Skip to content

Advertisement

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Improved pregnancy outcomes with increasing antiretroviral coverage in South Africa

  • Theron Moodley1,
  • Dhayendre Moodley2Email author,
  • Motshedisi Sebitloane1,
  • Niren Maharaj1 and
  • Benn Sartorius3
BMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:35

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0821-3

Received: 5 August 2015

Accepted: 31 January 2016

Published: 11 February 2016

Abstract

Background

Universal multi drug antiretroviral treatment in pregnancy is a global priority in our bid to eliminate paediatric HIV infections although few studies have documented the impact of antiretroviral coverage on overall pregnancy outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a maternity audit at a large regional hospital in South Africa during July-December 2011 and January-June 2014 with an aim to determine an association between pregnancy outcomes and the ARV treatment guidelines implemented during those specific periods. During 2011, women received either Zidovudine/sd Nevirapine or Stavudine/Lamivudine/Nevirapine if CD4+ count was < 350 cells/ml. During 2014, all HIV positive pregnant women were eligible for a fixed dose combination (FDC) of triple ARVs (Tenofovir/Emtracitabine/Efavirenz).

Results

In 2011, 622 (35.9 %) of 1732 HIV positive pregnant women received triple antiretrovirals (D4T/3TC/NVP) and in 2014, 2104 (94.8 %) of 2219 HIV positive pregnant women received the fixed dose combination (TDF/FTC/EFV). We observed a reduction in the proportion of unregistered pregnancies, caesarean delivery rate, still birth rate, very low birth weight rate, and very premature delivery rate in 2014. In a bivariate analysis of all 9,847 deliveries, unregistered pregnancies (2.2 %) and HIV infection (37.8 %) remained significant risk factors for SB(OR 6.36 and 1.43 respectively), PTD(OR 4.23 and 1.26 respectively),LBW (OR 4.07 and 1.26 respectively) and SGA(OR 2.17 and 1.151 respectively). In a multivariable analysis of HIV positive women only, having received AZT/NVP or D4T/3TC/NVP or EFV/TDF/FTC as opposed to not receiving any ARV was significantly associated with reduced odds of a SB (OR 0.08, 0.21 and 0.18 respectively), PTD (OR 0.52, 0.68 and 0.56 respectively) and LBW(0.37, 0.61 and 0.52 respectively).

Conclusion

An improvement in birth outcomes is likely associated with the increased coverage of triple antiretroviral treatment for pregnant women. And untreated HIV infected women and women who do not seek antenatal care should be considered most at risk for poor birth outcomes.

Background

Since 2005, like most sub Saharan African countries, South Africa prioritised antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV positive pregnant women to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) and improve maternal health [1]. Over the years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended longer duration and multi-drug antiretroviral combinations with improved efficacy in preventing MTCT (PMTCT), and eligibility for lifelong antiretroviral treatment for pregnant women was extended resulting in a remarkable reduction in the perinatal transmission rate at 6 weeks and an improvement in HIV free-survival of children under 2 years of age [24]. More recently, WHO recommendations changed yet again to improve coverage of antiretroviral treatment of women deserving more than just PMTCT prophylaxis [5]. To ensure that women needing antiretroviral treatment are commenced early in pregnancy, sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries most affected by the HIV pandemic adopted the World Health Organisation’s recommendations that all HIV positive women should be commenced on a fixed dose combination (FDC) triple antiretroviral combination (Tenofovir 300 mg, Emtricitabine 200 mg and Efavirenz 600 mg) irrespective of immunological status or disease stage [6]. These progressive changes in HIV management guidelines are intended to address the Millenium Development Goals (MDG) 4 (reduce child mortality), 5 (improve maternal health) and 6 (combat HIV/AIDS) [7]. While substantial progress has been made in reducing the under 5 child and maternal mortality globally, certain regions such as sub-saharan Africa and Southern Asia still need to accelerate progress.

Antiretroviral treatment for women in their reproductive years is expected to have the greatest impact in reducing child mortality associated with HIV infection. However few countries are expected to achieve the MDG 4 target by 2015 [8]. While the under 5 mortality has been reduced by a third since 2000, almost half of the deaths were attributed to infectious causes and 44 % of deaths occurred in the neonatal period [9]. The leading causes of neonatal death were preterm birth complications, intrapartum-related complications, congenital defects incompatible with life and sepsis.

Early studies on use of antiretrovirals in pregnancy in Europe and the US have drawn conflicting associations between antiretrovirals and birth outcomes particularly preterm delivery, low birth weight and still births [1012]. While clinical trial findings may suggest that the benefits of antiretroviral use in pregnancy far outweigh the risk of adverse birth outcomes the changing trend in child mortality particularly neonatal deaths in high HIV burdened countries alludes to the possible association between HIV and antiretroviral use and adverse birth outcomes [9]. Studies in subSaharan Africa have produced conflicting evidence. In early studies before the full scale introduction of antiretroviral treatment in Malawi and Tanzania, HIV disease severity as defined by high viral load or low CD4+ count was significantly associated with preterm delivery and/or low birth weight [13, 14] . In Botswana, stillbirth, preterm delivery (PTD), small for gestational age (SGA), and neonatal deaths were shown to be higher in HIV positive women in comparison to their HIV negative counterparts, but the introduction of HAART increased the risk further [15]. Moreover, the recent findings of a multinational PMTCT study suggest an increased risk of preterm deliveries and low birth weight with a triple ARV regimen as compared to a Zidovudine based dual regimen. The study further reported a higher incidence of more severe birth outcomes (PTD <34w) associated with a Truvada based triple regimen as compared to the Combivir based triple regimen [16].

To determine if antiretroviral coverage and antiretroviral regimens influence overall pregnancy outcomes we conducted a maternity audit during two defined periods of implementing new ART guidelines in a South African population where one in three pregnant women are HIV infected.

Methods

We conducted a cross sectional analysis of birth data abstracted from maternity registers of a regional hospital in Durban, South Africa for the period July to December 2011 and January to June 2014. This retrospective data analysis included all women with viable pregnancies delivering a neonate greater than or equal to 500 g and whose birth outcomes were recorded in the maternity register. Women who had a multiple birth would naturally affect preterm birth and birth weight outcomes and were thus excluded from the analyses i.e. 160 twin pregnancies and 3 triplet pregnancies were excluded. For the period July - December 2011 HIV positive women were receiving dual ARV prophylaxis [Zidovudine(ZDV) from 14 weeks in pregnancy + single dose Nevirapine (NVP)in labour/delivery] or if eligible for ARV treatment (CD4+ count <350) pregnant women would have initiated a triple antiretroviral regimen [Stavudine (D4T) + Lamivudine (3TC) + Nevirapine (NVP)]. For the period January to June 2014 all HIV positive pregnant women were eligible for a fixed dose combination (FDC) of triple ARVs [Tenofovir (TDF) + Emtracitabine (FTC) + Efavirenz (EFV)] independent of CD4+ count.

The regional hospital supports 17 primary health care clinics and has an annual birth rate of 12,000. Women receive antenatal care at the primary health care clinics that have recorded an estimated HIV antenatal prevalence of 40 %.

Study variables

The maternity register is routinely completed by the midwife immediately after a delivery. The midwife would transcribe maternal data such as age, HIV status, CD4+ count, ARV regimen and whether women registered for antenatal care from a patient-held antenatal record onto the maternity register. Antiretroviral regimens were recorded as “Dual” or “Triple” or “Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)”. Each of these has previously been described in greater detail. Women who had no record of antenatal care prior to hospital admission were defined as unregistered pregnancies. Other data recorded by the midwife include the mode of delivery, Live birth/Still birth, Birth Weight, and infant’s gestational age at delivery based on mothers last normal menstrual period or ultrasound data or a combination of both. For our analysis, a premature birth was defined as a birth <37 weeks of gestation and low birth weight was defined as a newborn weighing < 2500 grams. In considering severity these variables were further subcategorized into moderate-to-severe premature birth if gestational age at birth <34 weeks and very low birth weight if newborn weight < 1500 grams. The mode of delivery at public hospitals in South Africa is usually guided by the woman’s obstetric history, current pregnancy complications and progress in labour. For the former two criteria, a ceasarean delivery is planned and poor progress in labour or complications in labour usually lead to an emergency ceasarean delivery. In all other cases the mode of delivery is documented as Vaginal.

A complete dataset used in this analysis is stored on site and available upon request.

Statistical analysis

The maternity registers for the specific study periods were captured onto an excel spreadsheet. Data were analyzed using Stata 13.0 (StataCorp (2013) Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP). Birth outcomes were dichotomized and point estimates along with associated 95 % binomial confidence intervals were calculated. Significant association between categorical outcomes and categorical explanatory variables (e.g. birth outcome versus maternal HIV disease stage) were assessed using a Pearson chi-square (χ 2) test. If an expected cell count in the contingency tables had fewer than 5 observations then the Fisher’s exact test was used instead. Continuous explanatory (independent) variables were compared across dichotomous or multiple (≥3 groups) birth outcomes groups using a t-test and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) respectively. If the data were not normal then non-parametric equivalents, namely the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal Wallis test respectively, were used. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a bivariate and multivariable adjusted logistic regression to adjust for potential confounding. We clustered on mother to account for multiple measurements within the mother cluster i.e. for those women who had had more than one distinct pregnancy episode in the study period. Both a self-selection and stepwise approach for multivariable model building were compared. Final model fit and adequacy (goodness-of-fit) were also assessed. An adjusted p-value of <0.05 was deemed statistically significant.

Institutional Regulatory approval was obtained from the University of KwaZulu Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee. All patient details for the study were maintained as confidential and unique study participant numbers replaced in-patient’s hospital numbers to conceal participant identity. This being a maternity audit, patient information extracted from maternity registers were anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis.

Results

There were 9847deliveries included in this analysis [after exclusions of twin (or multiple gestation pregnancies) and pregnancies with missing outcomes], 4369 (44.4 %) of whom occurred in 2011 and 5479 (55.6 %) occurred in 2014. Of the total 9847women, 200 (2.0 %) women did not seek antenatal care and 3723 (37.8 %) of women who sought antenatal care were HIV positive. Forty two percent (507/1199) of the HIV positive women had a reported CD4+ count < 350 cells/mm3 in pregnancy, 148 (4 %) did not receive any ARV, 974 (26.2 %) received dual ARV prophylaxis and 2573 (69.1 %) received triple ARV treatment.

When compared to 2011, we observed a reduction in the proportion of unregistered pregnancies, caesarean delivery rate, still birth rate, very low birth weight rate, and very premature delivery rate in 2014 (Table 1). In 2011, 576 (35.6 %) of 1618 HIV positive pregnant women received triple antiretrovirals (D4T/3TC/NVP) and in 2014, 1997 (94.9 %) of 2105 HIV positive pregnant women received the fixed dose combination (TDF/FTC/EFV). Overall, among women who had a CD4+ count result by delivery, we reported the highest Very Low Birth Weight (VLBW)(222/1000 births), Low Birth Weight (LBW) (667/1000 births), Still Birth (SB) (333/1000 births), and Preterm Delivery (PTD)(666/1000 births) rates among HIV positive women with a CD4 + <350 and not receiving any ARV. However, due to the small number of women with a CD4,<350 (n = 9), these rates should be treated with caution. Of note, significantly lower rates of SB, LBW, VLBW, and PTD rates were observed for HIV positive women receiving some form of ARV prophylaxis or treatment independent of the CD4+ count. Unregistered pregnancies, similar to HIV positive women not receiving any ARV, resulted in significantly higher LBW, VLBW, SBR, PTD and Very Preterm Delivery (VPTDR) (335/100, 185/1000, 125/1000, 490 and 225/1000 births respectively) than any of the other categories.
Table 1

Stillbirth outcome overall and for HIV + ve only

All women

    

Bivariate

Multivariable iv

 

Variable

Live births: n (% i)

Stillbirths: n (%)

p-value ii

0R iii (95 % CI)

0R (95 % CI)

Adj. p-value

Year

      

 2011

4226 (96.73)

143 (3.27)

0.006

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 2014

5349 (97.65)

129 (2.35)

0.71 (0.56–0.91)

0.74 (0.56–0.97)

0.03

Age Category

      

  < 18

812 (98.19)

15 (1.81)

0.045

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 18–24

4248 (97.52)

108 (2.48)

1.38 (0.8–2.37)

1.37 (0.79–2.38)

0.26

 25–34

3544 (96.78)

118 (3.22)

1.8 (1.05–3.1)

1.86 (1.06–3.25)

0.03

  > 34

863 (96.64)

30 (3.36)

1.88 (1.01–3.52)

1.99 (1.04–3.81)

0.037

Mode of Delivery

      

 Vaginal

6480 (96.95)

204 (3.05)

0.006

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Emergency Caesarean

1420 (97.46)

37 (2.54)

0.83 (0.58–1.18)

0.71 (0.48–1.04)

0.08

 Planned Caesarean

1661 (98.34)

28 (1.66)

0.54 (0.36–0.8)

0.58 (0.39–0.88)

0.01

HIV

      

 Negative

5786 (97.8)

130 (2.2)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Positive

3607 (96.88)

116 (3.12)

1.43 (1.11–1.84)

1.26 (0.97–1.65)

0.088

 Unregistered Antenatal

175 (87.5)

25 (12.5)

6.36 (4.04–10.01)

6.1 (3.86–9.64)

<0.001

HIV + ve women only

    

Bivariate

Multivariable iv

 

Variable

Live births: n (%)

Stillbirths: n (%)

p-value

0R (95 % CI)

0R (95 % CI)

Adj. p-value

Year

      

 2011

1559 (96.35)

59 (3.65)

0.102

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 2014

2048 (97.29)

57 (2.71)

0.74 (0.51–1.06)

0.52 (0.27–0.97)

0.041

Age Category

      

  < 18

89 (95.7)

4 (4.3)

0.018

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 18–24

1167 (98.15)

22 (1.85)

0.42 (0.14–1.24)

0.79 (0.18–3.5)

0.759

 25–34

1830 (96.16)

73 (3.84)

0.89 (0.32–2.48)

1.71 (0.41–7.24)

0.463

  > 34

488 (96.83)

16 (3.17)

0.73 (0.24–2.23)

1.41 (0.31–6.4)

0.66

Mode of Delivery

      

 Vaginal

2385 (96.52)

86 (3.48)

0.093

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Emergency Caesarean

548 (97.34)

15 (2.66)

0.76 (0.44–1.32)

0.75 (0.4–1.39)

0.362

 Planned Caesarean

666 (98.09)

13 (1.91)

0.54 (0.3–0.98)

0.57 (0.31–1.06)

0.074

CD4 category

      

  > 500

333 (97.65)

8 (2.35)

0.047

1 (ref)

Excluded as co-linear with ART regimen

 351–500

341 (99.42)

2 (0.58)

0.24 (0.05–1.16)

 201–350

327 (96.75)

11 (3.25)

1.4 (0.56–3.53)

  < 200

169 (96.02)

7 (3.98)

1.72 (0.61–4.83)

ART regimen

      

 Nil ARVs

128 (86.49)

20 (13.51)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 AZT/NVP

957 (98.25)

17 (1.75)

0.11 (0.06–0.22)

0.08 (0.04–0.16)

<0.001

 D4T/3TC/NVP

869 (95.81)

38 (4.19)

0.28 (0.16–0.5)

0.2 (0.11–0.38)

<0.001

 EFV/TDF/FTC

1629 (97.78)

37 (2.22)

0.15 (0.08–0.26)

0.18 (0.1–0.34)

<0.001

i row percentage, ii Chi-square, iii Odds Ratio, iv following variables were adjusted for in the multivariable adjusted model, year age group, mode of delivery, pregnancy term category, HIV, status

i AZT/NVP vs D4T/3TC/NVP p-value = 0.002, ii AZT/NVP vs FTC p-value = 0.041, iii D4T/3TC/NVP vs FTC p-value = 0.768, iv following variables were adjusted for in the multivariable adjusted model, year age group, mode of delivery, pregnancy term category, HIV status, CD4 (HIV positive mothers only), ART regimen (HIV positive mothers only)

Still births

Table 1 displays the results of a multivariable analysis of all women to identify the adjusted ORs and their 95 % confidence intervals for birth outcomes. Older maternal age categories, namely 25–34 and > 34 (OR 1.86 95 CI: 1.06–3.25 and 1.99 95 % CI: 1.04–3.81 respectively) and unregistered pregnancies (OR 6.51; 95 % CI: 3.86–9.64) remained significant risk factors for still birth among all subjects. Later year of delivery (2014) (OR 0.74; 95 CI: 0.56–0.97) and planned caesarean delivery (OR 0.58; 95 % CI: 0.39–0.88) were significantly associated with reduced odds of stillbirth.

Table 1 also displays the findings of a multivariable analysis for HIV positive women only. Having received any one of the ARV regimens (AZT/NVP or D4T/3TC/NVP or EFV/TDF/FTC) was significantly associated with a highly reduced odds of a stillbirth (ORs of 0.08, 0.20, 0.18 respectively) in comparison to women who did not receive any ARV. Pairwise comparison suggested that the AZT/NVP regimen was significantly better than D4T/3TC/NVP and EFV/TDF/FTC while other pairwise comparisons of the 3 antiretroviral regimens did not yield further significant differences.

Preterm deliveries, Low birth weight and small for gestational Age

After a multivariable analysis, HIV infection (OR’s ~ 1.3), emergency c-section and unregistered pregnancies (OR’s ~ 4.2) remained strongly associated with both pre-term delivery (Table 2) and low birth weight (Table 3) respectively. Later year of delivery was associated with an increased odds of LBW (OR = 1.3). Similarly later year of delivery (OR = 1.21), and unregistered pregnancy (OR 2.28) were also significant risk factors for small for gestational age (GA) following multivariable adjustment (Table 4).
Table 2

Pre-term outcome overall and for HIV + ve only

All women

   

Bivariate

Multivariable iv

 

Variable

Term

n (% i)

Pre-term <37w)

n (%)

p-value ii

0R iii (95 % CI)

0R (95 % CI)

adj p-value

Year

      

 2011

3409 (78.03)

960 (21.97)

0.002

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 2014

4412 (80.54)

1066 (19.46)

0.86 (0.78–0.95)

0.94 (0.83–1.06)

0.291

Age Category

      

  < 18

643 (77.75)

184 (22.25)

0.053

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 18–24

3421 (78.54)

935 (21.46)

0.96 (0.8–1.14)

0.92 (0.77–1.1)

0.362

 25–34

2945 (80.42)

717 (19.58)

0.85 (0.71–1.02)

0.78 (0.64–0.94)

0.01

  > 34

726 (81.3)

167 (18.7)

0.8 (0.64–1.02)

0.73 (0.57–0.93)

0.012

Mode of Delivery

      

 Vaginal

5365 (80.27)

1319 (19.73)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Emergency Caesarean

1100 (75.5)

357 (24.5)

1.32 (1.15–1.51)

1.3 (1.12–1.51)

0.001

 Planned Caesarean

1346 (79.69)

343 (20.31)

1.04 (0.91–1.18)

1.07 (0.93–1.24)

0.319

HIV

      

 Negative

4820 (81.47)

1096 (18.53)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Positive

2893 (77.71)

830 (22.29)

1.26 (1.14–1.4)

1.33 (1.19–1.48)

<0.001

 Unregistered Antenatal

102 (51)

98 (49)

4.23 (3.18–5.62)

4.24 (3.18–5.64)

<0.001

HIV + ve women only

   

Bivariate

Multivariable v

 

Variable

Term

n (% i)

Pre-term (<37w)

n (%)

p-value ii

0R (95 % CI)

0R (95 % CI)

adj p-value

Year

      

 2011

1249 (77.19)

369 (22.81)

0.51

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 2014

1644 (78.1)

461 (21.9)

0.95 (0.81–1.11)

0.63 (0.27–1.44)

0.269

Age Category

      

  < 18

69 (74.19)

24 (25.81)

0.849

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 18–24

925 (77.8)

264 (22.2)

0.82 (0.51–1.33)

1.14 (0.32–4.01)

0.84

 25–34

1482 (77.88)

421 (22.12)

0.82 (0.51–1.32)

1.26 (0.36–4.4)

0.717

  > 34

395 (78.37)

109 (21.63)

0.79 (0.48–1.32)

1.35 (0.36–5)

0.655

Mode of Delivery

      

 Vaginal

1940 (78.51)

531 (21.49)

0.13

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Emergency Caesarean

420 (74.6)

143 (25.4)

1.24 (1.01–1.54)

1.43 (1–2.06)

0.05

 Planned Caesarean

526 (77.47)

153 (22.53)

1.06 (0.87–1.3)

0.82 (0.49–1.37)

0.456

CD4 category

      

  < 200

274 (80.35)

67 (19.65)

0.582

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 201–350

282 (82.22)

61 (17.78)

0.88 (0.6–1.3)

0.87 (0.58–1.29)

0.478

 351–500

275 (81.36)

63 (18.64)

0.94 (0.64–1.37)

0.92 (0.6–1.39)

0.686

  > 500

136 (77.27)

40 (22.73)

1.2 (0.77–1.87)

1.16 (0.72–1.88)

0.545

ART regimen

      

 Nil ARVs

100 (67.57)

48 (32.43)

0.002

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 AZT/NVP

778 (79.88)

196 (20.12)

0.52 (0.36–0.77)

0.2 (0.08–0.51)

0.001

 D4T/3TC/NVP

685 (75.52)

222 (24.48)

0.68 (0.46–0.98)

0.21 (0.08–0.55)

0.001

 EFV/TDF/FTC

1315 (78.93)

351 (21.07)

0.56 (0.39–0.8)

0.31 (0.11–0.9)

0.031

i row percentage, ii Chi-square, iii Odds Ratio, iv following variables were adjusted for in the multivariable adjusted model, year age group, mode of delivery, pregnancy term category, HIV status

i Chi-square, ii AZT/NVP vs D4T/3TC/NVP p-value = 0.714, iii AZT/NVP vs FTC p-value = 0.321, iv D4T/3TC/NVP vs FTC p-value = 0.368, v following variables were adjusted for in the multivariable adjusted model, year age group, mode of delivery, pregnancy term category, HIV status, CD4 (HIV positive mothers only), ART regimen (HIV positive mothers only)

Table 3

Low Birth Weight overall and for HIV + ve only

All women

      
    

Bivariate

Multivariable v

 

Variable

Normal BW i (≥2500 g): n (% ii)

LBW (<2500 g): n (%)

p-value iii

0R iv (95 % CI)

0R (95 % CI)

Adj.

p-value

Year

      

 2011

3846 (88.03)

523 (11.97)

0.238

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 2014

4779 (87.24)

699 (12.76)

1.08 (0.95–1.21)

1.26 (1.08–1.46)

0.003

Age Category

      

  < 18

717 (86.7)

110 (13.3)

0.82

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 18–24

3825 (87.81)

531 (12.19)

0.9 (0.73–1.13)

0.85 (0.68–1.07)

0.166

 25–34

3203 (87.47)

459 (12.53)

0.93 (0.75–1.17)

0.84 (0.66–1.06)

0.134

  > 34

779 (87.23)

114 (12.77)

0.95 (0.72–1.26)

0.85 (0.63–1.13)

0.264

Mode of Delivery

      

 Vaginal

5941 (88.88)

743 (11.12)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Emergency Caesarean

1230 (84.42)

227 (15.58)

1.48 (1.26–1.73)

1.72 (1.42–2.07)

<0.001

 Planned Caesarean

1440 (85.26)

249 (14.74)

1.38 (1.18–1.61)

1.32 (1.12–1.55)

0.001

HIV

      

 Negative

5265 (89)

651 (11)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Positive

3221 (86.52)

502 (13.48)

1.26 (1.11–1.43)

1.26 (1.11–1.44)

0.001

 Unbooked

133 (66.5)

67 (33.5)

4.07 (3–5.53)

4.28 (3.15–5.82)

<0.001

HIV + ve women only

 
    

Bivariate

Multivariable iv

 

Variable

Normal BW (≥2500 g) : n (%)

LBW (<2500 g): n (%)

p-value

0R (95 % CI)

0R (95 % CI)

Adj. p-value

Year

      

 2011

1416 (87.52)

202 (12.48)

0.118

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 2014

1805 (85.75)

300 (14.25)

1.17 (0.96–1.41)

0.65 (0.24–1.79)

0.407

Age Category

      

  < 18

80 (86.02)

13 (13.98)

0.187

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 18–24

1050 (88.31)

139 (11.69)

0.81 (0.44–1.5)

1.68 (0.22–13.06)

0.618

 25–34

1631 (85.71)

272 (14.29)

1.03 (0.56–1.87)

2.11 (0.28–16.2)

0.472

  > 34

431 (85.52)

73 (14.48)

1.04 (0.55–1.97)

1.84 (0.22–15.15)

0.569

Mode of Delivery

      

 Vaginal

2177 (88.1)

294 (11.9)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Emergency Caesarean

472 (83.84)

91 (16.16)

1.43 (1.11–1.84)

2.09 (1.32–3.31)

0.002

 Planned Caesarean

564 (83.06)

115 (16.94)

1.51 (1.19–1.91)

1.19 (0.64–2.21)

0.58

CD4 category

      

  > 500

300 (87.98)

41 (12.02)

0.095

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 351–500

317 (92.42)

26 (7.58)

0.6 (0.36–1.01)

0.54 (0.31–0.92)

0.025

 201–350

300 (88.76)

38 (11.24)

0.93 (0.58–1.48)

0.91 (0.54–1.52)

0.718

  < 200

151 (85.8)

25 (14.2)

1.21 (0.71–2.07)

0.94 (0.51–1.72)

0.84

ART regimen

      

 Nil ARVs

114 (77.03)

34 (22.97)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 AZT/NVP i, ii

877 (90.04)

97 (9.96)

0.37 (0.24–0.57)

0.06 (0.02–0.18)

<0.001

 D4T/3TC/NVP iii

768 (84.67)

139 (15.33)

0.61 (0.4–0.93)

0.09 (0.03–0.24)

<0.001

 EFV/TDF/FTC

1442 (86.55)

224 (13.45)

0.52 (0.35–0.78)

0.12 (0.04–0.37)

<0.001

i Birth weight (BW), ii row percentage, iii Chi-square, iv Odds Ratio, v following variables were adjusted for in the multivariable adjusted model, year age group, mode of delivery, pregnancy term category, HIV status

i AZT/NVP vs D4T/3TC/NVP p-value = 0.219, ii AZT/NVP vs FTC p-value = 0.287, iii D4T/3TC/NVP vs FTC p-value = 0.594, iv following variables were adjusted for in the multivariable adjusted model, year age group, mode of delivery, pregnancy term category, HIV status, CD4 (HIV positive mothers only), ART regimen (HIV positive mothers only)

Table 4

Small for gestational age overall and for HIV + ve only

All women

      
    

Bivariate

Multivariable vi

 

Variable

Normal for GA i: n (% ii)

Small for GA iii: n (%)

p-value iv

0R v (95 % CI)

0R (95 % CI)

Adj. p-value

Year

      

 2011

4053 (92.77)

316 (7.23)

0.066

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 2014

5027 (91.77)

451 (8.23)

1.15 (0.99–1.34)

1.21 (1.02–1.44)

0.032

Age Category

      

  < 18

755 (91.29)

72 (8.71)

0.106

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 18–24

4032 (92.56)

324 (7.44)

0.84 (0.65–1.1)

0.82 (0.63–1.08)

0.161

 25–34

3384 (92.41)

278 (7.59)

0.86 (0.66–1.13)

0.81 (0.61–1.07)

0.137

  > 34

807 (90.37)

86 (9.63)

1.12 (0.8–1.55)

1.06 (0.75–1.48)

0.750

Mode of Delivery

      

 Vaginal

6180 (92.46)

504 (7.54)

0.300

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Emergency Caesarean

1340 (91.97)

117 (8.03)

1.07 (0.87–1.32)

1.21 (0.95–1.53)

0.124

 Planned Caesarean

1543 (91.36)

146 (8.64)

1.16 (0.96–1.41)

1.11 (0.91–1.35)

0.288

HIV

      

 Negative

5487 (92.75)

429 (7.25)

<0.001

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Positive

3417 (91.78)

306 (8.22)

1.15 (0.98–1.33)

1.15 (0.98–1.35)

0.078

 Unbooked

171 (85.5)

29 (14.5)

2.17 (1.45–3.25)

2.28 (1.5–3.45)

<0.001

HIV + ve women only

      
    

Bivariate

Multivariable iv

 

Variable

Normal for GA: n (% ii)

Small for GA: n (%)

p-value

0R (95 % CI)

0R (95 % CI)

Adj. p-value

Year

      

 2011

1491 (92.15)

127 (7.85)

0.471

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 2014

1926 (91.5)

179 (8.5)

1.09 (0.86–1.38)

1.53 (0.51–4.61)

0.447

Age Category

      

  < 18

84 (90.32)

9 (9.68)

0.048

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 18–24

1110 (93.36)

79 (6.64)

0.66 (0.32–1.37)

0.67 (0.14–3.16)

0.609

 25–34

1741 (91.49)

162 (8.51)

0.87 (0.43–1.76)

0.80 (0.17–3.75)

0.778

  > 34

451 (89.48)

53 (10.52)

1.10 (0.52–2.31)

1.27 (0.26–6.28)

0.771

Mode of Delivery

      

 Vaginal

2282 (92.35)

189 (7.65)

0.176

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 Emergency Caesarean

509 (90.41)

54 (9.59)

1.28 (0.93–1.76)

1.64 (0.98–2.74)

0.059

 Planned Caesarean

616 (90.72)

63 (9.28)

1.23 (0.92–1.66)

0.82 (0.40–1.68)

0.584

CD4 category

      

  > 500

312 (91.5)

29 (8.5)

0.583

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 351–500

321 (93.59)

22 (6.41)

0.74 (0.41–1.31)

0.72 (0.40–1.29)

0.267

 201–350

307 (90.83)

31 (9.17)

1.09 (0.64–1.85)

1.20 (0.69–2.09)

0.520

  < 200

161 (91.48)

15 (8.52)

1.00 (0.52–1.92)

0.94 (0.45–1.94)

0.862

ART regimen

      

 Nil ARVs

133 (89.86)

15 (10.14)

0.464

1 (ref)

1 (ref)

 

 AZT/NVP i, ii

901 (92.51)

73 (7.49)

0.72 (0.40–1.29)

0.37 (0.10–1.45)

0.153

 D4T/3TC/NVP iii

824 (90.85)

83 (9.15)

0.89 (0.50–1.59)

0.29 (0.08–1.07)

0.063

 EFV/TDF/FTC

1533 (92.02)

133 (7.98)

0.77 (0.44–1.35)

0.25 (0.07–0.87)

0.030

i Gestational Age (GA), ii row percentage, iii below 10th percentile, iv Chi-square, v Odds Ratio, vi following variables were adjusted for in the multivariable adjusted model, year age group, mode of delivery, HIV status

i AZT/NVP vs D4T/3TC/NVP p-value = 0.410, ii AZT/NVP vs FTC p-value = 0.521, iii D4T/3TC/NVP vs FTC p-value = 0.800, iv following variables were adjusted for in the multivariable adjusted model, year age group, mode of delivery, HIV status, CD4 (HIV positive mothers only), ART regimen (HIV positive mothers only)

Among HIV infected women only, receiving any ART regimen vs not receiving any ART was associated with significant and highly reduced odds of a preterm birth and low birth weight. Although the antiretroviral regimens appear to confer some protection this was only statistically significant at 5 % level for use of the fixed dose combination (TDF/FTC/EFV) and small for gestational age (GA) outcome. Pairwise comparison of the regimens suggested no significant difference in odds ratios for pre-term delivery, low birth weight or small for GA (p > 0.05).

Discussion

South Africa implemented new ARV guidelines in 2014 with an intention to improve antiretroviral treatment coverage for all HIV positive pregnant women. For each category of birth outcomes we compared the frequency in 2014 with 2011. Overall, we observed a significant improvement in the stillbirth and preterm delivery rate in 2014 and we also observed the larger coverage (94.8 %) of triple antiretroviral treatment in 2014. Although, after adjusting for CD4 category the 2 drug (AZT/sd NVP) was as protective against still birth, low birth weight and preterm deliveries, among the immunocompetent HIV positive women. In a bivariate analysis of all deliveries, unregistered pregnancies and HIV infection remained significant risk factors for still birth, preterm deliveries (<37 weeks), low birth weight (<2500 grams) and small for gestational age. We further found that when compared to HIV negative women, women who did not register for antenatal care and whose HIV status was unknown at the time of delivery were 6.5 times more likely to have a still birth, 4.5 times more likely to have a low birth weight baby (<2500 grams), 3 times more likely to have a preterm delivery (<37 weeks), and 2 times more likely to have a small for gestational age baby (SGA).

Although studies in Europe and North America reported an increase in the preterm delivery rate after the introduction of HAART [17], we have neither seen an increase nor a reduction in preterm deliveries in this population between 2011 and 2014. As we have demonstrated the reduced odds of preterm delivery in association with antiretroviral exposure, it is possible that the high preterm delivery rate among women who did not receive antenatal care in combination with substandard obstetric practice could be reasons for the unaltered preterm delivery rate between 2011 and 2014. Other studies have specifically implicated the use of PI-based antiretroviral regimens in the increased rate of preterm deliveries [12, 18, 19]. None of the women in our analyses were on a PI containing second line regimen, however we did have an opportunity to explore the potential adverse effects of an EFV containing regimen implemented in 2014 in comparison to a NVP containing regimen implemented in 2011. Consistent with findings from other studies in sub Saharan countries, we did not detect any association between still births, preterm delivery and low birth weight with NVP or EFV [20, 21].

Antiretroviral specific associations were reported in a multinational PMTCT study that suggest an increased risk of preterm deliveries (<37 weeks) and LBWR (<2500 g) with a triple ARV PI based regimen as compared to a Zidovudine based dual regimen [16]. The study further reported a higher incidence of more severe birth outcomes (PTD <34w) and neonatal deaths associated with a TDF based triple regimen as compared to the Combivir based triple regimen. Although the frequency of stillbirths, preterm births and low birth weight were higher among women receiving a TDF based regimen when compared to the Stavudine containing regimen, the association was not statistically significant. Although, it must be noted that women who were on D4T/3TC/NVP during 2011 met the criteria for treatment (CD4 < 350) and women receiving TDF/FTC/EFV in 2014 received treatment irrespective of CD4+ count.

Unregistered pregnancies are considered high risk for HIV and adverse obstetric outcomes. It is probable that the majority of the unregistered pregnant women in our study were HIV infected and not received any form of antiretroviral. The women would have been tested for HIV after delivery and the results for which we did not have access. This is one plausible explanation for the high rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes among the unregistered pregnancies in our study. In a study conducted in South Africa in the early years of the epidemic (1999) unregistered pregnant women were 1.4 times more likely to test HIV positive as compared to their registered antenatal counterparts. HIV prevalence in unregistered pregnancies and antenatal population groups were 45.2 (95%CI 37.9–52.5) and 32.5 % respectively [22]. Similar findings were reported for a low HIV prevalence setting in Atlanta 1.4 % vs 0.4 %) [23]. Notably, unregistered pregnant women are also more likely to be younger, single with no partner support, of low socioeconomic status and with minimal education; all of which could likely contribute to adverse birth outcomes and HIV acquisition [24].

An alternative explanation could be that the unregistered pregnant women did not receive the much needed antenatal care which could have prevented the adverse pregnancy outcomes. In a case controlled Nigerian study, unregistered pregnant women were twice as likely to deliver preterm (20.0 vs 10.9), 1.5 times as likely to deliver low-birth weight babies (36.9 vs 25.6) and seven times more likely to have still births (17.7 vs 3.3 %) when compared to registered antenatal attendees [25].

Conclusions

In summary, when compared to HIV uninfected women, HIV infected women have a higher risk for stillbirth, PTD, SGA, and LBW babies. However ART exposure as ZDV prophylaxis or triple ARV regimen is associated with decreased odds for an adverse birth outcome. Untreated HIV infected women and women who do not seek antenatal care should be considered most at risk for poor birth outcomes.

Our study is not without limitations. Births <500 g were not recorded in the birth register and although this is an adverse obstetric outcome, it was not included in the analysis i.e. potential selection bias. The use of gestational age to define preterm delivery was entirely dependent on a single value recorded in the maternity register. Gestational age at birth is usually extrapolated from antenatal assessments that are not always accurate. Ballard scoring in the absence of an antenatal ultrasound assessment which is more reliable is not routinely used. The major limitation is the lack of information in maternity registers such as duration of ART prior to delivery or whether women initiated ART either during pregnancy or before pregnancy. Information related to socio-economic status are also unavailable. A further limitation is the inability to adjust for other improvements in the obstetric care that may have contributed to the better birth outcomes. However, there was no evidence of a change in management, staff training, additional nursing staff or a change in obstetric management protocols.

Abbreviations

HIV: 

Human immunodeficiency virus

AIDS: 

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

ARV: 

Antiretroviral

ART: 

Antiretroviral therapy

SSA: 

Sub-Saharan Africa

FDC: 

Fixed dose combination

D4T: 

Stavudine

AZT: 

Azidothymidine

3TC: 

Lamivudine

NVP: 

Nevirapinne

TDF: 

Tenofovir

FTC: 

Emtricitabine

EFV: 

Efavirenz

PI: 

Protease inhibitor

SB: 

Still birth

PTD: 

Preterm delivery

VPTD: 

Very preterm delivery

LBW: 

Low birth weight

VLBW: 

Very low birth weight

GA: 

Gestational age

SGA: 

Small for gestational age

MTCT: 

Mother-to-child transmission

PMTCT: 

Prevention of mother to child transmission

MDG: 

Millennium development goals

WHO: 

World Health Organisation

OR: 

Odds ratio

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support of the maternity staff and hospital management of Prince Mshiyeni Memorial Hospital, Durban in allowing us access to their maternity records and assisting in the clarification of data. We would also like to thank Samkelo Booi, Nkululeko Ngxongo and Carol Minnie at the Womens Health and HIV Research Unit for their invaluable assistance with data entry.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Clinical Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal
(2)
Womens Health and HIV Research Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Clinical Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal
(3)
Discipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal

References

  1. World Health Organisation. Antiretroviral drugs for Treating Pregnant Women and Preventing HIV Infection in Infants: Towards Universal Access: Recommendations for a Public Health Apprach. Geneva: WHO Department of HIV/AIDS; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. World Health Organization. Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection in Adults and Adolescents: Recommendations for a Public Health Approach. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Department of HIV/AIDS; 2010. Revision.Google Scholar
  3. Moodley P, Parboosing R, Moodley D. Reduction in Perinatal HIV infections in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa in the era of more effective PMTCT Interventions (2004–2012). JAIDS. 2013;63(3):410–5. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182926931.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Stringer JSA, Stinson K, Tih PM, Giganti MJ, Ekouevi DK, et al. Measuring coverage in MNCH: population HIV-free survival among children under Two years of Age in four African countries. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5), e1001424. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001424.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Together we will end AIDS. Geneva, Switzerland: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). 2012. Available at http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/epidemiology/2012/jc2296_unaids_togetherreport_2012_en.pdf.Google Scholar
  6. World Health Organization. Consolidated Guidelines on the Use of Antiretroviral Drugs for Treating and Preventing HIV Infection: Recommendations for a Public Health Approach. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Department of HIV/AIDS; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. United Nations. New York. Millenium Development Goals Report. 2015. www.un.org/en/development/desa/publications/mdg-report-2015.html. Accessed 07 December 2015.Google Scholar
  8. Bryce J, Black RE, Victora CG. Millennium development goals 4 and 5: progress and challenges. BMC Med. 2013 Oct 16;11:225. doi:10.1186/1741–7015–11–225.
  9. Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D, Perin J, Rudan I, Lawn JE, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2000–13, with projections to inform post −2015 priorities: an updated systematic analysis. Lancet Jan. 2015;385:430–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambert JS, Watts DH, Mofenson L, Stiehm ER, Harris DR, Bethel J, et al. Risk factors for preterm birth, low birth weight, and intrauterine growth retardation in infants born to HIV-infected pregnant women receiving zidovudine. Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group 185 Team. AIDS. 2000 Jul 7;14(10):1389–99.Google Scholar
  11. Tuomala RE, Shapiro D, Mofenson L, et al. Pregnancy and the risk of an adverse outcome. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1863.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cotter AM, Garcia AG, Duthely ML, Luke B, O’Sullivan MJ. Is antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery, low birth weight, or stillbirth? J Infect Dis. 2006;193:1195–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Turner AN, Tabbah S, Mwapasa V, Rogerson SJ, Meshnick SR, Ackerman IV W, et al. Severity of maternal HIV-1 disease is associated with adverse birth outcomes in Malawian women: a cohort study. J AIDS. 2013;64(4):392–9.Google Scholar
  14. Habib NA, Daltveit AK, Bergsjø P, Shao J, Oneko O, Lie RT. Maternal HIV status and pregnancy outcomes in northeastern Tanzania: a registry-based study. BJOG. 2008 Apr;115(5):616–24. doi:10.1111/j.1471–0528.2008.01672.x.
  15. Chen JY, Ribaudo HJ, Souda S, Parekh N, Ogwu A, Lockman S, et al. Highly active antiretroviral therapy and adverse birth outcomes among HIV-infected women in Botswana. J Infect Dis. 2012;206(11):1695–705.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler MG, Qin M, Fiscus SA, for the Promise Study Team, et al. PROMISE: Efficacy and Safety of Two Strategies to Prevent Perinatal HIV Transmission. Washington DC: Paper presented at: 22nd Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2015); 2015.Google Scholar
  17. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–72. doi:10.1016/S0140–6736(12)60820–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. van der Merwe K, Chersich M, Black V, Technau K, Rees H, Coovadia A. Birth outcomes in South African women receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy: a retrospective observational study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2011;14:42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Ravizza M, Martinelli P, Bucceri A, Fiore S, Alberico S, Tamburrini E, et al. Treatment with protease inhibitors and coinfection with hepatitis C virus are independent predictors of preterm delivery in HIV-infected pregnant women. J Infect Dis. 2007;195(6):913–4. author reply 6–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bussmann H, Wester CW, Wester CN, Lekoko B, Okezie O, Thomas AM, et al. Pregnancy rates and birth outcomes among women on efavirenz-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy in Botswana. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;45(3):269–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ekouevi DK, Coffie PA, Ouattara E, Moh R, Amani-Bosse C, Messou E, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to efavirenz and nevirapine: an appraisal of the IeDEA West Africa and ANRS Databases, Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;56(2):183–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Matambo J, Moodley D, Moodley J. HIV Seroprevalence and Rapid testing in Unbooked Pregnant African Women. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;66:289–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindsay MK, Feng TI, Peterson HB, Slade BA, Willis S, Klein L. Routine human immunodeficiency virus infection screening in unregistered and registered inner-city parturients. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77(4):599–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fawcus SR, Crowther CA, Van Baelen P, Marumahoko J. Booked and unbooked mothers delivering at Harare Maternity Hospital, Zimbabwe: a comparison of maternal characteristics and foetal outcome. Cent Afr J Med. 1992;38(10):402–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Osungbade KO, Ayinde OO. Birth outcomes among booked and unbooked women at a secondary health facility in southwest Nigeria: implications for strengthening perinatal health services. J Child Health Care. 2011 Dec;15(4):320–8. doi:10.1177/1367493511406569. Epub 2011 Aug 9.

Copyright

© Moodley et al. 2016

Advertisement