• 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, and Grant Dorsey.
• Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda.
• Lancet. 2019 Apr 6; 393 (10179): 1428-1439.

BackgroundIntermittent 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsBetween 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).InterpretationMonthly intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was safe but did not lead to significant improvements in birth outcomes compared with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine.FundingEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

30 keywords...

hide…