| Literature DB >> 30200914 |
Kathryn Lynn Lovero1, Thais Raquelly Dourado de Oliveira2, Estela Magalhães Cosme2, Natália Beatriz Cabrera2, Mariana Fernandes Guimarães2, Juliana Gregório de Avelar2, Giovanna Rodrigues Teixeira de Oliveira2, Camila de Morais Salviato2, Guillermo Douglass-Jaimes3, Maria Leticia Santos Cruz4, Esaú Custódio João4, Ana Cláudia Mamede Wiering de Barros5, Marcos Vinicius da Silva Pone5, Ivete Martins Gomes6, Lee Woodland Riley3, Claudete Aparecida Araújo Cardoso2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite great progress made in methods to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV (MTCT), delivery and uptake of these measures remains a challenge in many countries. Although the Brazilian Ministry of Health aimed to eliminate MTCT by 2015, infection still occured in 15-24% of infants born to HIV-infected mothers. We sought to identify remaining factors that constrain MTCT elimination.Entities:
Keywords: Brazil; HIV; Missed opportunities; PMTCT programme evaluation; Prevention gaps; Vertical transmission
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30200914 PMCID: PMC6131771 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-6002-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Number of cases included at study sites for each year of study period
Sociodemographic characteristics of case and control mothers
| Controls ( | Cases ( | OR (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median Age, Years (Interquartile Range) | 26 (22–32)b | 27 (22–31)c | 1.01 (0.97–1.05) | 0.64 |
| Race | ||||
| White | 94 (32.4) | 28 (19.3) | 1 | |
| Mixed Race | 97 (33.5) | 40 (27.6) | 1.72 (0.90–3.29) | 0.10 |
| Black | 53 (18.3) | 30 (20.7) | 1.30 (0.73–2.32) | 0.37 |
| No information | 46 (15.9) | 47 (32.4) | 4.21 (2.17–8.13) | < 0.000 |
| Marital Status | ||||
| Single | 67 (23.1) | 40 (27.6) | 1 | |
| Married | 119 (41.0) | 55 (37.9) | 0.77 (0.47–1.29) | 0.32 |
| No information | 104 (35.9) | 50 (34.5) | 0.80 (0.46–1.39) | 0.43 |
| Education Level | ||||
| None | 7 (2.4) | 3 (2.1) | 1 | |
| Some or all primary school | 167 (57.6) | 72 (49.7) | 1.42 (0.22–9.36) | 0.71 |
| Some or all secondary school | 61 (21.0) | 18 (12.4) | 1.07 (0.15–7.60) | 0.94 |
| Some or all college | 5 (1.7) | 1 (0.7) | 0.89 (0.05–16.10) | 0.94 |
| No information | 50 (17.2) | 51 (35.2) | 4.67 (0.65–33.60) | 0.13 |
| Employment | ||||
| Unemployed/Home Maker | 126 (43.5) | 52 (35.9) | 1 | |
| Employed | 69 (23.8) | 21 (14.5) | 0.80 (0.43–1.47) | 0.47 |
| Student | 8 (2.8) | 2 (1.4) | 0.58 (0.12–2.81) | 0.50 |
| No information | 87 (30.0) | 70 (48.3) | 2.29 (1.36–3.83) | 0.002 |
| Drug Use | ||||
| Yes | 44 (15.2) | 22 (15.2) | 1 | |
| No | 102 (35.2) | 38 (26.2) | 0.77 (0.41–1.46) | 0.43 |
| No information | 144 (49.7) | 85 (58.6) | 1.48 (0.75–2.95) | 0.26 |
| Residence | ||||
| AGSN | 49 (16.9) | 14 (9.7) | 1 | |
| Non-AGSN | 207 (71.4) | 87 (60.0) | 1.49 (0.78–2.85) | 0.23 |
| No information | 34 (11.7) | 44 (30.3) | 5.68 (2.50–12.88) | < 0.000 |
| Other Child Since Diagnosis | ||||
| Yes | 53 (18.3) | 14 (9.7) | 1 | |
| No | 164 (56.6) | 83 (57.2) | 1.97 (0.99–3.90) | 0.05 |
| No information | 73 (25.2) | 48 (33.1) | 2.74 (1.3105.71) | 0.007 |
aConditional logistic regression; bn = 252; cn = 105
PMTCT measures in case and control mothers
| Controls ( | Cases ( | OR (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antenatal Care | ||||
| Yes | 213 (73.5) | 60 (41.2) | 1 | |
| No | 32 (11.0) | 29 (20.0) | 3.10 (1.68–5.70) | < 0.000 |
| No information | 45 (15.5) | 68 (38.6) | 5.62 (3.11–10.13) | < 0.000 |
| Time of Diagnosis | ||||
| Before/during antenatal | 192 (66.2) | 41 (28.3) | 1 | |
| During delivery | 56 (19.3) | 36 (24.8) | 3.68 (1.90–7.14) | < 0.000 |
| After birth | 14 (4.8) | 36 (24.8) | 11.21 (5.27–23.36) | < 0.000 |
| No information | 28 (9.7) | 32 (22.1) | 6.01 (2.96–12.19) | < 0.000 |
| Gestational Age at First Visit | 18.8 (0.9)b | 22.3 (2.4)c | 1.07 (0.99–1.15) | 0.11 |
| Antenatal Location | ||||
| Some or all in reference centre | 157 (60.9) | 14 (12.1) | 1 | |
| No reference centre | 56 (21.7) | 46 (39.7) | 19.78 (5.65–69.24) | < 0.000 |
| No information | 45 (17.4) | 56 (48.3) | 37.47 (10.73–130.84) | < 0.000 |
| Antenatal ART | ||||
| Yes | 169 (58.3) | 16 (11.0) | 1 | |
| No | 95 (32.8) | 101 (69.7) | 19.41 (8.72–43.21) | < 0.000 |
| No information | 26 (9.0) | 28 (19.3) | 14.91 (5.71–38.93) | < 0.000 |
| Antenatal ART Regimen | ||||
| Triple ARV | 71 (42.0) | 8 (50.0) | 1 | |
| AZT only | 98 (58.0) | 8 (50.0) | 1.38 (0.43–4.43) | 0.54 |
| Intravenous AZT during Delivery | ||||
| Yes | 190 (65.5) | 41 (28.3) | 1 | |
| No | 55 (19.0) | 62 (42.8) | 4.89 (2.91–8.24) | < 0.000 |
| No information | 45 (15.5) | 42 (29.0) | 4.31 (2.38–7.80) | < 0.000 |
| Type of Birth | ||||
| Caesarean | 174(60.0) | 59 (40.7) | 1 | |
| Vaginal | 94 (32.4) | 57 (39.3) | 1.73 (1.11–2.71) | 0.02 |
| No information | 22 (7.6) | 29 (20.0) | 3.74 (1.98–7.09) | < 0.000 |
| ART in Infant | ||||
| Yes | 250 (86.2) | 65 (44.8) | 1 | |
| No | 12 (4.1) | 42 (29.0) | 12.10 (5.79–25.27) | < 0.000 |
| No information | 28 (9.7) | 38 (26.2) | 8.60 (4.04–18.26) | < 0.000 |
| Formula Only | ||||
| Yes | 243 (83.8) | 74 (51.0) | 1 | |
| No | 15 (5.2) | 31 (21.4) | 5.44 (2.84–10.40) | < 0.000 |
| No information | 32 (11.0) | 40 (27.6) | 4.87 (2.60–9.15) | < 0.000 |
aConditional logistic regression; bn = 101; cn = 19
Fig. 2Completion of PMTCT cascade. Number and percentage, in parentheses, of study participants who completed, did not complete, or lacked information on each preventative measure they were known to be eligible to receive. Arrows indicate steps in completion of the PMTCT cascade.
Fig. 3Progress toward elimination of MTCT over study period. Shaded regions indicate the percentage of study participants who did not complete (black), completed (white), and did not have information (grey) on antenatal care (a), HIV diagnosis (b), and antenatal ART (c). Dashed lines indicate percentage of mothers who attended antenatal care that received HIV diagnosis (b), and percentage of mothers who were diagnosed that completed antenatal ART (c)