» Articles » PMID: 38444836

Retrospective Review of Maternal HIV Viral Load Electronic Gatekeeping Codes in South Africa

Overview
Date 2024 Mar 6
PMID 38444836
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Maternal electronic gatekeeping (eGK) codes for HIV viral load (VL) testing of pregnant and breastfeeding women were developed to permit increased frequency of maternal HIV VL testing without automated gatekeeping cancellation, and to enable virological surveillance.

Objectives: This study describes the national uptake of maternal eGK codes and VL suppression (VLS) rates disaggregated by age during antenatal, delivery and postnatal periods in South Africa during 2022.

Method: HIV VL tests associated with C#PMTCT (used for antenatal and postnatal testing) and C#DELIVERY (used at delivery) eGK codes between 01 January and 31 December 2022, were extracted from the National Institute for Communicable Diseases Data Warehouse. Uptake of eGK codes was calculated using indicators from the District Health Information System as denominators while HIV VLS rates (< 1000 copies/mL) were calculated as monthly and annual percentages.

Results: Overall, national maternal eGK code uptake was 41.8%, 24.5% and 0.12% for the antenatal, delivery and postnatal periods, respectively. The monthly antenatal eGK uptake increased from 27.5% to 58.5% while delivery uptake increased from 17.3% to 30.0%. The overall annual maternal HIV VLS rate was 86.7% antenatally and 87.2% during delivery. The monthly average HIV VLS for adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) was 76.1% antenatally and 79.6% during delivery.

Conclusion: Although overall national uptake of maternal HIV VL eGK codes was low, antenatal and delivery uptake improved over time, thereby facilitating use of eGK codes for programmatic monitoring of maternal VLS rates for the first time. Quality of care among pregnant AGYW requires urgent attention.

References
1.
Pema A, Kiabilua O, Pillay T . Demand management by electronic gatekeeping of test requests does not influence requesting behaviour or save costs dramatically. Ann Clin Biochem. 2017; 55(2):244-253. DOI: 10.1177/0004563217707980. View

2.
Myer L, Dunning L, Lesosky M, Hsiao N, Phillips T, Petro G . Frequency of Viremic Episodes in HIV-Infected Women Initiating Antiretroviral Therapy During Pregnancy: A Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 64(4):422-427. PMC: 5849096. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw792. View

3.
Myer L, Essajee S, Broyles L, Watts D, Lesosky M, El-Sadr W . Pregnant and breastfeeding women: A priority population for HIV viral load monitoring. PLoS Med. 2017; 14(8):e1002375. PMC: 5557351. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002375. View

4.
Nachega J, Hislop M, Nguyen H, Dowdy D, Chaisson R, Regensberg L . Antiretroviral therapy adherence, virologic and immunologic outcomes in adolescents compared with adults in southern Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009; 51(1):65-71. PMC: 2674125. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e318199072e. View

5.
Moyo F, Mazanderani A, Kufa T, Sherman G . Maternal HIV viral load testing during pregnancy and postpartum care in Gauteng Province, South Africa. S Afr Med J. 2021; 111(5):469-473. DOI: 10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i5.15240. View