Introduction: maternal anaemia is a major public health problem in developing countries. Data suggests that anaemia contributes to the progression of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-infection. The aim of this study was to investigate if pregnancy was an aggravating factor for anaemia among HIV-positive women on anti-retroviral treatment (ART). Methods: we analyzed data of all HIV-positive women aged 18-49 years receiving ART at Themba Lethu Clinic, Helen Joseph Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa, from 1st April 2004-30t hApril 2011. HIV-positive pregnant women were matched with non-pregnant women using the year of initiation of treatment. The outcome of interest ´anaemia´ was defined as “no anaemia”, “anaemia” and “moderate/severe anaemia”. We fitted an ordered logistic regression model to predict the likelihood of having severe/moderate anaemia versus no anaemia. We included pregnancy status as a predictor of the outcome and controlled the effect of other covariates in the analysis. Results: the study included 236 HIV positive patients, of which half (n=118, 50%) were pregnant. At baseline, about (n=143, 60%) of patients were anaemic. The proportion of pregnant women classified as anaemic (anaemia, moderate/severe) differed significantly (p=0.02) from that of non-pregnant women. The following characteristics were significantly associated with anaemia at baseline: Body mass index (BMI) category (p=0.01); World Health Organization (WHO) stage (p=0.001) and CD4 count (p=0.001). Seven months after initiation of treatment, the proportion of HIV positive women with anaemia decreased significantly. Conclusion: anaemia is a significant risk factor for untoward health outcomes, especially among HIV-positive pregnant women. Early ART access might result in a significant decrease in anaemia in pregnancy.
Study design: we analyzed secondary data of all HIV-positive women receiving ART at Themba Lethu Clinic, Helen Joseph Hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. We included data of patients enrolled between 1stApril 2004 (baseline) to 30th April 2011 (end-line) and tracked anaemia among those patients seven months later. The Themba Lethu Clinic is the largest public sector ART site in the country [26]. Study population: our study included retrospective records for 236 HIV positive women aged 18-49 years on ART. Of these 118 were pregnant and 118 were non-pregnant HIV positive women. Patients included had the following parameters “baseline CD4 count, haemoglobin measurements and at least 7 months of follow-up time”. Both pregnant and non-pregnant study participants were offered similar first line ART regimens comprised of fixed dose combinations of stavudine (D4T), tenofovir (TDF), efavirenz (EFV), zidovudine (AZT), lamivudine (3TC) and neviropine (NVP). Specific triple therapy regimens included D4T/3TC/NVP; D4T/3TC/EFV; 3TC/TDF/EFV; 3TC/TDF/NVP; and AZT/3TC/NVP. Study variables: the outcome variable was anaemia. This was defined as the haemoglobin concentration as per the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) [27]. Guidelines “severe anaemia (<7.0g/dl), moderate anaemia (7.0 – 9.9g/dl), anaemia (10.0 – 10.9g/dl)”. This allowed us to have a more flexible definition that considers the pregnancy status of half of the study participants. We combined moderate and severe anaemia into one single category because there were very few patients classified as having severe anaemia; either at baseline (n=7) or at end-line (n=2). The analyses took into account the sociodemographic characteristics of the patients i.e. “age” (in complete years), pregnancy status (Y/N), education (no education, primary or just literate, secondary and beyond), smoking status (Y/N), alcohol consumption (Y/N) and employment status (employed/unemployed). Clinical and anthropometric measurements included body weight and height, which were used to compute a body mass index (BMI). We categorized BMI into the following using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cut-off points: underweight: BMI <18.5, normal: BMI 18.5-24.5, overweight: BMI 25-29.9, obese: BMI ≥30. Furthermore, we included patients´ “CD4 count at baseline WHO stage of HIV disease at baseline and 7 months follow-up time after initiation of treatment”. Statistical analysis: we performed data analysis using STATA 15. Patient´s demographics and clinical characteristics at baseline and end-line were described using percentages and frequencies for all categorical data. Means and standard deviation were used for all continuous variables. Given that our primary exposure was pregnancy and the two groups were balanced with respect to age and year of ART initiation, we also created a dichotomous variable for anaemia coded 1 for patients with any type of anaemia and 0 if otherwise. We then used the McNemar´s test to investigate the association between overall anaemia status (dichotomous) between the two data points (baseline and exit). For other categorical variables with more than 2 categories, we used Pearson Chi-square test to document any association between those characteristics and different levels of anaemia. An analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) was used to test for equality of mean ‘CD4 count at baseline and end-line’ across the three levels of anaemia. A small proportion of patients had item missing data on CD4 count (n=7 at baseline and n=49 at end-line) and BMI (n=22 at baseline, n=36 at end-line). These item-missing values were replaced by the mean values in the series to reduce non-response bias. A sensitivity analysis was conducted with complete case analysis and we found no evidence that the mean imputation introduced a bias to the estimates. We used an ordered logistic regression model to predict the likelihood of these patients being in the higher versus the lower category of anaemia levels as a function of selected covariates, using pregnancy as the primary exposure variable. The final model excluded 10 patients with unknown status on history of alcohol use. Results from Brant test showed no violation of the proportional odds assumption. Ethical approval: ethical clearance was obtained from Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (certificate number 2016-0696).
N/A