Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for malaria during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Article type
Authors
Chu X1, Li M1, Yan P2, Feng L1, Li J1, Liu X1, Yang K1
1Lanzhou University
2Institute of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital
Abstract
Background: Malaria in pregnancy is one of the serious global problems of our time. There were wide concerns about dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine for prevention of malaria during pregnancy.

Objectives:To assess the current latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for malaria in pregnancy.

Methods:The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed and Web of science were searched from the earliest publication date available to July 4, 2019. We included randomized controlled trials comparing dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for malaria in pregnancy. Outcomes were analyzed using Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We did subgroup analysis about different intervals, including 4-6 or 8 weeks.

Results:A total of five studies with 4660 HIV-uninfected pregnant women in area of high malaria-transmission intensity were included in final synthesis. Meta-analysis showed dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for intermittent preventive treatment resulted in lower rates of placental malaria (RR=0.50; 95%CI, 0.43–0.59) and infection with malaria parasites at delivery (RR=0.05; 95%CI, 0.01–0.24). In the subgroup analysis, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for intermittent preventive treatment at 4-6 weeks of administration was associated with a better effect for infection with malaria parasites at delivery.

Conclusions:Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was a promising alternative drug to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment in settings with high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance, especially at 4-6 weeks of administration. Based on real-world and other epidemiological settings, more data will be needed to identify the risk of adverse effects.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: No