@article{fdi:010064906,
  title = {{M}efloquine versus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy : a joint analysis on efficacy and tolerability},
  author = {{B}riand, {V}al{\'e}rie and {E}scolano, {S}. and {J}ournot, {V}. and {M}assougbodji, {A}. and {C}ot, {M}ichel and {T}ubert-{B}itter, {P}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{S}ince there is no ideal candidate to replace sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine ({SP}) for intermittent preventive treatment ({IPT}p), alternatives need to be evaluated on basis of their benefit-risk ratio. {W}e reanalyzed the first {B}eninese trial on mefloquine ({MQ}) versus {SP} for {IPT}p using a multiple outcome approach, which allowed the joint assessment of efficacy and tolerability. {O}verall 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 ({AE}s) or low compliance with the treatment. {T}he analysis included 1,601 women. {MQ} was found to be overall superior to {SP} ({P} = 0.004). {P}erforming several sensitivity analyses to handle both missing data and stillbirths provided similar results. {U}sing {MQ} for {IPT}p 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. {I}n the current context of a lack of antimalarials that could be used for {IPT}p, such a statistical approach could be widely used by institutional policy makers for future recommendations regarding the prevention of malaria in pregnancy ({M}i{P}).},
  keywords = {{BENIN}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{A}merican {J}ournal of {T}ropical {M}edicine and {H}ygiene},
  volume = {93},
  numero = {2},
  pages = {300--304},
  ISSN = {0002-9637},
  year = {2015},
  DOI = {10.4269/ajtmh.14.0783},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010064906},
}