How experiences become data: the process of eliciting adverse event, medical history and concomitant medication reports in antimalarial and antiretroviral interaction trials

Pharmacokinetic profile of amodiaquine and its active metabolite desethylamodiaquine in Ghanaian patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria

BACKGROUND

Accurate measurement of anti-malarial drug concentrations in therapeutic efficacy studies is essential to distinguish between inadequate drug exposure and anti-malarial drug resistance, and to inform optimal anti-malarial dosing in key target population groups.

METHODS

A sensitive and selective LC-MS/MS method was developed and validated for the simultaneous determination of amodiaquine and its active metabolite, desethylamodiaquine, and used to describe their pharmacokinetic parameters in Ghanaian patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria treated with the fixed-dose combination, artesunate-amodiaquine.

RESULTS

The day-28 genotype-adjusted adequate clinical and parasitological response rate in 308 patients studied was > 97% by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. After excluding 64 patients with quantifiable amodiaquine concentrations pre-treatment and 17 with too few quantifiable concentrations, the pharmacokinetic analysis included 227 patients (9 infants, 127 aged 1-4 years, 91 aged ≥ 5 years). Increased median day-3 amodiaquine concentrations were associated with a lower risk of treatment failure [HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.98), p = 0.021]. Amodiaquine exposure (median AUC0-∞) was significantly higher in infants (4201 ng h/mL) and children aged 1-5 years (1994 ng h/mL) compared to older children and adults (875 ng h/mL, p = 0.001), even though infants received a lower mg/kg amodiaquine dose (median 25.3 versus 33.8 mg/kg in older patients). Desethylamodiaquine AUC0-∞ was not significantly associated with age. No significant safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of artesunate-amodiaquine at currently recommended dosage regimens was high across all age groups. Reassuringly, amodiaquine and desethylamodiaquine exposure was not reduced in underweight-for-age young children or those with high parasitaemia, two of the most vulnerable target populations. A larger pharmacokinetic study with close monitoring of safety, including full blood counts and liver function tests, is needed to confirm the higher amodiaquine exposure in infants, understand any safety implications and assess whether dose optimization in this vulnerable, understudied population is needed.

"Side effects--part of the package": a mixed methods approach to study adverse events among patients being programmatically treated for DR-TB in Gujarat, India

Background

High rates of Adverse Events (AEs) during treatment is one of the leading causes of unsuccessful treatment outcomes among patients with drug resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). However, information related to AEs is not systematically collected and managed under programmatic setting. The present study assessed the a) incidence and pattern of adverse events in first three months of DR-TB treatment initiation; b) treatment seeking behaviour for AE management; and c) explore the challenges in seeking treatment and reporting AEs.

Methods

This mixed methods study included all patients diagnosed and initiated on treatment under RNTCP during July–September 2018 at Ahmedabad DR-TB centre. The patients were interviewed telephonically and assessed for all AEs experienced by them. In-depth interviews and key-informant interviews were conducted among patients, DOTS supervisors and programme staff (treatment supervisors, medical officer and district program managers).

Results

Total 207 AEs were reported by the 74 DR-TB patients. All patients experienced at least one AE during initial treatment period. Incidence rate of AEs (experienced) was 3.11 (1st month-4.6, 2nd month-2.7, 3rd month-2.02) per 100 person days. Of the 207 AEs, gastro-intestinal (59, 28.3%), ophthalmic (32, 15.4%) and otolaryngology (25, 11.9%) system related AEs were commonly experienced. Treatment was not sought in two-fifths of the AEs. Themes and sub-themes related to challenges in treatment seeking or reporting of AEs were 1) Patient related-Misconceptions, accessibility and affordability of management, lack of counselling support, stigma and discrimination, and past treatment experience; 2) Health system related- lack of guidelines and training for AE management, 3) Poor coordination between hospital and tuberculosis centre.

Conclusion

The incidence of AEs was high among patients with DR-TB in the first three months of treatment and treatment seeking/reporting was low. Adequate health education and counselling of the patient and orientation of the health systems is the need of the hour. An efficient real-time reporting and management of AE should be developed and tested for effective DR-TB control.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-020-05660-w.

Safety and tolerability of single low-dose primaquine in a low-intensity transmission area in South Africa: an open-label, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To reduce onward falciparum malaria transmission, the World Health Organization recommends adding single low-dose (SLD) primaquine to artemisinin-based combination treatment in low transmission areas. However, uptake of this recommendation has been relatively slow given concerns about whether individual risks justify potential community benefit. This study was undertaken to generate comprehensive local data on the risk-benefit profile of SLD primaquine deployment in a pre-elimination area in South Africa.

METHODS

This randomized, controlled open-label trial investigated adding a single low primaquine dose on day 3 to standard artemether-lumefantrine treatment for uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of artemether-lumefantrine and primaquine treatment were assessed on days 3, 7, 14, 28 and 42. Lumefantrine concentrations were assayed from dried blood spot samples collected on day 7.

RESULTS

Of 217 patients screened, 166 were enrolled with 140 randomized on day 3, 70 to each study arm (primaquine and no primaquine). No gametocytes were detected by either microscopy or PCR in any of the follow-up samples collected after randomization on day 3, precluding assessment of primaquine efficacy. Prevalence of the CYP2D6*4, CYP2D6*10 and CYP2D6*17 mutant alleles was low with allelic frequencies of 0.02, 0.11 and 0.16, respectively; none had the CYP2D6*4/*4 variant associated with null activity. Among 172 RDT-positive patients G6PD-genotyped, 24 (14%) carried the G6PD deficient (A-) variant. Median haemoglobin concentrations were similar between treatment arms throughout follow-up. A third of participants had a haemoglobin drop > 2 g/dL; this was not associated with primaquine treatment but may be associated with G6PD genotype [52.9% (9/17) with A- genotype vs. 31% (36/116) with other genotypes (p = 0.075)]. Day 7 lumefantrine concentrations and the number and nature of adverse events were similar between study arms; only one serious adverse event occurred (renal impairment in the no primaquine arm). The artemether-lumefantrine PCR-corrected adequate clinical and parasitological response rate was 100%, with only one re-infection found among the 128 patients who completed 42-day follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety, tolerability, CYP2D6 and G6PD variant data from this study support the deployment of the WHO-recommended SLD primaquine without G6PD testing to advance malaria elimination in South African districts with low-intensity residual transmission. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, PACTR201611001859416. Registered 11 November 2016, https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=1859.

The impact of adverse events on health-related quality of life among patients receiving treatment for drug-resistant tuberculosis in Johannesburg, South Africa

BACKGROUND

Adverse events (AEs) are common during treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). Little is known about the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients receiving treatment for DR-TB or the effect of AEs on HRQoL.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study among adult patients with laboratory-confirmed rifampicin resistant tuberculosis (TB) on DR-TB treatment at a public-sector outpatient DR-TB clinic in Johannesburg, South Africa between 02/2015-01/2018. Data on HRQoL using the Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire and self-reported AEs were collected by trained interviewers through face-to-face interviews. We report averages for the eight major domains and mental (MCS) and physical health (PCS) component summary scores, stratified by whether AEs were reported in the last four weeks. For comparative purposes, we enrolled two other patient groups and included data on a separate group of healthy adults.

RESULTS

We enrolled 149 DR-TB patients (median age 36 years IQR 29-43, 55% male, 77.9% HIV-positive, 81% on ART, 61.8% on a standard long-course regimen and 44.3% on DR-TB treatment for less than 6 months). 58/149 (38.9%) patients reported a total of 122 AEs in the preceding 4 weeks, of these the most common were joint pain (n = 22), peripheral neuropathy (n = 16), hearing loss (n = 15), nausea and vomiting (n = 12) and dizziness or vertigo (n = 11). SF-36 domains and summary scores (MCS and PCS) were lower in those who reported an AE compared to those who did not, and both were lower than healthy adults. Compared to those who did not report an AE, patients who reported AEs were more likely to have a low MCS (aRR 2.24 95% CI 1.53-3.27) and PCS (aRR 1.52 95% CI 1.07-2.18) summary score. HRQoL was lower among those on DR-TB treatment for 6 months or less.

CONCLUSION

Results show that DR-TB had a substantial impact on patients' quality of life, but that AEs during the early months on treatment may be responsible for reducing HRQoL even further. Our findings highlight the negative effects of injectable agents on HRQoL. Patients require an integrative patient-centered approach to deal with DR-TB and HIV and the potential overlapping toxicities which may be worsened by concurrent treatment.

Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Analysis of drug safety in clinical trials involves assessing adverse events (AEs) individually or by aggregate statistical synthesis to provide evidence of likely adverse drug reactions (ADR). While some AEs may be ascertained from physical examinations or tests, there is great reliance on reports from participants to detect subjective symptoms, where he/she is often the only source of information. There is no consensus on how these reports should be elicited, although it is known that questioning methods influence the extent and nature of data detected. This leaves room for measurement error and undermines comparisons between studies and pooled analyses. This review investigated comparisons of methods used in trials to elicit participant-reported AEs. This should contribute to knowledge about the methodological challenges and possible solutions for achieving better, or more consistent, AE ascertainment in trials.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the research that has compared methods used within clinical drug trials (or methods that would be specific for such trials) to elicit information about AEs defined in the protocol or in the planning for the trial.

SEARCH METHODS

Databases (searched to March 2015 unless indicated otherwise) included: Embase; MEDLINE; MEDLINE in Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Cochrane Methodology Register (July 2012); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (February 2015); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (January 2015); Health Technology Assessment database (January 2015); CINAHL; CAB Abstracts; BIOSIS (July 2013); Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. The search used thesaurus headings and synonyms for the following concepts: (A): Adverse events AND measurement; (B): Participants AND elicitation (also other synonyms for extraction of information about adverse effects from people); (C): Participants AND checklists (also other synonyms as for B). Pragmatic ways were used to limit the results whilst trying to maintain sensitivity. There were no date or sample size restrictions but only reports published in English were included fully, because of resource constraints as regards translation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two types of studies were included: drug trials comparing two or more methods within- or between-participants to elicit participant-reported AEs, and research studies performed outside the context of a trial to compare methods which could be used in trials (evidenced by reference to such applicability). Primary outcome data included AEs elicited from participants taking part in any such clinical trial. We included any participant-reported data relevant for an assessment of drug-related harm, using the original authors' terminology (and definition, where available), with comment on whether the data were likely to be treatment-emergent AEs or not.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility. Full texts of potentially eligible citations were independently reviewed for final eligibility. Relevant data were extracted and subjected to a 100% check. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, involving a third author. The risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors. The Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool was used for reports comparing outcomes between participants, while for within-participant comparisons, each study was critically evaluated in terms of potential impact of the design and conduct on findings using the framework of selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases. An attempt was made to contact authors to retrieve protocols or specific relevant missing information. Reports were not excluded on the basis of quality unless data for outcomes were impossible to compare (e.g. where denominators differed). A narrative synthesis was conducted because differences in study design and presentation meant that a quantitative meta-analysis was not possible.

MAIN RESULTS

The 33 eligible studies largely compared open questions with checklist-type questions or rating scales. Two included participant interviews. Despite different designs, populations and details of questioning methods, the narrative review showed that more specific questioning of participants led to more AEs detected compared to a more general enquiry. A subset of six studies suggested that more severe, bothersome, or otherwise clinically relevant AEs were reported when an initial open enquiry was used, while some less severe, bothersome, or clinically relevant AEs were only reported with a subsequent specific enquiry. However, two studies showed that quite severe or debilitating AEs were only detected by an interview, while other studies did not find a difference in the nature of AEs between elicitation methods. No conclusions could be made regarding the impact of question method on the ability to detect a statistically significant difference between study groups. There was no common statistical rubric, but we were able to represent some effect measures as a risk ratio of the proportion of participants with at least one AE. This showed a lower level of reporting for open questions (O) compared to checklists (CL), with a range for the risk ratios of 0.12 to 0.64.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review supports concerns that methods to elicit participant-reported AEs influence the detection of these data. There was a risk for under-detection of AEs in studies using a more general elicitation method compared to those using a comprehensive method. These AEs may be important from a clinical perspective or for patients. This under-detection could compromise ability to pool AE data. However, the impact on the nature of the AE detected by different methods is unclear. The wide variety and low quality of methods to compare elicitation strategies limited this review. Future studies would be improved by using and reporting clear definitions and terminology for AEs (and other important variables), frequency and time period over which they were ascertained, how they were graded, assessed for a relationship to the study drug, coded, and tabulated/reported. While the many potential AE endpoints in a trial may preclude the development of general AE patient-reported outcome measurement instruments, much could also be learnt from how these employ both quantitative and qualitative methods to better understand data elicited. Any chosen questioning method needs to be feasible for use by both staff and participants.

Patient-Reported Adverse Effects Associated with Combination Antiretroviral Therapy and Coadministered Enzyme-Inducing Antiepileptic Drugs

AbstractConcurrent treatment with combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) and an enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drug (EI-AED) is common in resource-limited settings; however, the incidence and impact of adverse effects in cotreated patients is largely unknown. Symptoms of adverse effects were assessed by both spontaneous report and checklist for 145 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected Zambian adults initiating various treatment combinations, such as cART with an EI-AED (N = 20), cART only (N = 43), or neither drug (untreated; N = 82). At study baseline, the cART + EI-AED group reported more headache, generalized fatigue, problems with concentration, and depression than the untreated group (P < 0.01 for all). At 2 weeks, a greater proportion of cART + EI-AED participants reported increased nausea or vomiting compared with baseline (P < 0.05). Adverse effects did not appear to impact self-reported adherence at 2 weeks as 100% cART adherence was reported in 19 of 20 (95%) and 42 of 43 (98%) cART + EI-AED and cART-only participants, respectively; 100% EI-AED adherence was reported in 19 of 20 (95%) participants. However, adherence at 6 months was suboptimal in both groups with 18 of 33 (56%) participants on cART experiencing greater than 1-week lapse in pharmacy-reported medication supply. Our results highlight the need to educate patients about the increased potential for nausea and vomiting with cART + EI-AED cotreatment. Although adherence was high early during treatment, adherence should be reinforced overtime to minimize the potential for HIV and/or epilepsy treatment failure.

Working towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study

BACKGROUND

Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission.

METHODS

Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies.

RESULTS

Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools.

CONCLUSIONS

This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and non-study medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited anti-malarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.

Discordance between patient and clinician reports of adverse reactions to MDR-TB treatment

SETTING

An urban out-patient clinic in Durban, South Africa, providing community-based treatment for drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB).

OBJECTIVE

To describe concordance between patient report and clinician documentation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to treatment for multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).

DESIGN

ADRs were documented by interview using an 18-item symptom checklist and medical record data abstraction during a cross-sectional parent study with 121 MDR-TB patients, 75% of whom were co-infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. Concordance was analyzed using Cohen's κ statistic, Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC) 1, and McNemar's test.

RESULTS

ADRs were reported much more frequently in patient interviews (μ = 8.6) than in medical records (μ = 1.4). Insomnia was most common (67% vs. 2%), followed by peripheral neuropathy (65% vs. 18%), and confusion (61 vs. 4%). κ scores were very low, with the highest degree of concordance found in hearing loss (κ = 0.23), which was the only ADR not found to be significantly different between the two data sources (P = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed a lack of concordance between patient report and clinician documentation of ADRs. These findings indicate the need for improved documentation of ADRs to better reflect patients' experiences during MDR-TB treatment. These data have important implications for country-level pharmacovigilance programs that rely on clinician documentation of ADRs for MDR-TB policy formation.

Bloodstream Infections and Frequency of Pretreatment Associated With Age and Hospitalization Status in Sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

The clinical diagnosis of bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) in sub-Saharan Africa is routinely confused with malaria due to overlapping symptoms. The Typhoid Surveillance in Africa Program (TSAP) recruited febrile inpatients and outpatients of all ages using identical study procedures and enrollment criteria, thus providing an opportunity to assess disease etiology and pretreatment patterns among children and adults.

METHODS

Inpatients and outpatients of all ages with tympanic or axillary temperatures of ≥38.0 or ≥37.5°C, respectively, and inpatients only reporting fever within the previous 72 hours were eligible for recruitment. All recruited patients had one blood sample drawn and cultured for microorganisms. Data from 11 TSAP surveillance sites in nine different countries were used in the analysis. Bivariate analysis was used to compare frequencies of pretreatment and BSIs in febrile children (<15 years old) and adults (≥15 years old) in each country. Pooled Cochran Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for overall trends.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the odds of a culture-proven BSI between children and adults among inpatients or outpatients. Among both inpatients and outpatients, children had significantly higher odds of having a contaminated blood culture compared with adults. Using country-pooled data, child outpatients had 66% higher odds of having Salmonella Typhi in their bloodstream than adults (OR, 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.73). Overall, inpatient children had 59% higher odds of pretreatment with analgesics in comparison to inpatient adults (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.97).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients with culture-proven BSIs in children compared with adults was similar across the TSAP study population; however, outpatient children were more likely to have Salmonella Typhi infections than outpatient adults. This finding points to the importance of including outpatient facilities in surveillance efforts, particularly for the surveillance of typhoid fever. Strategies to reduce contamination among pediatric blood cultures are needed across the continent to prevent the misdiagnosis of BSI cases in children.

The interaction between artemether-lumefantrine and lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected patients

Background

Artemether-lumefantrine is currently the most widely recommended treatment of uncomplicated malaria. Lopinavir–based antiretroviral therapy is the commonly recommended second-line HIV treatment. Artemether and lumefantrine are metabolised by cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A4, which lopinavir/ritonavir inhibits, potentially causing clinically important drug-drug interactions.

Methods

An adaptive, parallel-design safety and pharmacokinetic study was conducted in HIV-infected (malaria-negative) patients: antiretroviral-naïve and those stable on lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretrovirals. Both groups received the recommended six-dose artemether-lumefantrine treatment. The primary outcome was day-7 lumefantrine concentrations, as these correlate with antimalarial efficacy. Adverse events were solicited throughout the study, recording the onset, duration, severity, and relationship to artemether-lumefantrine.

Results

We enrolled 34 patients. Median day-7 lumefantrine concentrations were almost 10-fold higher in the lopinavir than the antiretroviral-naïve group [3170 versus 336 ng/mL; p = 0.0001], with AUC_(0-inf) and C_max increased five-fold [2478 versus 445 μg.h/mL; p = 0.0001], and three-fold [28.2 versus 8.8 μg/mL; p < 0.0001], respectively. Lumefantrine C_max, and AUC_(0-inf) increased significantly with mg/kg dose in the lopinavir, but not the antiretroviral-naïve group. While artemether exposure was similar between groups, C_max and AUC_(0-8h) of its active metabolite dihydroartemisinin were initially two-fold higher in the lopinavir group [p = 0.004 and p = 0.0013, respectively]. However, this difference was no longer apparent after the last artemether-lumefantrine dose. Within 21 days of starting artemether-lumefantrine there were similar numbers of treatment emergent adverse events (42 vs. 35) and adverse reactions (12 vs. 15, p = 0.21) in the lopinavir and antiretroviral-naïve groups, respectively. There were no serious adverse events and no difference in electrocardiographic QTcF- and PR-intervals, at the predicted lumefantrine T_max.

Conclusion

Despite substantially higher lumefantrine exposure, intensive monitoring in our relatively small study raised no safety concerns in HIV-infected patients stable on lopinavir-based antiretroviral therapy given the recommended artemether-lumefantrine dosage. Increased day-7 lumefantrine concentrations have been shown previously to reduce the risk of malaria treatment failure, but further evidence in adult patients co-infected with malaria and HIV is needed to assess the artemether-lumefantrine risk : benefit profile in this vulnerable population fully. Our antiretroviral-naïve patients confirmed previous findings that lumefantrine absorption is almost saturated at currently recommended doses, but this dose-limited absorption was overcome in the lopinavir group.

Trial registration

Clinical Trial Registration number NCT00869700. Registered on clinicaltrials.gov 25 March 2009

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1345-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Influences on participant reporting in the World Health Organisation drugs exposure pregnancy registry; a qualitative study

Background

The World Health Organisation has designed a pregnancy registry to investigate the effect of maternal drug use on pregnancy outcomes in resource-limited settings. In this sentinel surveillance system, detailed health and drug use data are prospectively collected from the first antenatal clinic visit until delivery. Over and above other clinical records, the registry relies on accurate participant reports about the drugs they use. Qualitative methods were incorporated into a pilot registry study during 2010 and 2011 to examine barriers to women reporting these drugs and other exposures at antenatal clinics, and how they might be overcome.

Methods

Twenty-seven focus group discussions were conducted in Ghana, Kenya and Uganda with a total of 208 women either enrolled in the registry or from its source communities. A question guide was designed to uncover the types of exposure data under- or inaccurately reported at antenatal clinics, the underlying reasons, and how women prefer to be asked questions. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

Results

Women said it was important for them to report everything they had used during pregnancy. However, they expressed reservations about revealing their consumption of traditional, over-the-counter medicines and alcohol to antenatal staff because of anticipated negative reactions. Some enrolled participants' improved relationship with registry staff facilitated information sharing and the registry tools helped overcome problems with recall and naming of medicines. Decisions about where women sought care, which influenced medicines used and antenatal clinic attendance, were influenced by pressure within and outside of the formal healthcare system to conform to conflicting behaviours. Conversations also reflected women's responsibilities for producing a healthy baby.

Conclusions

Women in this study commonly take traditional medicines in pregnancy, and to a lesser extent over-the-counter medicines and alcohol. The World Health Organisation pregnancy registry shows potential to enhance their reporting of these substances at the antenatal clinic. However, more work is needed to find optimal techniques for eliciting accurate reports, especially where the detail of constituents may never be known. It will also be important to find ways of sustaining such drug exposure surveillance systems in busy antenatal clinics.