Pharmacotherapy for the prevention of malaria in pregnant women: currently available drugs and challenges

Antenatal interventions to reduce risk of low birth weight related to maternal infections during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Maternal infections during pregnancy have been linked to increased risk of adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight (LBW), preterm birth (PTB), small for gestational age (SGA), and stillbirth (SB).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article was to summarize evidence from published literature on the effect of key interventions targeting maternal infections on adverse birth outcomes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL Complete between March 2020 and May 2020 with an update to cover until August 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews of RCTs of 15 antenatal interventions for pregnant women reporting LBW, PTB, SGA, or SB as outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 15 reviewed interventions, the administration of 3 or more doses of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine [IPTp-SP; RR: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.94)] can reduce risk of LBW compared with 2 doses. The provision of insecticide-treated bed nets, periodontal treatment, and screening and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria may reduce risk of LBW. Maternal viral influenza vaccination, treatment of bacterial vaginosis, intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine compared with IPTp-SP, and intermittent screening and treatment of malaria during pregnancy compared with IPTp were deemed unlikely to reduce the prevalence of adverse birth outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is limited evidence from RCTs available for some potentially relevant interventions targeting maternal infections, which could be prioritized for future research.

Ending the evidence gap for pregnancy, HIV and co-infections: ethics guidance from the PHASES project

INTRODUCTION

While pregnant people have been an important focus for HIV research, critical evidence gaps remain regarding prevention, co-infection, and safety and efficacy of new antiretroviral therapies in pregnancy. Such gaps can result in harm: without safety data, drugs used may carry unacceptable risks to the foetus or pregnant person; without pregnancy-specific dosing data, pregnant people face risks of both toxicity and undertreatment; and delays in gathering evidence can limit access to beneficial next-generation drugs. Despite recognition of the need, numerous barriers and ethical complexities have limited progress. We describe the process, ethical foundations, recommendations and applications of guidance for advancing responsible inclusion of pregnant people in HIV/co-infections research.

DISCUSSION

The 26-member international and interdisciplinary Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS: Seeking Equitable Study (PHASES) Working Group was convened to develop ethics-centred guidance for advancing timely, responsible HIV/co-infections research with pregnant people. Deliberations over 3 years drew on extensive qualitative research, stakeholder engagement, expert consultation and a series of workshops. The guidance, initially issued in July 2020, highlights conceptual shifts needed in framing research with pregnant people, and articulates three ethical foundations to ground recommendations: equitable protection from drug-related risks, timely access to biomedical advances and equitable respect for pregnant people's health interests. The guidance advances 12 specific recommendations, actionable within the current regulatory environment, addressing multiple stakeholders across drug development and post-approval research, and organized around four themes: building capacity, supporting inclusion, achieving priority research and ensuring respect. The recommendations describe strategies towards ethically redressing the evidence gap for pregnant people around HIV and co-infections. The guidance has informed key efforts of leading organizations working to advance needed research, and identifies further opportunities for impact by a range of stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There are clear pathways towards ethical inclusion of pregnant people in the biomedical research agenda, and strong agreement across the HIV research community about the need for - and the promise of - advancing them. Those who fund, conduct, oversee and advocate for research can use the PHASES guidance to facilitate more, better and earlier evidence to optimize the health and wellbeing of pregnant people and their children.

Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Use During Pregnancy and the Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes Using Real-World Evidence

Introduction: Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are currently used for the prevention/treatment of malaria, and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Although present data do not show their efficacy to treat COVID-19, they have been used as potential treatments for COVID-19. Given that pregnant women are excluded from randomized controlled trials, and present evidence are inconsistent and inconclusive, we aimed to investigate the safety of CQ or HCQ use in a large pregnancy cohort using real-world evidence.

Methods: Using Quebec Pregnancy Cohort, we identified women who delivered a singleton liveborn, 1998–2015, (n = 233,748). The exposure time window for analyses on prematurity and low birth weight (LBW) was the second/third trimesters; was any time during pregnancy; only first trimester exposure was considered for analyses on major congenital malformations (MCM). The risk of prematurity, LBW, and MCM (overall and organ-specific) were quantified using generalized estimation equations.

Results: We identified 288 pregnancies (0.12%) exposed to CQ (183, 63.5%) or HCQ (105, 36.5%) that resulted in liveborn singletons; CQ/HCQ was used for RA (17.4%), SLE (16.3%) or malaria (0.7%). CQ/HCQ was used for 71.8 days on average [standard-deviation (SD) 70.5], at a dose of 204.3 mg/d (SD, 155.6). We did not observe any increased risk related to CQ/HCQ exposure for prematurity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.39, 95%CI 0.84–2.30), LBW (aOR 1.11, 95%CI 0.59–2.06), or MCM (aOR 1.01, 95%CI 0.67–1.52).

Conclusion: in this large CQ/HCQ exposed pregnancy cohort, we saw no clear increased risk of prematurity, LBW, or MCM, although number of exposed cases remained low.

A Randomized Open-Label Evaluation of the Antimalarial Prophylactic Efficacy of Azithromycin-Piperaquine versus Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine in Pregnant Papua New Guinean Women

Emerging malaria parasite sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) resistance has prompted assessment of alternatives for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp). The objective was to evaluate the tolerability and prophylactic efficacy of azithromycin (AZ) plus piperaquine (PQ) in pregnant women in Papua New Guinea. The study was an open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial. A total of 122 women (median gestation, 26 weeks [range, 14 to 32 weeks]) were randomized 1:1 to three daily doses of 1 g AZ plus 960 mg PQ tetraphosphate or single-dose SP (4,500 mg sulfadoxine plus 225 mg pyrimethamine), based on computer-generated block randomization. Tolerability was assessed to day 7, and efficacy was assessed to day 42 (when participants were returned to usual care) and at delivery. Data for 119 participants (AZ-PQ, n = 61; SP, n = 58) were analyzed. Both regimens were well tolerated, but AZ-PQ was associated with more gastrointestinal side effects (31%) and dizziness (21%). Eight women (6.7%) were parasitemic at recruitment but all were aparasitemic by 72 h. There were no differences in blood smear positivity rates between AZ-PQ and SP up to day 42 (0% versus 5.2%; relative risk [RR], 0.14 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 2.58] [P = 0.18]; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 5.2% [95% CI, -1.3 to 11.6%]) and at the time of delivery (0% versus 8.7%; RR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.01 to 2.01] [P = 0.14]; ARR, 8.7% [95% CI, -0.2 to 17.6%]). Of 92 women who were monitored to parturition, 89 (97%) delivered healthy babies; there were 3 stillbirths (SP, n = 1; AZ-PQ, n = 2 [twins]). There was a higher live birth weight (mean ± standard deviation) in the AZ-PQ group (3.13 ± 0.42 versus 2.88 ± 0.55 kg [P = 0.016]; mean difference, 0.25 kg [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.48 kg]). AZ-PQ is a promising candidate for IPTp.