Lorna Dunning1, Max Kroon, Lezanne Fourie, Andrea Ciaranello, Landon Myer. 1. From the *Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Family Medicine and †Department of Neonatal Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; and ‡Division of Infectious Disease, Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Polymerase chain reaction testing at birth ("birth-testing") is suggested by new World Health Organization guidelines for rapid diagnosis of infants infected with HIV in utero. However, there are few data on the implementation of this approach in sub-Saharan Africa, and whether birth testing affects uptake of subsequent routine early infant diagnosis (EID) testing at 6-10 weeks of age is unknown. METHODS: We reviewed 575 consecutive infants undergoing targeted high-risk birth testing in Cape Town, South Africa, and matched those testing HIV negative at birth (n = 551) to HIV-exposed infants who did not receive birth testing (n = 551). Maternal and infant clinical and demographic data, including EID testing uptake, were abstracted from routine records. RESULTS: Overall, 3.8% of all birth tests conducted were positive while later EID testing positivity rates were 0.5% for those infants testing HIV negative at birth and 0.4% for those without birth testing. Infants who underwent birth testing were less likely to present for later EID compared with those without a birth test (73% vs. 85%; P < 0.001). This difference persisted after adjusting for maternal and infant characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.86) and across demographic and clinical subgroups. Infants undergoing birth testing also presented for later EID at a significantly older age (mean age, 60 vs. 50 days; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While the yield of targeted high-risk birth testing in this setting appears high, neonates testing HIV negative at birth may be less likely to present for subsequent EID testing. For birth testing implementation to contribute to overall EID program goals, structured interventions are required to support follow-up EID services after negative birth test results.
INTRODUCTION: Polymerase chain reaction testing at birth ("birth-testing") is suggested by new World Health Organization guidelines for rapid diagnosis of infants infected with HIV in utero. However, there are few data on the implementation of this approach in sub-Saharan Africa, and whether birth testing affects uptake of subsequent routine early infant diagnosis (EID) testing at 6-10 weeks of age is unknown. METHODS: We reviewed 575 consecutive infants undergoing targeted high-risk birth testing in Cape Town, South Africa, and matched those testing HIV negative at birth (n = 551) to HIV-exposed infants who did not receive birth testing (n = 551). Maternal and infant clinical and demographic data, including EID testing uptake, were abstracted from routine records. RESULTS: Overall, 3.8% of all birth tests conducted were positive while later EID testing positivity rates were 0.5% for those infants testing HIV negative at birth and 0.4% for those without birth testing. Infants who underwent birth testing were less likely to present for later EID compared with those without a birth test (73% vs. 85%; P < 0.001). This difference persisted after adjusting for maternal and infant characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.86) and across demographic and clinical subgroups. Infants undergoing birth testing also presented for later EID at a significantly older age (mean age, 60 vs. 50 days; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While the yield of targeted high-risk birth testing in this setting appears high, neonates testing HIV negative at birth may be less likely to present for subsequent EID testing. For birth testing implementation to contribute to overall EID program goals, structured interventions are required to support follow-up EID services after negative birth test results.
Authors: Barbara Laughton; Morna Cornell; Debbie Grove; Martin Kidd; Priscilla E Springer; Els Dobbels; Anita J van Rensburg; Avy Violari; Abdel G Babiker; Shabir A Madhi; Patrick Jean-Philippe; Diana M Gibb; Mark F Cotton Journal: AIDS Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Avy Violari; Mark F Cotton; Diana M Gibb; Abdel G Babiker; Jan Steyn; Shabir A Madhi; Patrick Jean-Philippe; James A McIntyre Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mary-Ann Davies; Margaret May; Carolyn Bolton-Moore; Cleophas Chimbetete; Brian Eley; Daniela Garone; Janet Giddy; Harry Moultrie; James Ndirangu; Sam Phiri; Helena Rabie; Karl-Günter Technau; Robin Wood; Andrew Boulle; Matthias Egger; Olivia Keiser Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Joseph Rujumba; Stella Neema; James K Tumwine; Thorkild Tylleskär; Harald K Heggenhougen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Bharat S Parekh; Chin-Yih Ou; Peter N Fonjungo; Mireille B Kalou; Erin Rottinghaus; Adrian Puren; Heather Alexander; Mackenzie Hurlston Cox; John N Nkengasong Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: M Tchuenche; M M Gill; L Bollinger; L Mofenson; M Phalatse; M Nchephe; M Mokone; V Tukei; A Tiam; S Forsythe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anne M Neilan; Kunjal Patel; Allison L Agwu; Ingrid V Bassett; K Rivet Amico; Catherine M Crespi; Aditya H Gaur; Keith J Horvath; Kimberly A Powers; H Jonathon Rendina; Lisa B Hightow-Weidman; Xiaoming Li; Sylvie Naar; Sharon Nachman; Jeffrey T Parsons; Kit N Simpson; Bonita F Stanton; Kenneth A Freedberg; Audrey C Bangs; Michael G Hudgens; Andrea L Ciaranello Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2019-04-16
Authors: Emma Kalk; Max Kroon; Andrew Boulle; Meg Osler; Jonathan Euvrard; Kathryn Stinson; Venessa Timmerman; Mary-Ann Davies Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Issa Sabi; Hellen Mahiga; Jimson Mgaya; Otto Geisenberger; Sabine Kastner; Willyhelmina Olomi; Elmar Saathoff; Lilian Njovu; Cornelia Lueer; John France; Leonard Maboko; Nyanda Elias Ntinginya; Michael Hoelscher; Arne Kroidl Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 9.079