↓ Skip to main content

Artemisinin-based combination therapy in pregnant women in Zambia: efficacy, safety and risk of recurrent malaria

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Artemisinin-based combination therapy in pregnant women in Zambia: efficacy, safety and risk of recurrent malaria
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1851-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Nambozi, Jean-Bertin Bukasa Kabuya, Sebastian Hachizovu, David Mwakazanga, Joyce Mulenga, Webster Kasongo, Jozefien Buyze, Modest Mulenga, Jean-Pierre Van Geertruyden, Umberto D’Alessandro

Abstract

In Zambia, malaria is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, especially among under five children and pregnant women. For the latter, the World Health Organization recommends the use of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in the second and third trimester of pregnancy. In a context of limited information on ACT, the safety and efficacy of three combinations, namely artemether-lumefantrine (AL), mefloquine-artesunate (MQAS) and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAPQ) were assessed in pregnant women with malaria. The trial was carried out between July 2010 and August 2013 in Nchelenge district, Luapula Province, an area of high transmission, as part of a multi-centre trial. Women in the second or third trimester of pregnancy and with malaria were recruited and randomized to one of the three study arms. Women were actively followed up for 63 days, and then at delivery and 1 year post-delivery. Nine hundred pregnant women were included, 300 per arm. PCR-adjusted treatment failure was 4.7% (12/258) (95% CI 2.7-8.0) for AL, 1.3% (3/235) (95% CI 0.4-3.7) for MQAS and 0.8% (2/236) (95% CI 0.2-3.0) for DHAPQ, with significant risk difference between AL and DHAPQ (p = 0.01) and between AL and MQAS (p = 0.03) treatments. Re-infections during follow up were more frequent in the AL (HR: 4.71; 95% CI 3.10-7.2; p < 0.01) and MQAS (HR: 1.59; 95% CI 1.02-2.46; p = 0.04) arms compared to the DHAPQ arm. PCR-adjusted treatment failure was significantly associated with women under 20 years [Hazard Ratio (HR) 5.35 (95% CI 1.07-26.73; p = 0.04)] and higher malaria parasite density [3.23 (95% CI 1.03-10.10; p = 0.04)], and still women under 20 years [1.78, (95% CI 1.26-2.52; p < 0.01)] had a significantly higher risk of re-infection. The three treatments were generally well tolerated. Dizziness, nausea, vomiting, headache and asthenia as adverse events (AEs) were more common in MQAS than in AL or DHAPQ (p < 0.001). Birth outcomes were not significantly different between treatment arms. As new infections can be prevented by a long acting partner drug to the artemisinins, DHAPQ should be preferred in places as Nchelenge district where transmission is intense while in areas of low transmission intensity AL or MQAS may be used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 64 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 67 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,517,540
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,411
of 5,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,042
of 311,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#88
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.