| Literature DB >> 34886792 |
Joseph Simbaya1, Patricia Funjika2, Arthur Moonga3, John Mwale4, Chipepo Kankasa5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study piloted the feasibility of infant testing in immunization services as a strategy for estimating MTCT rates among the population of HIV exposed infants at national and subnational levels in Zambia.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; Children; HIV; Mother-to-child transmission
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34886792 PMCID: PMC8655713 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06892-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Study participation rates per Province
| Province | District | Clients | Contacted consenting | Refusals | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| For interviews | For blood test | Interview | For blood test | |||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| Copperbelt | Ndola | 980 | 965 | 98.5 | 950 | 96.9 | 15 | 1.5 | 30 | 3.1 |
| Kitwe | 987 | 970 | 98.3 | 950 | 96.3 | 17 | 1.7 | 37 | 3.8 | |
| Chingola | 939 | 930 | 99.0 | 813 | 86.6 | 9 | 1.0 | 126 | 13.4 | |
| Total | 2906 | 2865 | 98.6 | 2713 | 93.4 | 41 | 1.4 | 193 | 6.6 | |
| Southern | Livingstone | 958 | 940 | 98.1 | 939 | 98.0 | 18 | 1.9 | 19 | 2.0 |
| Choma | 1053 | 1033 | 98.1 | 1027 | 97.5 | 20 | 1.9 | 26 | 2.5 | |
| Mazabuka | 1105 | 1051 | 95.1 | 994 | 90.0 | 54 | 4.9 | 111 | 10.1 | |
| Total | 3116 | 3024 | 97.1 | 2960 | 95.0 | 92 | 3.0 | 156 | 5.0 | |
| Lusaka | Lusaka | 2500 | 2400 | 96.0 | 2369 | 94.8 | 100 | 4.0 | 131 | 5.2 |
| All | 8522 | 8289 | 97.3 | 8042 | 94.4 | 233 | 2.7 | 480 | 5.6 | |
Fig. 1Infant Sex, HIV Exposure and Vaccination Type. A and B of the figure shows the distribution, in percentage, of sampled infants and HIV exposure by sex. C shows the infant distribution by vaccination type while D shows the infant HIV exposure rate disaggregated by vaccine type and sex
Infant HIV exposure by primary caregiver demographic characteristics
| N | % | Infants exposed | % exposed | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of mother | |||||
| Less than 25 | 3,787 | 47.1 | 407 | 10.8 | P < 0.001 |
| 25–29 | 1962 | 24.4 | 365 | 18.6 | |
| 30 + | 2293 | 28.5 | 637 | 27.8 | |
| Marital status | |||||
| Single | 1303 | 16.2 | 194 | 14.9 | P < 0.001 |
| Cohabiting | 55 | 0.7 | 14 | 25.5 | |
| Married | 6561 | 81.6 | 1,158 | 17.7 | |
| Divorced | 39 | 0.5 | 11 | 28.2 | |
| Separated | 57 | 0.7 | 17 | 29.8 | |
| Widowed | 27 | 0.3 | 15 | 55.6 | |
| Highest level of education | |||||
| Primary | 2300 | 28.6 | 476 | 20.7 | P < 0.001 |
| Secondary | 4991 | 62.1 | 793 | 15.9 | |
| Higher | 457 | 5.7 | 85 | 18.6 | |
| None | 294 | 3.7 | 55 | 18.7 | |
| Occupation (employment status) | |||||
| Formal employment | 625 | 7.8 | 127 | 20.3 | P < 0.001 |
| Self-employed/business | 1899 | 23.6 | 403 | 21.2 | |
| Not employed | 5405 | 67.2 | 865 | 16.0 | |
| School | 70 | 0.9 | 2 | 2.9 | |
| Other | 43 | 0.5 | 12 | 27.9 | |
| Total | 8042 | 100 | 1409 | 17.5 |
Characteristics of HEI and HII
| HEI | HII | MTCT | P-value* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 788 (55.9%) | 25 (48.1%) | 3.2 | P = 0.258 |
| Female | 621 (44.1%) | 27 (51.9%) | 4.4 | |
| All | 1,409 (100%) | 52 (100%) | 3.8 | |
| Age of mother | ||||
| Less than 25 | 407 (28.9%) | 27 (51.9%) | 6.7 | P = 0.002 |
| 25–29 | 365 (25.9%) | 9 (17.3%) | 2.5 | |
| 30 + | 637 (45.2%) | 16 (30.8%) | 2.6 | |
| All | 1409 (100%) | 52 (100%) | 3.8 | |
| Current vaccination | ||||
| Penta 1 | 387 (27.5%) | 18 (34.6%) | 4.7 | P=0.115 |
| Penta 2 | 292 (20.7%) | 8 (15.4%) | 2.8 | |
| Penta 3 | 342 (24.3%) | 7 (13.5%) | 2.1 | |
| Measles | 388 (27.5%) | 19 (36.5%) | 5.0 | |
| All | 1409 (100%) | 52 (100%) | 3.8 | |
| Place of delivery | ||||
| Home | 113 (8.0%) | 9 (17.3%) | 8.1 | P=0.010 |
| Health facility | 1,291 (91.6%) | 42 (80.8%) | 3.3 | |
| Other | 5 (0.4%) | 1 (1.9%) | 25.0 | |
| All | 1409 (100%) | 52 (100%) | 3.8 | |
| Number of ANC visits | ||||
| None | 5 (0.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | P=0.151 |
| 1–2 | 125 (8.9%) | 5 (9.6%) | 4.1 | |
| 3 | 432 (30.8%) | 23 (44.2%) | 5.4 | |
| 4 | 634 (45.3%) | 21 (40.4%) | 3.4 | |
| 5 + | 205 (14.6%) | 3 (5.8%) | 1.5 | |
| All | 1409 (100%) | 52 (100%) | 3.8 | |
| Exclusive breast feeding | ||||
| Yes | 733 (52.0%) | 27 (51.9%) | 3.7 | P=1.000 |
| No | 676 (48.9%) | 25 (48.1%) | 3.8 | |
| All | 1409 (100%) | 52 (100%) | 3.8 |
*Fisher exact test
Fig. 2Number of HIV positive babies by district and infant age/immunization type. The figure shows the number of HIV positive babies by immunization type tested using DNA PCR. The distribution is illustrated at both national level and disaggregated by province
Overall MTCT rates by Province and age of infant/immunization type
| Immunization type | Penta 1 | Penta 2 | Penta 3 | Measles | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infant age | 6 Weeks | 10 Weeks | 14 Weeks | 9 months | ||
| Province | Copperbelt Province | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 6.7 | 3.9 |
| Southern Province | 4.1 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 3.4 | |
| Lusaka Province | 6.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 6.6 | 4.2 | |
| All | 4.7 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 5.0 | 3.8 |
Overall MTCT rates calculated as the proportion of PCR positive infants from the number of HIV exposed infants
Estimated adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals for infant HIV exposure MTCT
| PMTCT interventions/characteristic of primary caregiver | HEI | HII |
|---|---|---|
| Sex of infant | ||
| Male | 1 | |
| Female | 0.4 (− 0.2,1.0 ) | |
| Age of mother | ||
| Less than 25 | 1 | 1 |
| 25–29 | 0.7*** (0.5,0.8) | − 1.1** (− 1.9,− 0.3) |
| 30 + | 1.2*** (1.0,1.3) | − 1.2*** (− 1.9,− 0.5) |
| Current vaccination | ||
| Penta 1 | 1 | |
| Penta 2 | − 0.5 (− 1.5,0.4) | |
| Penta 3 | − 0.7 (− 1.7,0.3) | |
| Measles | 0.6 (− 0.6,1.9) | |
| Place of delivery | ||
| Home | 1 | |
| Health facility | − 0.9* (− 1.8,− 0.1 ) | |
| Other | 1.4 (− 1.0,3.8) | |
| Number of ANC Visitsa | ||
| 1–2 | 1 | |
| 3 | 0.7 (− 0.4,1.8) | |
| 4 | 0.1 (− 1.1,1.2) | |
| 5 + | − 0.9 (− 2.3,0.6) | |
| Exclusive breast feeding | ||
| Yes | 1 | |
| No | − 0.5 (− 1.5,0.6) | |
| Marital status* | ||
| Single | 1 | 1 |
| Cohabiting | 0.4 (− 0.2,1.1) | 1.1(− 0.6,2.7) |
| Married | − 0.2**(− 0.4,− 0.1) | − 0.3(− 1.1,0.4) |
| Divorced | 0.3(− 0.5,1.0) | |
| Separated | 0.4(− 0.2,1.0) | 1.3(− 0.3,2.9) |
| Widowed | 1.3**(0.5,2.1) | 0.7(− 1.4,2.8) |
| Highest level of Education | ||
| Primary | 1 | 1 |
| Secondary | − 0.2** (− 0.3,− 0.1) | − 0.7*(− 1.3,− 0.0) |
| Higher | − 0.2 (− 0.5,0.0) | 0.8 (− 0.2,1.9) |
| None | − 0.2 (− 0.5,0.1) | -1.1(− 3.1,0.9 ) |
| Occupation (employment status)a | ||
| Not employed | 1 | 1 |
| Formal employment | 0.0(− 0.2,0.3) | − 1.3(− 2.7,0.1) |
| Self-employed/business | 0.1(− 0.0,0.2) | − 0.1 (− 0.8,0.6) |
| In school | − 1.6* (− 3.1,− 0.2) | |
| Other | 0.7 (− 0.0,1.5) | -0.1(− 2.5,2.3 ) |
aExcluded from the HII analysis were those who did not go for ANC (5), were divorced (9) or in school(2). N for HEI (8042), HII (1361). *p<0.05,**p<0.01, ***p<0.001