Editorial Commentary: Intermittent Preventive Treatment in Pregnancy With Sulfadoxine–Pyrimethamine: The Controversy Continues

Clinical Infectious Diseases, Oct 2012

Julie Gutman

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/8/1103.full.pdf

Editorial Commentary: Intermittent Preventive Treatment in Pregnancy With Sulfadoxine–Pyrimethamine: The Controversy Continues

0 Julie Gutman Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria , Malaria Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia EDITORIAL COMMENTARY - Each year, approximately 32 million pregnancies occur in malaria-endemic areas of Africa [1]. Malaria in pregnancy (MiP) is a serious condition that contributes to both maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. It is estimated that up to 200 000 infant deaths occur annually as a result of MiP (http://www. who.int/features/2003/04b/en/). In order to decrease the risk of Plasmodium falciparum infection in pregnancy and subsequent morbidity and mortality, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with at least 2 doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) 1 month apart after quickening. As resistance of Plasmodium falciparum, the most important malaria species in MiP, to SP has increased in the past 2 decades with a concomitant decrease in the efficacy of SP for treatment of children <5 years of age, the continued benefit of providing IPTp-SP has been questioned [2]. IPTp-SP continues to provide benefit to mothers and infants in areas where the rate of treatment failure in children is up to 39% [3]; however, where treatment failure rates are higher, and when coverage with insecticide-treated bednets is high, IPTpSP appears to provide less benefit [4, 5]. More worrisome are data from Muheza, Tanzania, suggesting that IPTp-SP may be harmful, exacerbating placental malaria and contributing to fetal anemia [6, 7]. If this finding is replicated in other areas, it will have significant implications, as it would suggest that the practice of providing IPTp-SP to women in areas with high levels of SP resistance should be discontinued immediately, rather than continuing this practice until an alternate drug for prophylaxis in pregnancy is found. In this issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Rogawski et al provide reassuring data from a large retrospective delivery cross-sectional study in Malawi that IPTp-SP is not associated with fetal anemia or cord hemoglobin concentration [8]. There was no evidence that this lack of association changed over time as SP resistance increased. Furthermore, their data suggest that IPTp-SP continues to provide some beneficial effect, as evidenced by the finding that malaria parasitemia at delivery had the largest effect on fetal anemia among primigravid women who did not take SP and no significant effect among multigravid women whether or not they took SP. This is consistent with what has been reported previously; IPTp-SP has been shown to be beneficial in primigravid and secundigravid women, but it remains unclear whether there is a benefit to women of higher gravidity [9]. The fact that IPTp-SP may still confer some benefit to primigravid women in Malawi is an important finding, especially in light of the fact that Malawi has high levels of molecular resistance to SP, with nearly 100% saturation of quintuple mutants, although mutations such as dhps 581 or dhfr 164, which are associated with higher level SP resistance, are still rare [10]. This suggests that although it is necessary to explore alternative therapies to IPTp-SP, it need not be abandoned yet. It is important to note that other studies that have examined the issue of fetal anemia following maternal SP use have also found that IPTp-SP decreases, not increases, the prevalence of fetal anemia [5, 11]. The reason for the discrepancy between these studies and the study conducted in Muheza may have to do with the extremely high level of resistance found in the Muheza area, with 14-day treatment failure rates in children of 68% (no recent studies in children have been done in Malawi to compare with this) or with the relatively higher proportion of dhps 581 mutations in Muheza than can be found in other study sites. The data from Muheza suggesting that SP is responsible for the fetal anemia are convincing: cord sulfa concentration was found to inversely correlate with cord hemoglobin levels. However, of the 880 women studied, cord samples for sulfa analysis were available from 847 and IPTp-SP history was available from 826, but only 685 are used in the analysis of fetal hemoglobin. It is unclear how this subset was identified for analysis, and whether this could have affected the results. Another issue to consider in future studies examining the effectiveness of IPTp-SP is which women should be included. Initial studies of IPTp-SP focused on primigravid and secundigravid women, as they have the least pregnancyspecific malaria immunity, and so are at the greatest risk [12]. As insecticidetreated bednet coverage and other malaria interventions are scaled up and transmission declines, it is likely that the effects of MiP will increasingly be seen in women of higher gravidity. However, if we really want to evaluate whether IPTpSP continues to reduce the burden of MiP, we should choose the women most likely to benef (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/8/1103.full.pdf

Julie Gutman. Editorial Commentary: Intermittent Preventive Treatment in Pregnancy With Sulfadoxine–Pyrimethamine: The Controversy Continues, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2012, pp. 1103-1105, 55/8, DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis604