Briand Valérie, Escolano S., Journot V., Massougbodji A., Cot Michel, Tubert-Bitter P. (2015). Mefloquine versus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy : a joint analysis on efficacy and tolerability. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 93 (2), p. 300-304. ISSN 0002-9637.
Titre du document
Mefloquine versus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy : a joint analysis on efficacy and tolerability
Briand Valérie, Escolano S., Journot V., Massougbodji A., Cot Michel, Tubert-Bitter P.
Source
American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2015,
93 (2), p. 300-304 ISSN 0002-9637
Since there is no ideal candidate to replace sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) for intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp), alternatives need to be evaluated on basis of their benefit-risk ratio. We reanalyzed the first Beninese trial on mefloquine (MQ) versus SP for IPTp using a multiple outcome approach, which allowed the joint assessment of efficacy and tolerability. Overall superiority of MQ to SP was defined as superiority on at least one efficacy outcome (low birth weight [LBW], placental malaria, or maternal anemia), non-inferiority on all of them as well as on tolerability defined as cutaneous or neuropsychiatric adverse events (AEs) or low compliance with the treatment. The analysis included 1,601 women. MQ was found to be overall superior to SP (P = 0.004). Performing several sensitivity analyses to handle both missing data and stillbirths provided similar results. Using MQ for IPTp as an example, we show that a multiple outcome analysis is a pragmatic way to assess the benefits/disadvantages of one drug compared with another. In the current context of a lack of antimalarials that could be used for IPTp, such a statistical approach could be widely used by institutional policy makers for future recommendations regarding the prevention of malaria in pregnancy (MiP).
