Summary
Background High-grade Plasmodium falciparum resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in East and Southern Africa has prompted numerous trials evaluating intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine as an alternative to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine.
Methods We conducted 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. 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. Meta-analyses used a two-stage approach: first, study-specific estimates were generated and then pooled 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) 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 (Hb<9 g/dL). In contrast, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was associated with higher mean weekly maternal weight gain (34 grams/week [17–51]). There were no statistically significant differences in the composite adverse pregnancy outcome between the two IPTp regimens (RR=1·05 [95% CI: 0·92–1·19]; I2=48%), although the risk of small-for-gestational-age was 15% [3%–24%] lower in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine arm. Among multigravidae, participants of the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine arm were 20% [8%–30%] and 35% [17%–49%] less likely to have stunted and underweight infants by two months compared to the dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine arm. 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 reducing small-for-gestational-age risk was mediated by its greater impact on gestational weight gain.
Interpretation In areas of high P. falciparum sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is a more efficacious antimalarial than sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. However, replacing sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone will not result in better maternal, birth, or infant outcomes. It could increase the risk of SGA, since much of the effect of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine may be exerted through non-malarial mechanisms. Future research evaluating the alternative strategies for IPTp are needed, including with the combination of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine.
Funding This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Evidence before this study We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed, and the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium Library for randomised trials comparing intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, using the search term: (“intermittent preventive treatment” OR “IPTp”) AND ((“sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine” OR “sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine”) AND (“dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine”)). The initial search was conducted on July 30, 2020, and updated on September 24, 2024, without any restrictions on publication date, peer-review status, or language. We found eight studies, of which six were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Two previous meta-analyses had been conducted: a 2018 review by Desai et al that included the first two trials, and a subsequent pooled analysis by Roh et al in 2020 that included the first three trials and focused disentangling the antimalarial and non-malarial effects of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine versus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. These reviews highlighted the superior antimalarial efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine compared to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, but also suggested the potential superior non-malarial benefits of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. A recent meta-analysis by Muthoka et al evaluated the safety of IPTp with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine in pregnancy. However, an updated meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of all currently completed trials of IPTp with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine has not been conducted.
Added value of this study This study represents the first and only meta-analysis using individual participant data from all six available trials conducted in areas with high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. By pooling data from 6646 pregnancies across multiple African countries, we were able to conduct a more robust and nuanced analysis comparing the efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for IPTp. Our findings confirm the superior antimalarial efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine but also reveal that sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine is associated with better birth and infant outcomes, particularly in reducing the risk of small-for-gestational age and infant malnutrition. This meta-analysis provides strong evidence for the existence of non-malarial benefits of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in pregnancy, which appear to outweigh its reduced antimalarial efficacy in terms of pregnancy outcomes, even in areas of high resistance.
Implications of all the available evidence Based on our comprehensive analysis, we recommend against switching from sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for IPTp, even in areas with very high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. Such a change would likely reduce gestational weight gain, lower mean newborn birthweights, increased risk of SGA, and poor early infant growth. Instead, we recommend further studies combining sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (or another potent malaria strategy) to harness the non-malarial benefits of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and target the malaria-associated causes of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, more research is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the non-malarial effects of these drugs, including their direct antimicrobial activity, effects on gut and vaginal health, and/or influence on maternal systemic inflammation. This research is crucial for optimising malaria prevention strategies in pregnancy and improving maternal and neonatal outcomes in malaria-endemic regions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study received financial support from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Award Number OPP1181807). MER is supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (Award Number K99HD111572).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Individual participant data from the source trials are available from the investigators from the source trials and will be uploaded onto the Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) repository approximately three months after publication.
