title: Comparison of routine prenatal iron prophylaxis and screening and treatment for anaemia: pregnancy results and preliminary birth results from a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (PROFEG) in Maputo, Mozambique.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To present the pregnancy results and interim birth results of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing routine iron prophylaxis with screening and treatment for anaemia during pregnancy in a setting of endemic malaria and HIV.
  
  
  METHODS
  A pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two health centres (1° de Maio and Machava) in Maputo, Mozambique, a setting of endemic malaria and high prevalence of HIV.
  
  
  METHODS
  Pregnant women (≥18-year-olds; non-high-risk pregnancy, n=4326) attending prenatal care consultation at the two health centres were recruited to the trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  The women were randomly allocated to either Routine iron (n=2184; 60 mg ferrous sulfate plus 400 μg of folic acid daily throughout pregnancy) or Selective iron (n=2142; screening and treatment for anaemia and daily intake of 1 mg of folic acid).
  
  
  METHODS
  The primary outcomes were preterm delivery (delivery <37 weeks of gestation) and low birth weight (<2500 g). The secondary outcomes were symptoms suggestive of malaria and self-reported malaria during pregnancy; birth length; caesarean section; maternal and child health status after delivery.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The number of follow-up visits was similar in the two groups. Between the first and fifth visits, the two groups were similar regarding the occurrence of fever, headache, cold/chills, nausea/vomiting and body aches. There was a suggestion of increased incidence of self-reported malaria during pregnancy (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.98 to1.92) in the Routine iron group. Birth data were available for 1109 (51%) in the Routine iron group and for 1149 (54%) in the Selective iron group. The birth outcomes were relatively similar in the two groups. However, there was a suggestion (statistically non-significant) of poorer outcomes in the Routine iron group with regard to long hospital stay after birth (relative risk (RR) 1.43, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.26; risk difference (RD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.03) and unavailability of delivery data (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These interim results suggest that routine iron prophylaxis during pregnancy did not confer advantage over screening and treatment for anaemia regarding maternal and child health. Complete data on birth outcomes are being collected for firmer conclusions.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00488579 (June 2007). The first women were randomised to the trial proper April 2007-March 2008. The pilot was November 2006-March 2008. The 3-month lag was due to technical difficulties in completing trial registration.
authors: Health Services and Policy Research, National Institute for Health and Welfare,  Helsinki,  Finland.
authors: Saara
authors: S
authors: Parkkali
authors: Fatima
authors: F
authors: Abacassamo
authors: Bright Ibeabughichi
authors: BI
authors: Nwaru
authors: Graca
authors: G
authors: Salomé
authors: Orvalho
authors: O
authors: Augusto
authors: Elena
authors: E
authors: Regushevskaya
authors: Martinho
authors: M
authors: Dgedge
authors: Cesar
authors: C
authors: Sousa
authors: Julie
authors: J
authors: Cliff
authors: Baltazar
authors: B
authors: Chilundo
authors: Elina
authors: E
authors: Hemminki
references: HIV Clin Trials. 2007 Jul-Aug;8(4):246-53
references: 17720665
references: Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1986 Apr;80(2):211-33
references: 3530158
references: Matern Child Nutr. 2015 Apr;11(2):146-63
references: 23020829
references: J Nutr. 2008 Dec;138(12):2537-41
references: 19022986
references: J Nutr. 2003 May;133(5 Suppl 2):1606S-1625S
references: 12730475
references: JAMA. 2010 Dec 22;304(24):2716-23
references: 21177506
references: Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Dec;78(6):1194-202
references: 14668283
references: BMJ. 2008 Nov 07;337:a2001
references: 18996930
references: Arch Dis Child. 2008 Aug;93(8):660-4
references: 18644934
references: Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jul;72(1 Suppl):272S-279S
references: 10871593
references: BMJ. 2003 Mar 15;326(7389):571
references: 12637400
references: Hum Reprod. 2000 Aug;15(8):1843-8
references: 10920115
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Jul;106(1):3-7
references: 19368922
references: Lancet. 2005 Mar 5-11;365(9462):891-900
references: 15752534
references: J Nutr. 2001 Feb;131(2S-2):604S-614S; discussion 614S-615S
references: 11160593
references: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1994 Sep-Oct;88(5):590-3
references: 7992349
references: J Nutr. 2001 Feb;131(2S-2):616S-633S; discussion 633S-635S
references: 11160594
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Nov 1;170(9):1127-36
references: 19778983
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD004736
references: 19821332
references: Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Nov;66(5):1178-82
references: 9356536
references: J Perinat Med. 2003;31(5):420-6
references: 14601265
references: Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2000 Dec;94(8):759-68; discussion 769-70
references: 11214094
references: BMJ. 2002 Nov 16;325(7373):1142
references: 12433763