SummaryBackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18–45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference −1·4%, 95% CI −7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68–1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3–4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Improving food safety and hygiene is integral to the successful attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Foodborne diseases continue to impose a high burden on low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly children under five years, and meeting stipulated conditions for both domestic and export markets can be challenging. This paper reports a situation analysis exploring the challenges faced in the food safety sector in LMICs, using Malawi as an example. The analysis used a desk and policy review, literature search, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions to provide national data, which was then subject to thematic analysis. The analysis established there is a significant threat to public health and market access due to uncoordinated, outdated or incomplete regulatory framework, poorly defined mandates, limited infrastructure, lack of equipment and skilled personnel, inadequate resources, and limited awareness and ability to comply with standards. Food safety and hygiene improvements must strike a balance between market access gains and protection of public health. To achieve this, the sector requires effective integration at national level in food security, nutrition, health, economic development, agriculture, and poverty reduction. Solutions for each country must be context-specific and take into consideration national realities if they are to be successful.

Despite global health improvements, substantial challenges in social determinants of health and poverty remain in rural communities in low-income countries. Public health theorists suggest that communities with high social capital are less vulnerable to such challenges and more likely to participate in community development. This research examines levels of social capital amongst rural communities in southern Malawi through data gathered as part of a participatory needs assessment for a Healthy Settings project, and discusses the potential benefits of having access to such data before project implementation. Social capital data was collected during 108 focus group discussions in 18 communities (split by gender, age, status) by adapting an existing mixed methods measurement tool, the Schutte tool. Five indicators were measured: sense of belonging, friendship, reliance, ability to work together and influence. Mean results showed all 18 communities had medium-high levels of social capital. Means from each group in the 18 communities highlighted the lowest social capital among the youth groups and the highest with the leaders. A more detailed breakdown highlighted that all groups had a strong sense of belonging to the community, while youth and women had lower social capital levels in terms of influence over local decisions and ability to rely on other community members. Incorporating social capital tools into community health needs assessments in low-income settings provides a valuable overview of community dynamics before project implementation, and Monitoring & Evaluation indicators which allow changes in social capital to be measured at different stages of the project.