinical-2021-1). 27. 27.Yap FHY, Gomersall CD, Fung KSC et al. Increase in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Acquisition Rate and Change in Pathogen Pattern Associated with an Outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 511–6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/422641&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15356814&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F26%2F2021.03.24.21253807.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000223141500013&link_type=ISI) 28. 28.Meda M, Gentry V, Reidy P et al. Unintended consequences of long-sleeved gowns in a critical care setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Hosp Infect 2020; 106: 605–9. 29. 29.Stevens MP, Doll M, Pryor R et al. Impact of COVID-19 on traditional healthcare-associated infection prevention efforts. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020; 41: 946–7. 30. 30.Hsu J. How covid-19 is accelerating the threat of antimicrobial resistance. Br Med J 2020; 369: m1983. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNjkvbWF5MThfMTAvbTE5ODMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMy8yNi8yMDIxLjAzLjI0LjIxMjUzODA3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 31. 31.Lucien MAB, Canarie MF, Kilgore PE et al. Antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in the COVID-19 era: Perspective from resource-limited settings. Int J Infect Dis 2021; 104: 250–4. 32. 32.Tiri B, Sensi E, Marsiliani V et al. Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, COVID-19, and Infection Control: Spread of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella Pneumoniae Colonization in ICU COVID-19 Patients. What Did Not Work? J Clin Med 2020; 9. 33. 33.Cantón R, Akóva M, Carmeli Y et al. Rapid evolution and spread of carbapenemases among Enterobacteriaceae in Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18: 413–31. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03821.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22507109&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F26%2F2021.03.24.21253807.atom) 34. 34.Farfour E, Lecuru M, Dortet L et al. Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales outbreak: Another dark side of COVID-19. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48: 1533–6. 35. 35.Gomez-Simmonds A, Annavajhala MK, McConville TH et al. Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales causing secondary infections during the COVID-19 crisis at a New York City hospital. J Antimicrob Chemother 2021; 76: 380–4.