Cited by 33Malaria Research and ControlGlobal Maternal and Child HealthHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders

Intermittent screening and treatment with artemisinin-combination therapy versus intermittent preventive treatment with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine for malaria in pregnancy: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Open access
Gutman, Julie R, Khairallah, Carole, Stepniewska, Kasia, Tagbor, Harry, Madanitsa, Mwayiwawo, Cairns, Matthew, L'lanziva, Anne Joan, Kalilani, Linda +9 more·2021·eClinicalMedicine

Abstract

Background In sub-Saharan Africa, the efficacy of intermittent preventive therapy in pregnancy with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) for malaria in pregnancy is threatened by parasite resistance. We conducted an individual-participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of intermittent screening with malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and treatment of RDT-positive women with artemisinin-based combination therapy (ISTp-ACT) compared to IPTp-SP, and understand the importance of subpatent infections. Methods We searched MEDLINE and the Malaria-in-Pregnancy Library on May 6, 2021 for trials comparing ISTp-ACT and IPTp-SP. Generalised linear regression was used to compare adverse pregnancy outcomes (composite of small-for-gestational-age, low birthweight (LBW), or preterm delivery) and peripheral or placental Plasmodium falciparum at delivery. The effects of subpatent (PCR-positive, RDT/microscopy-negative) infections were assessed in both arms pooled using multi-variable fixed-effect models adjusting for the number of patent infections. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016043789. Findings Five trials conducted between 2007 and 2014 contributed (10,821 pregnancies), two from high SP-resistance areas where dhfr/dhps quintuple mutant parasites are saturated, but sextuple mutants are still rare (Kenya and Malawi), and three from low-resistance areas (West-Africa). Four trials contributed IPD data (N=10,362). At delivery, the prevalence of any malaria infection (relative risk [RR]=1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.16, I 2 =67.0 %) and patent infection (RR=1.02, 0.61-1.16, I 2 =0.0%) were similar. Subpatent infections were more common in ISTp recipients (RR=1.31, 1.05-1.62, I 2 =0.0%). There was no difference in adverse pregnancy outcome (RR=1.00, 0.96-1.05; studies=4, N=9,191, I 2 =54.5%). Subpatent infections were associated with LBW (adjusted RR=1.13, 1.07-1.19), lower mean birthweight (adjusted mean difference=32g, 15-49), and preterm delivery (aRR=1.35, 1.15-1.57). Interpretation ISTp-ACT was not superior to IPTp-SP and may result in more subpatent infections than the existing IPTp-SP policy. Subpatent infections were associated with increased LBW and preterm delivery. More sensitive diagnostic tests are needed to detect and treat low-grade infections. Funding Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101160

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In areas of high seasonal malaria transmission, seasonal malaria chemoprevention with a combination of mefloquine, or amodiaquine and SP is being used as a strategy to reduce the incidence of malaria in pregnancy.

    “To support this, in areas of high seasonal malaria transmission, seasonal malaria chemoprevention with a combination of mefloquine, or amodiaquine and SP is being used as a strategy to reduce the incidence of malaria in pregnancy [206, 211–213].”

    From Current update on malaria in pregnancy: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [213]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) discusses amodiaquine with SP and mefloquine as alternatives for preventing malaria in pregnancy, but says poor tolerability undermines their effectiveness. It does not say these drugs are being used for seasonal malaria chemoprevention in areas of high seasonal transmission. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [41]Desai M. Gutman J. L'Lanziva A. Intermittent screening and treatment or intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for the control of malaria during pregnancy in western Kenya: an open-label, three-group, randomised controlled superiority trial Lancet 386 10012 2015 2507 2519 26429700 PMC4718402
  2. [52]Desai M. Gutman J. Taylor S. Impact of Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine resistance on Effectiveness of as Intermittent Preventive Therapy in Pregnancy at Clearing Peripheral Blood Plasmodium falciparum Parasites and Preventing Low Birth Weight: A prospective, multi-country observational study across Africa Clin Inf Dis 62 3 2016 323 333 PMC4762476 26486699

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gutman, J. R., Khairallah, C., Stepniewska, K., Tagbor, H., Madanitsa, M., Cairns, M., L'lanziva, A. J., Kalilani, L., Otieno, K., Mwapasa, V., Meshnick, S., Kariuki, S., Chandramohan, D., Desai, M., Taylor, S. M., Greenwood, B., & ter Kuile, F. O.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Health and Allied Sciences (GH)
  • University of Malawi (MW)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Kenya Medical Research Institute (KE)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Gutman, Julie R
Venue
eClinicalMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
41
Pages
101160
ISSN
2589-5370 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3208237120
Cited by
33
References
54
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EClinicalMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSTM Online Archive (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1181807)
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Hemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Keywords
malaria in pregnancy, intermittent screening and treatment, intermittent preventive treatment, artemisinin-based combination therapy, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, malaria rapid diagnostic tests, Plasmodium falciparum, parasite resistance, adverse pregnancy outcomes, low birth weight, preterm birth, small for gestational age

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review