Search

BackgroundIn Africa, most plasmodium infections during pregnancy remain asymptomatic, yet are associated with maternal anemia and low birthweight. WHO recommends intermittent preventive therapy in pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP). However, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) efficacy is threatened by high-level parasite resistance. We conducted a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scheduled intermittent screening with malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and treatment of RDT-positive women with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) as an alternative strategy to IPTp-SP.Methods and findingsThis was an open-label, two-arm individually randomized superiority trial among HIV-seronegative women at three sites in Malawi with high SP resistance. The intervention consisted of three or four scheduled visits in the second and third trimester, 4 to 6 wk apart. Women in the IPTp-SP arm received SP at each visit. Women in the intermittent screening and treatment in pregnancy with DP (ISTp-DP) arm were screened for malaria at every visit and treated with DP if RDT-positive. The primary outcomes were adverse live birth outcome (composite of small for gestational age, low birthweight [ConclusionsScheduled screening for malaria parasites with the current generation of RDTs three to four times during pregnancy as part of focused antenatal care was not superior to IPTp-SP in this area with high malaria transmission and high SP resistance and was associated with higher fetal loss and more malaria at delivery.Trial registrationPan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201103000280319; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN69800930.

Background: In malarious areas, pregnant women are more likely to have detectable malaria than are their non-pregnant peers, and the excess risk of infection varies with gravidity. Pregnant women attending antenatal clinic for their first visit are a potential pragmatic sentinel group to track the intensity of malaria transmission; however, the relation between malaria prevalence in children, a standard measure to estimate malaria endemicity, and pregnant women has never been compared. Methods: We obtained data on malaria prevalence in pregnancy from the Malaria in Pregnancy Library (January, 2015) and data for children (0–59 months) were obtained from recently published work on parasite prevalence in Africa and the Malaria in Pregnancy Library. We used random effects meta-analysis to obtain a pooled prevalence ratio (PPR) of malaria in children versus pregnant women (during pregnancy, not at delivery) and by gravidity, and we used meta-regression to assess factors affecting the prevalence ratio. Findings: We used data from 18 sources that included 57 data points. There was a strong linear relation between the prevalence of malaria infection in pregnant women and children (r=0·87, p

Background Research on menstrual health is required to understand menstrual needs and generate solutions to improve health, wellbeing, and productivity. The identification of research priorities will help inform where to invest efforts and resources. Objectives To identify research priorities for menstrual health across the life-course, in consultation with a range of stakeholder groups from a variety of geographic regions, and to identify if menstrual health research priorities varied by expertise. Methods A modified version of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative approach was utilized to reach consensus on a set of research priorities. Multisector stakeholders with menstrual health expertise, identified through networks and the literature, were invited to submit research questions through an online survey. Responses were consolidated, and individuals were invited to rank these questions based on novelty, potential for intervention, and importance/impact. Research priority scores were calculated and evaluated by participants’ characteristics. Results Eighty-two participants proposed 1135 research questions, which were consolidated into 94 unique research questions. The mean number of questions did not differ between low- and middle-income country (LMIC) and high-income country (HIC) participants, but significantly more questions were raised by participants with expertise in mental health and WASH. Sixty-six participants then ranked these questions. The top ten-ranked research questions included four on ‘understanding the problem’, four on ‘designing and implementing interventions’, one on ‘integrating and scaling up’, and one on ‘measurement’. Indicators for the measurement of adequate menstrual health over time was ranked the highest priority by all stakeholders. Top ten-ranked research questions differed between academics and non-academics, and between participants from HICs and LMICs, reflecting differences in needs and knowledge gaps. Conclusions A list of ranked research priorities was generated through a consultative process with stakeholders across LMICs and HICs which can inform where to invest efforts and resources.