Protective Efficacy of Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria in Infants (IPTi) Using Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine and Parasite Resistance

J.T. Griffin, M. Cairns, A.C. Ghani, C. Roper, D. Schellenberg, I. Carneiro, R.D. Newman, M.P. Grobusch, B. Greenwood, D. Chandramohan, R.D. Gosling

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Intermittent Preventive Treatment of malaria in infants using sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP-IPTi) is recommended by WHO for implementation in settings where resistance to SP is not high. Here we examine the relationship between the protective efficacy of SP-IPTi and measures of SP resistance. Methods and Results: We analysed the relationship between protective efficacy reported in the 7 SP-IPTi trials and contemporaneous data from 6 in vivo efficacy studies using SP and 7 molecular studies reporting frequency of dhfr triple and dhps double mutations within 50km of the trial sites. We found a borderline significant association between frequency of the dhfr triple mutation and protective efficacy to 12 months of age of SP-IPTi. This association is significantly biased due to differences between studies, namely number of doses of SP given and follow up times. However, fitting a simple probabilistic model to determine the relationship between the frequency of the dhfr triple, dhps double and dhfr/dhps quintuple mutations associated with resistance to SP and protective efficacy, we found a significant inverse relationship between the dhfr triple mutation frequency alone and the dhfr/dhps quintuple mutations and efficacy at 35 days post the 9 month dose and up to 12 months of age respectively. Conclusions: A significant relationship was found between the frequency of the dhfr triple mutation and SP-IPTi protective efficacy at 35 days post the 9 month dose. An association between the protective efficacy to 12 months of age and dhfr triple and dhfr/dhps quintuple mutations was found but should be viewed with caution due to bias. It was not possible to define a more definite relationship based on the data available from these trials
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)e12618
JournalPLOS ONE
Volume5
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Cite this