Safety of atovaquone-proguanil during pregnancy
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Safety of atovaquone-proguanil during pregnancy

Filetype[PDF-57.26 KB]


English
Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

Details:

  • Alternative Title:
    J Travel Med
  • Personal Author:
  • Description:
    Background:

    Malaria during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal and foetal complications. There are very limited options for prophylaxis in pregnant travellers. Atovaquone-Proguanil (AP or Malarone®) is an effective and well-tolerated antimalarial medication, but is not recommended for use in pregnancy due to limited data on safety. Passively reported adverse event data may provide additional information on the safety of AP during pregnancy.

    Methods:

    We analysed adverse event data on pregnancy and birth outcomes following accidental exposures to AP during pregnancy, which were passively reported to GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) between 13 May 1997 and 15 August 2017. Birth outcomes of interest included live birth, miscarriage, and stillbirth. Adverse outcomes of interest were defined as any of the following: small for gestational age (SGA), low birth weight (LBW, <2500 gm), congenital anomalies, and a composite ‘poor live birth outcome,’ including preterm birth (PTB), LBW or SGA.

    Results:

    Among 198 women who received AP during pregnancy or breastfeeding, 96.5% occurred in women taking malaria prophylaxis, and 79.8% of exposures occurred in the first trimester. Among 195 with available birth outcome data, 18.5% resulted in miscarriage and 11.8% were elective terminations. Available adverse outcomes included SGA in3.5% (3/85), LBW in 7.0% of infants (6/86), and the composite ‘poor live birth outcome’ in 13.7% (14/102). Congenital anomalies were reported in 30/124 (24.2%), with no specific pattern to suggest an effect related to AP.

    Conclusions:

    These data provide a description of outcomes in the pregnancies reported to this dataset, and it should be noted that there is likely a bias towards reporting cases resulting in poor outcomes. While there was no specific signal to suggest a teratogenic effect of AP, AP data during pregnancy were too limited to determine AP’s safety with confidence. As inadvertent exposures are not infrequent, better data are needed.

  • Subjects:
  • Source:
    J Travel Med. 26(4)
  • Pubmed ID:
    30544231
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC6590067
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Funding:
    CC999999/Intramural CDC HHS/United States
  • Volume:
    26
  • Issue:
    4
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov