Search

BACKGROUND:At times, ultrasound is not readily available in low resource countries in Africa for accurate determination of gestational age, so using alternative methods is pivotal during pregnancy. These assessments are used to aid the risk analysis for an infant and management strategies for premature delivery, if necessary. Currently, date of last menstrual period, fundal height measurements, and the New Ballard Score are commonly used in resource-limited settings. However, concordance of these measures is unknown for sub-Saharan Africa. We obtained data from an open-label randomized controlled trial, to assess the concordance of these alternative assessment methods. The purpose of our study was to determine the agreement between these alternative methods when used in sub-Saharan African populations. METHODS:A total of 4,390 pregnant women from Benin, Gabon, Mozambique and Tanzania were included in our analysis. The assessment methods compared were: 1) reported last menstrual period, 2) symphysis-fundal height measurement, and 3) the New Ballard Score. The Bland-Altman method and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to test the degree of agreement. Survival range gestational age, used as an inclusion criterion for further analysis, was from 22 to 44 weeks. FINDINGS:Plots showed a lack of agreement between methods and the 95% limits of agreement too wide to be clinically useful. ICC = 0.25 indicated poor agreement. A post-hoc analysis, restricted from 32 to 42 weeks, was done to check for better agreement in this near-term population. The plots and ICC = 0.16 still confirmed poor agreement. CONCLUSION:The alternative assessments do not result in comparable outcomes and discrepancies are far beyond the clinically acceptable range. Last menstrual period should not be used as the only estimator of gestational age. In the absence of reliable early ultrasound, symphysis-fundal height measurements may be most useful during pregnancy for fetal risk assessment and the New Ballard Score after delivery as a confirmation of these estimations and for further neonatal management. However, promotion of portable ultrasound devices is required for accurate assessment of gestational age in sub-Sahara Africa.

Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is recommended in HIV-negative women to avert malaria, while this relies on cotrimoxazole prophylaxis (CTXp) in HIV-positive women. Alternative antimalarials are required in areas where parasite resistance to antifolate drugs is high. The cost-effectiveness of IPTp with alternative drugs is needed to inform policy.The cost-effectiveness of 2-dose IPTp-mefloquine (MQ) was compared with IPTp-SP in HIV-negative women (Benin, Gabon, Mozambique and Tanzania). In HIV-positive women the cost-effectiveness of 3-dose IPTp-MQ added to CTXp was compared with CTXp alone (Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania). The outcomes used were maternal clinical malaria, anaemia at delivery and non-obstetric hospital admissions. The poor tolerability to MQ was included as the value of women's loss of working days. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and threshold analysis undertaken.For HIV-negative women, the ICER for IPTp-MQ versus IPTp-SP was 136.30 US$ (2012 US$) (95%CI 131.41; 141.18) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, or 237.78 US$ (95%CI 230.99; 244.57), depending on whether estimates from Gabon were included or not. For HIV-positive women, the ICER per DALY averted for IPTp-MQ added to CTXp, versus CTXp alone was 6.96 US$ (95%CI 4.22; 9.70). In HIV-negative women, moderate shifts of variables such as malaria incidence, drug cost, and IPTp efficacy increased the ICERs above the cost-effectiveness threshold. In HIV-positive women the intervention remained cost-effective for a substantial (up to 21 times) increase in cost per tablet.Addition of IPTp with an effective antimalarial to CTXp was very cost-effective in HIV-positive women. IPTp with an efficacious antimalarial was more cost-effective than IPTp-SP in HIV-negative women. However, the poor tolerability of MQ does not favour its use as IPTp. Regardless of HIV status, prevention of malaria in pregnancy with a highly efficacious, well tolerated antimalarial would be cost-effective despite its high price.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00811421; Pan African Trials Registry PACTR2010020001429343 and PACTR2010020001813440.

BackgroundIntermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is recommended by WHO to prevent malaria in African pregnant women. The spread of SP parasite resistance has raised concerns regarding long-term use for IPT. Mefloquine (MQ) is the most promising of available alternatives to SP based on safety profile, long half-life, and high efficacy in Africa. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of MQ for IPTp compared to those of SP in HIV-negative women.Methods and findingsA total of 4,749 pregnant women were enrolled in an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted in Benin, Gabon, Mozambique, and Tanzania comparing two-dose MQ or SP for IPTp and MQ tolerability of two different regimens. The study arms were: (1) SP, (2) single dose MQ (15 mg/kg), and (3) split-dose MQ in the context of long lasting insecticide treated nets. There was no difference on low birth weight prevalence (primary study outcome) between groups (360/2,778 [13.0%]) for MQ group and 177/1,398 (12.7%) for SP group; risk ratio [RR], 1.02 (95% CI 0.86-1.22; p=0.80 in the ITT analysis). Women receiving MQ had reduced risks of parasitemia (63/1,372 [4.6%] in the SP group and 88/2,737 [3.2%] in the MQ group; RR, 0.70 [95% CI 0.51-0.96]; p=0.03) and anemia at delivery (609/1,380 [44.1%] in the SP group and 1,110/2743 [40.5%] in the MQ group; RR, 0.92 [95% CI 0.85-0.99]; p=0.03), and reduced incidence of clinical malaria (96/551.8 malaria episodes person/year [PYAR] in the SP group and 130/1,103.2 episodes PYAR in the MQ group; RR, 0.67 [95% CI 0.52-0.88]; p=0.004) and all-cause outpatient attendances during pregnancy (850/557.8 outpatients visits PYAR in the SP group and 1,480/1,110.1 visits PYAR in the MQ group; RR, 0.86 [0.78-0.95]; p=0.003). There were no differences in the prevalence of placental infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes between groups. Tolerability was poorer in the two MQ groups compared to SP. The most frequently reported related adverse events were dizziness (ranging from 33.9% to 35.5% after dose 1; and 16.0% to 20.8% after dose 2) and vomiting (30.2% to 31.7%, after dose 1 and 15.3% to 17.4% after dose 2) with similar proportions in the full and split MQ arms. The open-label design is a limitation of the study that affects mainly the safety assessment.ConclusionsWomen taking MQ IPTp (15 mg/kg) in the context of long lasting insecticide treated nets had similar prevalence rates of low birth weight as those taking SP IPTp. MQ recipients had less clinical malaria than SP recipients, and the pregnancy outcomes and safety profile were similar. MQ had poorer tolerability even when splitting the dose over two days. These results do not support a change in the current IPTp policy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00811421; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR 2010020001429343 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.