Rates and risk factors for preterm birth and low birthweight in the global network sites in six low- and low middle-income countries

Background Preterm birth continues to be a major public health problem contributing to 75% of the neonatal mortality worldwide. Low birth weight (LBW) is an important but imperfect surrogate for prematurity when accurate assessment of gestational age is not possible. While there is overlap between preterm birth and LBW newborns, those that are both premature and LBW are at the highest risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Understanding the epidemiology of preterm birth and LBW is important for prevention and improved care for at risk newborns, but in many countries, data are sparse and incomplete. Methods We conducted data analyses using the Global Network’s (GN) population-based registry of pregnant women and their babies in rural communities in six low- and middle-income countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Zambia, Guatemala, India and Pakistan). We analyzed data from January 2014 to December 2018. Trained study staff enrolled all pregnant women in the study catchment area as early as possible during pregnancy and conducted follow-up visits shortly after delivery and at 42 days after delivery. We analyzed the rates of preterm birth, LBW and the combination of preterm birth and LBW and studied risk factors associated with these outcomes across the GN sites. Results A total of 272,192 live births were included in the analysis. The overall preterm birth rate was 12.6% (ranging from 8.6% in Belagavi, India to 21.8% in the Pakistani site). The overall LBW rate was 13.6% (ranging from 2.7% in the Kenyan site to 21.4% in the Pakistani site). The overall rate of both preterm birth and LBW was 5.5% (ranging from 1.2% in the Kenyan site to 11.0% in the Pakistani site). Risk factors associated with preterm birth, LBW and the combination were similar across sites and included nulliparity [RR − 1.27 (95% CI 1.21–1.33)], maternal age under 20 [RR 1.41 (95% CI 1.32–1.49)] years, severe antenatal hemorrhage [RR 5.18 95% CI 4.44–6.04)], hypertensive disorders [RR 2.74 (95% CI − 1.21–1.33], and 1–3 antenatal visits versus four or more [RR 1.68 (95% CI 1.55–1.83)]. Conclusions Preterm birth, LBW and their combination continue to be common public health problems at some of the GN sites, particularly among young, nulliparous women who have received limited antenatal care services. Trial registration The identifier of the Maternal and Newborn Health Registry at ClinicalTrials.gov is NCT01073475.Trial registration: The identifier of the Maternal and Newborn Health Registry at ClinicalTrials.gov is NCT01073475

Early identification of preterm neonates at birth with a Tablet App for the Simplified Gestational Age Score (T-SGAS) when ultrasound gestational age dating is unavailable: A validation study.

BackgroundIn low resource settings recall of the date of the mother's last menstrual period may be unreliable and due to limited availability of prenatal ultrasound, gestational age of newborns may not be assessed reliably. Preterm babies are at high risk of morbidity and mortality so an alternative strategy is to identify them soon after birth is needed for early referral and management.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the accuracy in assessing prematurity of newborn, over and above birthweight, using a pictorial Simplified Gestational Age Score adapted for use as a Tablet App.MethodsTwo trained nurse midwives, blinded to each other's assessment and the actual gestational age of the baby used the app to assess gestational age at birth in 3 hospitals based on the following 4 parameters-newborn's posture, skin texture, breast and genital development. Inter-observer variation was evaluated and the optimal scoring cut-off to detect preterm birth was determined. Sensitivity and specificity of gestational age score using the tablet was estimated using combinations of last menstrual period and ultrasound as reference standards to assess preterm birth. The predictive accuracy of the score using the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve was also determined. To account for potential reference standard bias, we also evaluated the score using latent class models.ResultsA total of 8,591 live singleton births whose gestational age by last menstrual period and ultrasound was within 1 weeks of each other were enrolled. There was strong agreement between assessors (concordance correlation coefficient 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) and Fleiss' kappa was 0.76 (95% CI 0.76-0.78). The optimal cut-off for the score to predict preterm was 13. Irrespective of the reference standard, the specificity of the score was 90% and sensitivity varied from 40-50% and the predictive accuracy between 74%-79% for the reference standards. The likelihood ratio of a positive score varied between 3.75-4.88 while the same for a negative likelihood ratio consistently varied between 0.57-0.72. Latent class models showed similar results indicating no reference standard bias.ConclusionGestational age scores had strong inter-observer agreement, robust prediction of preterm births simplicity of use by nurse midwives and can be a useful tool in resource-limited scenarios.Trial registrationThe Tablet App for the Simplified Gestational Age Score (T-SGAS) study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02408783

Rates and risk factors for preterm birth and low birthweight in the global network sites in six low- and low middle-income countries

Background: Preterm birth continues to be a major public health problem contributing to 75% of the neonatal mortality worldwide. Low birth weight (LBW) is an important but imperfect surrogate for prematurity when accurate assessment of gestational age is not possible. While there is overlap between preterm birth and LBW newborns, those that are both premature and LBW are at the highest risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Understanding the epidemiology of preterm birth and LBW is important for prevention and improved care for at risk newborns, but in many countries, data are sparse and incomplete.Methods: We conducted data analyses using the Global Network\u27s (GN) population-based registry of pregnant women and their babies in rural communities in six low- and middle-income countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Zambia, Guatemala, India and Pakistan). We analyzed data from January 2014 to December 2018. Trained study staff enrolled all pregnant women in the study catchment area as early as possible during pregnancy and conducted follow-up visits shortly after delivery and at 42 days after delivery. We analyzed the rates of preterm birth, LBW and the combination of preterm birth and LBW and studied risk factors associated with these outcomes across the GN sites.Results: A total of 272,192 live births were included in the analysis. The overall preterm birth rate was 12.6% (ranging from 8.6% in Belagavi, India to 21.8% in the Pakistani site). The overall LBW rate was 13.6% (ranging from 2.7% in the Kenyan site to 21.4% in the Pakistani site). The overall rate of both preterm birth and LBW was 5.5% (ranging from 1.2% in the Kenyan site to 11.0% in the Pakistani site). Risk factors associated with preterm birth, LBW and the combination were similar across sites and included nulliparity [RR - 1.27 (95% CI 1.21-1.33)], maternal age under 20 [RR 1.41 (95% CI 1.32-1.49)] years, severe antenatal hemorrhage [RR 5.18 95% CI 4.44-6.04)], hypertensive disorders [RR 2.74 (95% CI - 1.21-1.33], and 1-3 antenatal visits versus four or more [RR 1.68 (95% CI 1.55-1.83)].Conclusions: Preterm birth, LBW and their combination continue to be common public health problems at some of the GN sites, particularly among young, nulliparous women who have received limited antenatal care services. Trial registration The identifier of the Maternal and Newborn Health Registry at ClinicalTrials.gov is NCT01073475.Trial registration: The identifier of the Maternal and Newborn Health Registry at ClinicalTrials.gov is NCT01073475

The Pregnancy and Influenza Multinational Epidemiologic (PRIME) study: a prospective cohort study of the impact of influenza during pregnancy among women in middle-income countries

Abstract Background The World Health Organization identifies pregnant women as at high-risk for severe influenza, but influenza vaccines are underutilized among pregnant women. Data on influenza burden during pregnancy are largely limited to high-income countries and data on the impact of influenza on birth and perinatal outcomes are scarce. Methods/design This prospective, longitudinal cohort study of pregnant women in middle-income countries is designed to address three primary objectives: 1) to evaluate the effect of laboratory-confirmed influenza during pregnancy on pregnancy and perinatal outcomes; 2) to estimate the incidences of all-cause acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza during pregnancy; and 3) to examine the clinical spectrum of illness associated with influenza viruses. Through a multi-country network approach, three sites aim to enroll cohorts of 1500–3000 pregnant women just before local influenza seasons. Women aged ≥ 18 years with expected delivery dates ≥ 8 weeks after the start of the influenza season are eligible. Women are followed throughout pregnancy through twice weekly surveillance for influenza symptoms (≥ 1 of myalgia, cough, runny nose, sore throat, or difficulty breathing) and have mid-turbinate nasal swabs collected for influenza virus testing during illness episodes. Primary outcomes include relative risk of preterm birth and mean birth weight among term singleton infants of women with and without reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed influenza during pregnancy. Gestational age is determined by ultrasound at < 28 weeks gestation and birth weight is measured by digital scales using standardized methods. Sites are primarily urban in Bangkok, Thailand; Lima, Peru; and Nagpur, India. All sites recruit from antenatal clinics at referral hospitals and conduct surveillance using telephone calls, messaging applications, or home visits. Nasal swabs are self-collected by participants in Thailand and by study staff in Peru and India. During the first year (2017), sites enrolled participants during March–May in Peru and May–July in India and Thailand; 4779 women were enrolled. Discussion This study aims to generate evidence of the impact of influenza during pregnancy to inform decisions by Ministries of Health, healthcare providers, and pregnant women in middle-income countries about the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy

What do pregnant women think about influenza disease and vaccination practices in selected countries

Introduction: We evaluated knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) related to influenza and influenza vaccination among pregnant women in three selected countries. Methods: During 2017, pregnant women seeking antenatal care at hospitals at participating sites were enrolled. We described characteristics and responses to KAP questions. We also evaluated predictors associated with influenza vaccination during pregnancy at sites with substantial influenza vaccine uptake by multivariable logistic regression. Results: Overall, 4,648 pregnant women completed the survey. There were substantial differences among the three survey populations; only 8% of the women in Nagpur had heard of influenza, compared to 90% in Lima and 96% in Bangkok (p-value<0.01). Despite significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics in the three populations, most participants across sites who were aware of influenza prior to study enrollment believe they and their infants are at risk of influenza and related complications and believe influenza vaccination is safe and effective. Half of women in Lima had verified receipt of influenza vaccine compared to <5% in Bangkok and Nagpur (p < .05). For further analysis conducted among women in Lima only, household income above the poverty line (aOR: 1.38; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.88), having 8+ antenatal visits, compared to 0–4 (aOR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.39, 2.87, respectively), having 0 children, compared to 2+ (aOR: 1.96; 95%CIs: 1.23, 3.12), and vaccination recommended by a health-care provider (aOR: 8.25; 95%CI: 6.11, 11.14) were strongly associated with receipt of influenza vaccine during pregnancy. Conclusions: Our findings identify opportunities for targeted interventions to improve influenza vaccine uptake among pregnant women in these settings