Pharmaceuticalised livelihoods: antibiotics and the rise of 'Quick Farming' in peri-urban Uganda.

The 'livestock revolution' has seen the lives and livelihoods of peri-urban peoples increasingly intertwine with pigs and poultry across Africa in response to a rising demand for meat protein. This 'revolution' heralds the potential to address both poverty and nutritional needs. However, the intensification of farming has sparked concern, including for antibiotic misuse and its consequences for antimicrobial resistance (AMR). These changes reflect a micro-biopolitical conundrum where the agendas of microbes, farmers, publics, authorities and transnational agencies are in tension. To understand this requires close attention to the practices, principles and potentials held between these actors. Ethnographic research took place in a peri-urban district, Wakiso, in Uganda between May 2018 and March 2021. This included a medicine survey at 115 small- and medium-scale pig and poultry farms, 18 weeks of participant observation at six farms, 34 in-depth interviews with farmers and others in the local livestock sector, four group discussions with 38 farmers and 7 veterinary officers, and analysis of archival, media and policy documents. Wide-scale adoption of quick farming was found, an entrepreneurial phenomenon that sees Ugandans raising 'exotic' livestock with imported methods and measures for production, including antibiotics for immediate therapy, prevention of infections and to promote production and protection of livelihoods. This assemblage - a promissory assemblage of the peri-urban - reinforced precarity against which antibiotics formed a potential layer of protection. The paper argues that to address antibiotic use as a driver of AMR is to address precarity as a driver of antibiotic use. Reduced reliance on antibiotics required a level of biosecurity and economies of scale in purchasing insurance that appeared affordable only by larger-scale commercial producers. This study illustrates the risks - to finances, development and health - of expanding an entrepreneurial model of protein production in populations vulnerable to climate, infection and market dynamics.

The politics of irrationality.

In siloed discussions of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotic use on farms in the Global South has emerged as a key site for intervention. The antibiotic consumption targeted is not all consumption, but "irrational" consumption. This concept of irrationality is neither new, nor true, but rather is a long-standing form of maintenance work within global health systems. Via an attention to chickens and the antibiotics farmers use to raise them in the suburbs of Kampala, we suggest that claims of irrationality are a central part of constituting what Tania Li has called the 'deficient subject'. In other words, irrationality, like the chicken and the antibiotic, is itself a humanitarian device that maintains a certain condition of governance where 'Africans' are imagined as being in deficit of rationality and good behavior. Claims of irrationality justify (and mask the political nature of) intervention.

Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of drug safety in clinical trials involves assessing adverse events (AEs) individually or by aggregate statistical synthesis to provide evidence of likely adverse drug reactions (ADR). While some AEs may be ascertained from physical examinations or tests, there is great reliance on reports from participants to detect subjective symptoms, where he/she is often the only source of information. There is no consensus on how these reports should be elicited, although it is known that questioning methods influence the extent and nature of data detected. This leaves room for measurement error and undermines comparisons between studies and pooled analyses. This review investigated comparisons of methods used in trials to elicit participant-reported AEs. This should contribute to knowledge about the methodological challenges and possible solutions for achieving better, or more consistent, AE ascertainment in trials. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the research that has compared methods used within clinical drug trials (or methods that would be specific for such trials) to elicit information about AEs defined in the protocol or in the planning for the trial. SEARCH METHODS: Databases (searched to March 2015 unless indicated otherwise) included: Embase; MEDLINE; MEDLINE in Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Cochrane Methodology Register (July 2012); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (February 2015); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (January 2015); Health Technology Assessment database (January 2015); CINAHL; CAB Abstracts; BIOSIS (July 2013); Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. The search used thesaurus headings and synonyms for the following concepts: (A): Adverse events AND measurement; (B): Participants AND elicitation (also other synonyms for extraction of information about adverse effects from people); (C): Participants AND checklists (also other synonyms as for B). Pragmatic ways were used to limit the results whilst trying to maintain sensitivity. There were no date or sample size restrictions but only reports published in English were included fully, because of resource constraints as regards translation. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two types of studies were included: drug trials comparing two or more methods within- or between-participants to elicit participant-reported AEs, and research studies performed outside the context of a trial to compare methods which could be used in trials (evidenced by reference to such applicability). Primary outcome data included AEs elicited from participants taking part in any such clinical trial. We included any participant-reported data relevant for an assessment of drug-related harm, using the original authors' terminology (and definition, where available), with comment on whether the data were likely to be treatment-emergent AEs or not. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility. Full texts of potentially eligible citations were independently reviewed for final eligibility. Relevant data were extracted and subjected to a 100% check. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, involving a third author. The risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors. The Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool was used for reports comparing outcomes between participants, while for within-participant comparisons, each study was critically evaluated in terms of potential impact of the design and conduct on findings using the framework of selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases. An attempt was made to contact authors to retrieve protocols or specific relevant missing information. Reports were not excluded on the basis of quality unless data for outcomes were impossible to compare (e.g. where denominators differed). A narrative synthesis was conducted because differences in study design and presentation meant that a quantitative meta-analysis was not possible. MAIN RESULTS: The 33 eligible studies largely compared open questions with checklist-type questions or rating scales. Two included participant interviews. Despite different designs, populations and details of questioning methods, the narrative review showed that more specific questioning of participants led to more AEs detected compared to a more general enquiry. A subset of six studies suggested that more severe, bothersome, or otherwise clinically relevant AEs were reported when an initial open enquiry was used, while some less severe, bothersome, or clinically relevant AEs were only reported with a subsequent specific enquiry. However, two studies showed that quite severe or debilitating AEs were only detected by an interview, while other studies did not find a difference in the nature of AEs between elicitation methods. No conclusions could be made regarding the impact of question method on the ability to detect a statistically significant difference between study groups. There was no common statistical rubric, but we were able to represent some effect measures as a risk ratio of the proportion of participants with at least one AE. This showed a lower level of reporting for open questions (O) compared to checklists (CL), with a range for the risk ratios of 0.12 to 0.64. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review supports concerns that methods to elicit participant-reported AEs influence the detection of these data. There was a risk for under-detection of AEs in studies using a more general elicitation method compared to those using a comprehensive method. These AEs may be important from a clinical perspective or for patients. This under-detection could compromise ability to pool AE data. However, the impact on the nature of the AE detected by different methods is unclear. The wide variety and low quality of methods to compare elicitation strategies limited this review. Future studies would be improved by using and reporting clear definitions and terminology for AEs (and other important variables), frequency and time period over which they were ascertained, how they were graded, assessed for a relationship to the study drug, coded, and tabulated/reported. While the many potential AE endpoints in a trial may preclude the development of general AE patient-reported outcome measurement instruments, much could also be learnt from how these employ both quantitative and qualitative methods to better understand data elicited. Any chosen questioning method needs to be feasible for use by both staff and participants.

Prescriber and patient-oriented behavioural interventions to improve use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Tanzania: facility-based cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The increasing investment in malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to differentiate malarial and non-malarial fevers, and an awareness of the need to improve case management of non-malarial fever, indicates an urgent need for high quality evidence on how best to improve prescribers' practices. METHODS: A three-arm stratified cluster-randomised trial was conducted in 36 primary healthcare facilities from September 2010 to March 2012 within two rural districts in northeast Tanzania where malaria transmission has been declining. Interventions were guided by formative mixed-methods research and were introduced in phases. Prescribing staff from all facilities received standard Ministry of Health RDT training. Prescribers from facilities in the health worker (HW) and health worker-patient (HWP) arms further participated in small interactive peer-group training sessions with the HWP additionally receiving clinic posters and patient leaflets. Performance feedback and motivational mobile-phone text messaging (SMS) were added to the HW and HWP arms in later phases. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a non-severe, non-malarial illness incorrectly prescribed a (recommended) antimalarial. Secondary outcomes investigated RDT uptake, adherence to results, and antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: Standard RDT training reduced pre-trial levels of antimalarial prescribing, which was sustained throughout the trial. Both interventions significantly lowered incorrect prescribing of recommended antimalarials from 8% (749/8,942) in the standard training arm to 2% (250/10,118) in the HW arm (adjusted RD (aRD) 4%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1% to 6%; P = 0.008) and 2% (184/10,163) in the HWP arm (aRD 4%; 95% CI 1% to 6%; P = 0.005). Small group training and SMS were incrementally effective. There was also a significant reduction in the prescribing of antimalarials to RDT-negatives but no effect on RDT-positives receiving an ACT. Antibiotic prescribing was significantly lower in the HWP arm but had increased in all arms compared with pre-trial levels. CONCLUSIONS: Small group training with SMS was associated with an incremental and sustained improvement in prescriber adherence to RDT results and reducing over-prescribing of antimalarials to close to zero. These interventions may become increasingly important to cope with the wider range of diagnostic and treatment options for patients with acute febrile illness in Africa.

Taking Opportunities, Taking Medicines: Antibiotic Use in Rural Eastern Uganda.

The ways in which dimensions of health and healthcare intersect with economics and politics in particular contexts requires close attention. In this article we connect concerns about antibiotic overuse in Uganda to the social milieu created through policies that follow President Museveni's vision for a population who kulembeka, "tap wealth." Ethnographic fieldwork in rural Eastern Uganda illustrates how taking medicines in rural households reflects a wider landscape of everyday imperatives to "tap" opportunities in a context of acute precarity. We argue for a closer connection between medical and economic anthropology to push forward understanding of health, medicines and wellbeing in Africa.

Antimicrobial resistance and COVID-19: Intersections and implications.

Before the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was among the top priorities for global public health. Already a complex challenge, AMR now needs to be addressed in a changing healthcare landscape. Here, we analyse how changes due to COVID-19 in terms of antimicrobial usage, infection prevention, and health systems affect the emergence, transmission, and burden of AMR. Increased hand hygiene, decreased international travel, and decreased elective hospital procedures may reduce AMR pathogen selection and spread in the short term. However, the opposite effects may be seen if antibiotics are more widely used as standard healthcare pathways break down. Over 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the dynamics of AMR remain uncertain. We call for the AMR community to keep a global perspective while designing finely tuned surveillance and research to continue to improve our preparedness and response to these intersecting public health challenges.

Febrile Illness Evaluation in a Broad Range of Endemicities (FIEBRE): protocol for a multisite prospective observational study of the causes of fever in Africa and Asia.

INTRODUCTION: Fever commonly leads to healthcare seeking and hospital admission in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. There is only limited guidance for clinicians managing non-malarial fevers, which often results in inappropriate treatment for patients. Furthermore, there is little evidence for estimates of disease burden, or to guide empirical therapy, control measures, resource allocation, prioritisation of clinical diagnostics or antimicrobial stewardship. The Febrile Illness Evaluation in a Broad Range of Endemicities (FIEBRE) study seeks to address these information gaps. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: FIEBRE investigates febrile illness in paediatric and adult outpatients and inpatients using standardised clinical, laboratory and social science protocols over a minimum 12-month period at five sites in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeastern and Southern Asia. Patients presenting with fever are enrolled and provide clinical data, pharyngeal swabs and a venous blood sample; selected participants also provide a urine sample. Laboratory assessments target infections that are treatable and/or preventable. Selected point-of-care tests, as well as blood and urine cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility testing, are performed on site. On day 28, patients provide a second venous blood sample for serology and information on clinical outcome. Further diagnostic assays are performed at international reference laboratories. Blood and pharyngeal samples from matched community controls enable calculation of AFs, and surveys of treatment seeking allow estimation of the incidence of common infections. Additional assays detect markers that may differentiate bacterial from non-bacterial causes of illness and/or prognosticate illness severity. Social science research on antimicrobial use will inform future recommendations for fever case management. Residual samples from participants are stored for future use. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from all relevant institutional and national committees; written informed consent is obtained from all participants or parents/guardians. Final results will be shared with participating communities, and in open-access journals and other scientific fora. Study documents are available online (https://doi.org/10.17037/PUBS.04652739).