Intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine versus weekly chloroquine prophylaxis for malaria in pregnancy in Honiara, Solomon Islands: a randomised trial.

MalariaWorld journal Pub Date : 2013-06-29 eCollection Date: 2013-01-01 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10894954
Lyndes Wini, Bridget Appleyard, Albino Bobogare, Junilyn Pikacha, Judith Seke, Makiva Tuni, Levi Hou, Jeffrey Hii, James McCarthy, Anna Maria van Eijk
{"title":"Intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine versus weekly chloroquine prophylaxis for malaria in pregnancy in Honiara, Solomon Islands: a randomised trial.","authors":"Lyndes Wini, Bridget Appleyard, Albino Bobogare, Junilyn Pikacha, Judith Seke, Makiva Tuni, Levi Hou, Jeffrey Hii, James McCarthy, Anna Maria van Eijk","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.10894954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Solomon Islands is a malarious nation in the Pacific with all four human <i>Plasmodium</i> species present. Although chloroquine prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant women, its effectiveness is uncertain because of chloroquine resistance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a parallel-group, open label, individually randomised superiority trial comparing weekly chloroquine prophylaxis (CQ) with intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) between August 2009- June 2010 among pregnant women aged 15 to 49 years. Participants were randomised at the first antenatal visit using a computer-generated sequence and followed until delivery. Data on mosquito avoidance measures, and pregnancy outcomes were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Because of the low prevalence of malaria, enrolment was prematurely terminated. Among 660 participants (336 in CQ arm, and 324 in IPTp), 68% used a bednet, 53% used window-screens, and 26% lived in a house sprayed in the last 6 months; 91% used at least one of these methods. Peripheral parasitemia at enrolment was 1.5%. At delivery there were no differences between weekly CQ and IPTp in placental parasitemia (0/259 vs. 1/254) or peripheral parasitemia (2/281 vs. 1/267). There were no differences in maternal anaemia, birth outcomes or serious adverse events. A self-reported sulfa-allergy required non-inclusion for 199 of 771 ineligible women (26%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of SP for IPTp is not suitable for prevention of malaria in pregnancy in Solomon Islands, given the low malaria prevalence and the possible high prevalence of sulfa-allergy. Scaling up of transmission-reducing interventions has probably contributed to the malaria reduction in Honiara.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT00964691 ClinicalTrials.gov.</p>","PeriodicalId":74100,"journal":{"name":"MalariaWorld journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11138738/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MalariaWorld journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10894954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Solomon Islands is a malarious nation in the Pacific with all four human Plasmodium species present. Although chloroquine prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant women, its effectiveness is uncertain because of chloroquine resistance.

Methods: We conducted a parallel-group, open label, individually randomised superiority trial comparing weekly chloroquine prophylaxis (CQ) with intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) between August 2009- June 2010 among pregnant women aged 15 to 49 years. Participants were randomised at the first antenatal visit using a computer-generated sequence and followed until delivery. Data on mosquito avoidance measures, and pregnancy outcomes were collected.

Results: Because of the low prevalence of malaria, enrolment was prematurely terminated. Among 660 participants (336 in CQ arm, and 324 in IPTp), 68% used a bednet, 53% used window-screens, and 26% lived in a house sprayed in the last 6 months; 91% used at least one of these methods. Peripheral parasitemia at enrolment was 1.5%. At delivery there were no differences between weekly CQ and IPTp in placental parasitemia (0/259 vs. 1/254) or peripheral parasitemia (2/281 vs. 1/267). There were no differences in maternal anaemia, birth outcomes or serious adverse events. A self-reported sulfa-allergy required non-inclusion for 199 of 771 ineligible women (26%).

Conclusions: The use of SP for IPTp is not suitable for prevention of malaria in pregnancy in Solomon Islands, given the low malaria prevalence and the possible high prevalence of sulfa-allergy. Scaling up of transmission-reducing interventions has probably contributed to the malaria reduction in Honiara.

Trial registration: NCT00964691 ClinicalTrials.gov.

在所罗门群岛霍尼亚拉使用磺胺乙胺嘧啶间歇预防性治疗与每周氯喹预防性治疗治疗妊娠期疟疾:随机试验。
背景:所罗门群岛是太平洋地区一个疟疾流行的国家,存在所有四种人类疟原虫。虽然建议孕妇使用氯喹预防,但由于氯喹抗药性的存在,其效果并不确定:2009年8月至2010年6月期间,我们在15至49岁的孕妇中开展了一项平行分组、开放标签、单独随机的优效试验,比较了每周一次的氯喹预防治疗(CQ)与使用磺胺乙胺嘧啶(SP)的间歇性预防治疗(IPTp)。参与者在首次产前检查时使用计算机生成的序列进行随机分配,并跟踪至分娩。研究人员还收集了有关避蚊措施和妊娠结果的数据:结果:由于疟疾发病率较低,报名提前终止。在 660 名参与者中(336 人参加 CQ 治疗组,324 人参加 IPTp 治疗组),68% 的人使用蚊帐,53% 的人使用窗纱,26% 的人居住的房屋在过去 6 个月中喷洒过杀虫剂;91% 的人至少使用了其中一种方法。入学时外周寄生虫血症率为 1.5%。分娩时,每周一次的 CQ 和 IPTp 在胎盘寄生虫血症(0/259 对 1/254 )或外周寄生虫血症(2/281 对 1/267 )方面没有差异。孕产妇贫血、分娩结局或严重不良事件方面没有差异。在 771 名不符合条件的妇女中,有 199 人(26%)因自述对磺胺过敏而未被纳入研究:结论:鉴于所罗门群岛的疟疾发病率较低,而磺胺过敏症的发病率可能较高,因此在所罗门群岛使用SP作为IPTp预防妊娠期疟疾并不合适。扩大减少传播的干预措施可能有助于减少霍尼亚拉的疟疾发病率:NCT00964691 ClinicalTrials.gov.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信