Home
Resources
Publications
Monthly Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine Versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria in Pregnancy: A Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled, Superiority Trial

Monthly Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine Versus Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria in Pregnancy: A Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled, Superiority Trial

Richard Kajubi, Teddy Ochieng, Abel Kakuru, Prasanna Jagannathan, Miriam Nakalembe, Theodore Ruel, Bishop Opira, Harriet Ochokoru, John Ategeka, Patience Nayebare, Tamara D Clark, Diane V Havlir, Moses R Kamya, etc.

Lancet. 2019 Apr 6;393(10179):1428-1439.

PMID: 30910321

Abstract:

Background:
Intermittent treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, recommended for prevention of malaria in pregnant women throughout sub-Saharan Africa, is threatened by parasite resistance. We assessed the efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine as an alternative to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine.
Methods:
We did a double-blind, randomised, controlled, superiority trial at one rural site in Uganda with high malaria transmission and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. HIV-uninfected pregnant women between 12 and 20 weeks gestation were randomly assigned (1:1) to monthly intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. The primary endpoint was the risk of a composite adverse birth outcome defined as low birthweight, preterm birth, or small for gestational age in livebirths. Protective efficacy was defined as 1-prevalence ratio or 1-incidence rate ratio. All analyses were done by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02793622.
Findings:
Between Sept 6, 2016, and May 29, 2017, 782 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (n=391) or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (n=391); 666 (85·2%) women who delivered livebirths were included in the primary analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of our composite adverse birth outcome between the dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine treatment group (54 [16%] of 337 women vs 60 [18%] of 329 women; protective efficacy 12% [95% CI -23 to 37], p=0·45). Both drug regimens were well tolerated, with no significant differences in adverse events between the groups, with the exception of asymptomatic corrected QT interval prolongation, which was significantly higher in the dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine group (mean change 13 ms [SD 23]) than in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine group (mean change 0 ms [SD 23]; p<0·0001).
Interpretation:
Monthly intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was safe but did not lead to significant improvements in birth outcomes compared with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine.
Funding:
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Chemicals Related in the Paper:

Catalog Number	Product Name	Structure	CAS Number	Price
AP58140-A	Pyrimethamine		58-14-0	Price
AS27162	Dihydroartemisinin			Price

As a specialist in analytical chemical Products, Alfa Chemistry offers consumers a wealth of raw materials and a full range of technologies and services.

QUICK LINKS

HEADQUARTERS

Tel:

Fax:

Email: