Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2025-04-29 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103202
Michelle E Roh, Julie R Gutman, Maxwell Murphy, Jenny Hill, Mywayiwawo Madanitsa, Abel Kakuru, Hellen C Barsosio, Simon Kariuki, John P A Lusingu, Frank Mosha, Richard Kajubi, Moses R Kamya, Don Mathanga, Jobiba Chinkhumba, Miriam K Laufer, Eulambius Mlugu, Appolinary A R Kamuhabwa, Eleni Aklillu, Omary Minzi, Roland Nnaemeka Okoro, Ado Danazumi Geidam, John David Ohieku, Meghna Desai, Prasanna Jagannathan, Grant Dorsey, Feiko O Ter Kuile
{"title":"Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.","authors":"Michelle E Roh, Julie R Gutman, Maxwell Murphy, Jenny Hill, Mywayiwawo Madanitsa, Abel Kakuru, Hellen C Barsosio, Simon Kariuki, John P A Lusingu, Frank Mosha, Richard Kajubi, Moses R Kamya, Don Mathanga, Jobiba Chinkhumba, Miriam K Laufer, Eulambius Mlugu, Appolinary A R Kamuhabwa, Eleni Aklillu, Omary Minzi, Roland Nnaemeka Okoro, Ado Danazumi Geidam, John David Ohieku, Meghna Desai, Prasanna Jagannathan, Grant Dorsey, Feiko O Ter Kuile","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-grade <i>Plasmodium falciparum</i> resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in east and southern Africa has prompted trials evaluating intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine as an alternative to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. We aimed to provide an updated and comprehensive review of trials conducted in areas of <i>high P. falciparum</i> resistance that compared the efficacy of two types of IPTp regimens on maternal, birth, and infant outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted two-stage, individual participant data meta-analyses of randomised trials comparing IPTp with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine on maternal, birth, and infant outcomes. We searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium Library, on July 30, 2020 (updated on September 24, 2024), without restrictions by publication date, peer-review status, or language. Eligible trials enrolled HIV-uninfected pregnant women, followed participants to delivery, included participants with no prior IPTp use during the current pregnancy, and were conducted in areas with high-level parasite resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (i.e., PfDHPS 540E ≥ 90% and/or 581G>0%). Only singleton pregnancies were analysed. The primary endpoint was a composite measure of any adverse pregnancy outcome defined as fetal or neonatal loss, small-for-gestational age, low birthweight, or preterm birth. Summary estimates were generated using a random-effects model. Gravidity subgroup analyses were performed. Causal mediation analyses were used to investigate the maternal mechanisms underlying the effect of IPTp regimens on birth outcomes. The meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020196127).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of 85 screened records, six trials (one multi-country trial) from Kenya, Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania contributed data on 6646 pregnancies. Compared to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, dihydroarteminsinin-piperaquine was associated with a 69% [95% CI: 45%-82%] lower incidence of clinical malaria during pregnancy, a 62% [37%-77%] lower risk of placental parasitaemia, and a 17% [0%-31%] lower incidence of moderate maternal anaemia. In contrast, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was associated with higher mean maternal weight gain (34 g/week [17-51]). There were no statistically significant differences in the composite adverse pregnancy outcome (RR = 1.05 [0.92-1.19]; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 48%). Individual components of the primary outcome showed no statistically significant differences in the risks of fetal loss (RR = 0.94 [0.61-1.46]), preterm birth (RR = 0.93 [0.76-1.14]), low birthweight (RR = 1.09 [0.83-1.43]), or neonatal loss (RR = 0.73 [0.42-1.26]), though findings may have been underpowered. Small-for-gestational-age risk was 15% (3%-24%) lower in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine arm, particularly among multigravidae (a 22% reduction vs 9% in primigravidae). Among multigravidae, infant stunting and underweight by two months was 20% [8%-30%] and 35% [17%-49%] lower in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine arm compared to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. Compared to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was associated with higher mean newborn birthweight (mean difference (MD) = 50 g [95% CI: 13-88]; p = 0.0090, I<sup>2</sup> = 61%) and BWGA z-scores (MD = 0.12 [95% CI: 0.05-0.20]; p = 0.0012, I<sup>2</sup> = 51%), but not gestational age at birth (MD = 0 weeks [95% CI: -0.11 to 0.12]; p = 0.94; I<sup>2</sup> = 42%). Infant wasting by two months was 13% [3%-22%] lower in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine arm, regardless of gravidity. Mediation analyses indicated that 15% [0%-19%] of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine's superior effect on small-for-gestational-age risk was mediated by its greater impact on gestational weight gain.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In areas with high <i>P. falciparum</i> sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine offers superior antimalarial efficacy than sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. However, replacing sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone may not lead to improved maternal and infant health outcomes. Instead, it could result in slightly reduced gestational weight gain and a modest increase in the risk of small-for-gestational age births, and poor infant growth by two months of age. Future research evaluating alternative strategies for IPTp are needed.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"83 ","pages":"103202"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076784/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103202","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: High-grade Plasmodium falciparum resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in east and southern Africa has prompted trials evaluating intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine as an alternative to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. We aimed to provide an updated and comprehensive review of trials conducted in areas of high P. falciparum resistance that compared the efficacy of two types of IPTp regimens on maternal, birth, and infant outcomes.

Methods: We conducted two-stage, individual participant data meta-analyses of randomised trials comparing IPTp with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine on maternal, birth, and infant outcomes. We searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium Library, on July 30, 2020 (updated on September 24, 2024), without restrictions by publication date, peer-review status, or language. Eligible trials enrolled HIV-uninfected pregnant women, followed participants to delivery, included participants with no prior IPTp use during the current pregnancy, and were conducted in areas with high-level parasite resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (i.e., PfDHPS 540E ≥ 90% and/or 581G>0%). Only singleton pregnancies were analysed. The primary endpoint was a composite measure of any adverse pregnancy outcome defined as fetal or neonatal loss, small-for-gestational age, low birthweight, or preterm birth. Summary estimates were generated using a random-effects model. Gravidity subgroup analyses were performed. Causal mediation analyses were used to investigate the maternal mechanisms underlying the effect of IPTp regimens on birth outcomes. The meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020196127).

Findings: Of 85 screened records, six trials (one multi-country trial) from Kenya, Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania contributed data on 6646 pregnancies. Compared to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, dihydroarteminsinin-piperaquine was associated with a 69% [95% CI: 45%-82%] lower incidence of clinical malaria during pregnancy, a 62% [37%-77%] lower risk of placental parasitaemia, and a 17% [0%-31%] lower incidence of moderate maternal anaemia. In contrast, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was associated with higher mean maternal weight gain (34 g/week [17-51]). There were no statistically significant differences in the composite adverse pregnancy outcome (RR = 1.05 [0.92-1.19]; I 2 = 48%). Individual components of the primary outcome showed no statistically significant differences in the risks of fetal loss (RR = 0.94 [0.61-1.46]), preterm birth (RR = 0.93 [0.76-1.14]), low birthweight (RR = 1.09 [0.83-1.43]), or neonatal loss (RR = 0.73 [0.42-1.26]), though findings may have been underpowered. Small-for-gestational-age risk was 15% (3%-24%) lower in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine arm, particularly among multigravidae (a 22% reduction vs 9% in primigravidae). Among multigravidae, infant stunting and underweight by two months was 20% [8%-30%] and 35% [17%-49%] lower in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine arm compared to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. Compared to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was associated with higher mean newborn birthweight (mean difference (MD) = 50 g [95% CI: 13-88]; p = 0.0090, I2 = 61%) and BWGA z-scores (MD = 0.12 [95% CI: 0.05-0.20]; p = 0.0012, I2 = 51%), but not gestational age at birth (MD = 0 weeks [95% CI: -0.11 to 0.12]; p = 0.94; I2 = 42%). Infant wasting by two months was 13% [3%-22%] lower in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine arm, regardless of gravidity. Mediation analyses indicated that 15% [0%-19%] of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine's superior effect on small-for-gestational-age risk was mediated by its greater impact on gestational weight gain.

Interpretation: In areas with high P. falciparum sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine offers superior antimalarial efficacy than sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. However, replacing sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone may not lead to improved maternal and infant health outcomes. Instead, it could result in slightly reduced gestational weight gain and a modest increase in the risk of small-for-gestational age births, and poor infant growth by two months of age. Future research evaluating alternative strategies for IPTp are needed.

Funding: This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

双氢青蒿素-哌喹与磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶间歇预防治疗妊娠期疟疾:系统评价和个体参与者数据荟萃分析
背景:东非和南部非洲恶性疟原虫对磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶的高度耐药性促使开展了评估妊娠期间歇预防治疗(IPTp)的试验,使用双氢青蒿素-哌喹替代磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶。我们的目的是对在恶性疟原虫高耐药地区进行的试验进行更新和全面的回顾,比较两种IPTp方案对孕产妇、分娩和婴儿结局的疗效。方法:我们对随机试验进行了两阶段的个体参与者数据荟萃分析,比较IPTp与双氢青蒿素-哌喹或磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶对孕产妇、分娩和婴儿结局的影响。我们检索了WHO国际临床试验注册平台ClinicalTrials。Gov、PubMed和妊娠疟疾联盟图书馆,于2020年7月30日更新(更新于2024年9月24日),不受出版日期、同行评审状态或语言的限制。符合条件的试验招募了未感染艾滋病毒的孕妇,随访参与者至分娩,包括在当前怀孕期间未使用IPTp的参与者,并在寄生虫对磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶具有高耐药性的地区进行(即PfDHPS 540E≥90%和/或581G> %)。只分析了单胎妊娠。主要终点是任何不良妊娠结局的综合测量,定义为胎儿或新生儿丢失、小胎龄、低出生体重或早产。使用随机效应模型生成汇总估计。进行重力亚组分析。因果中介分析用于调查IPTp方案对分娩结果影响的母体机制。该荟萃分析已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42020196127)。结果:在85份筛选记录中,来自肯尼亚、马拉维、乌干达和坦桑尼亚的6项试验(1项多国试验)提供了6646例妊娠的数据。与磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶相比,二氢青蒿素-哌喹可使妊娠期临床疟疾发病率降低69% [95% CI: 45%-82%],胎盘寄生虫血症风险降低62%[37%-77%],产妇中度贫血发病率降低17%[0%-31%]。相反,磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶与较高的母体平均体重增加相关(34 g/周[17-51])。两组综合妊娠不良结局差异无统计学意义(RR = 1.05 [0.92-1.19];i2 = 48%)。主要结局的各个组成部分在胎儿丢失(RR = 0.94[0.61-1.46])、早产(RR = 0.93[0.76-1.14])、低出生体重(RR = 1.09[0.83-1.43])或新生儿丢失(RR = 0.73[0.42-1.26])的风险方面没有统计学上的显著差异,尽管研究结果可能不够有力。在磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶组中,小于胎龄的风险降低了15%(3%-24%),特别是在多孕科中(减少22%,而原始孕科减少9%)。在多胞胎中,与双氢青蒿素-哌喹相比,磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶组两个月前婴儿发育迟缓和体重不足的发生率分别降低了20%[8%-30%]和35%[17%-49%]。与双氢青蒿素-哌喹相比,磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶与较高的新生儿平均出生体重相关(平均差(MD) = 50 g [95% CI: 13-88];p = 0.0090, I2 = 61%)和BWGA z-评分(MD = 0.12 [95% CI: 0.05-0.20];p = 0.0012, I2 = 51%),但与出生时胎龄无关(MD = 0周[95% CI: -0.11 ~ 0.12];P = 0.94;I2 = 42%)。在磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶组中,婴儿两个月后的消瘦率降低了13%[3%-22%],与妊娠无关。中介分析表明,磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶对小胎龄风险的优势作用中有15%[0%-19%]是由其对妊娠期体重增加的较大影响介导的。解释:在恶性疟原虫磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶耐药性高的地区,双氢青蒿素-哌喹的抗疟效果优于磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶。然而,仅用双氢青蒿素-哌喹替代磺胺多辛-乙胺嘧啶可能无法改善孕产妇和婴儿的健康结果。相反,它可能导致妊娠期体重增加略有减少,胎龄小的风险略有增加,婴儿在两个月大时发育不良。未来的研究需要评估IPTp的替代策略。资助:这项工作得到了比尔和梅林达·盖茨基金会和尤尼斯·肯尼迪·施莱佛国家儿童健康与人类发展研究所的支持。
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
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
×
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