High variability in the measurement of HIV primary prevention activities and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: While there is a global consensus on monitoring Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) treatment progress, there has been less attention to the degree of consistency of the measurement of HIV prevention programmes-and the global prevention response is not on-track to achieve 2020 goals. In this paper, we assess the degree of variability in primary prevention indicators selected by national strategic plans (NSPs) and global stakeholder monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategies. METHODS: We obtained the most recent NSPs from low and middle income Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Fast-Track countries, and M&E documents from The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (The Global Fund), President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), UNAIDS, the Global HIV Prevention Coalition and the World Health Organization (WHO). We extracted HIV primary prevention indicators from each document, standardized and aggregated them by age/ sex, categorized indicators by topic, and evaluated the frequency of matched indicators between countries and stakeholders. Data were collected between February and April of 2019. RESULTS: Twenty-one NSPs and five global stakeholder documents were assessed; 736 primary prevention indicators were identified; 284 remained following standardization and aggregation. NSPs contained from 3 to 48 primary prevention indicators, with an average of 23; categories included: HIV education and outreach (17.6%), testing (17.3%) and condom use (16.2%). Of unique national indicators, only 34% was shared between two or more countries. Sixty-nine per cent was applied in a single country only. 56% of NSP indicators did not appear in any global stakeholder document. Conversely, 42% of global indicators did not appear in any surveyed NSPs. Within global indicators, 63% was only measured by one global body, and no single indicator was measured by all five. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses reveal a lack of consensus both between and within countries' and global stakeholders' measurement of HIV prevention. Though some variability is expected, these findings point to a need to refocus attention on achieving greater consensus on a global measurement framework for HIV prevention.

Cross-Country Individual Participant Analysis of 4.1 Million Singleton Births in 5 Countries with Very High Human Development Index Confirms Known Associations but Provides No Biologic Explanation for 2/3 of All Preterm Births.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the most common single cause of perinatal and infant mortality, affecting 15 million infants worldwide each year with global rates increasing. Understanding of risk factors remains poor, and preventive interventions have only limited benefit. Large differences exist in preterm birth rates across high income countries. We hypothesized that understanding the basis for these wide variations could lead to interventions that reduce preterm birth incidence in countries with high rates. We thus sought to assess the contributions of known risk factors for both spontaneous and provider-initiated preterm birth in selected high income countries, estimating also the potential impact of successful interventions due to advances in research, policy and public health, or clinical practice. METHODS: We analyzed individual patient-level data on 4.1 million singleton pregnancies from four countries with very high human development index (Czech Republic, New Zealand, Slovenia, Sweden) and one comparator U.S. state (California) to determine the specific contribution (adjusting for confounding effects) of 21 factors. Both individual and population-attributable preterm birth risks were determined, as were contributors to cross-country differences. We also assessed the ability to predict preterm birth given various sets of known risk factors. FINDINGS: Previous preterm birth and preeclampsia were the strongest individual risk factors of preterm birth in all datasets, with odds ratios of 4.6-6.0 and 2.8-5.7, respectively, for individual women having those characteristics. In contrast, on a population basis, nulliparity and male sex were the two risk factors with the highest impact on preterm birth rates, accounting for 25-50% and 11-16% of excess population attributable risk, respectively (p<0.001). The importance of nulliparity and male sex on population attributable risk was driven by high prevalence despite low odds ratios for individual women. More than 65% of the total aggregated risk of preterm birth within each country lacks a plausible biologic explanation, and 63% of difference between countries cannot be explained with known factors; thus, research is necessary to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of preterm birth and, hence, therapeutic intervention. Surprisingly, variation in prevalence of known risk factors accounted for less than 35% of the difference in preterm birth rates between countries. Known risk factors had an area under the curve of less than 0.7 in ROC analysis of preterm birth prediction within countries. These data suggest that other influences, as yet unidentified, are involved in preterm birth. Further research into biological mechanisms is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: We have quantified the causes of variation in preterm birth rates among countries with very high human development index. The paucity of explicit and currently identified factors amenable to intervention illustrates the limited impact of changes possible through current clinical practice and policy interventions. Our research highlights the urgent need for research into underlying biological causes of preterm birth, which alone are likely to lead to innovative and efficacious interventions.

Born too soon: accelerating actions for prevention and care of 15 million newborns born too soon.

Preterm birth complication is the leading cause of neonatal death resulting in over one million deaths each year of the 15 million babies born preterm. To accelerate change, we provide an overview of the comprehensive strategy required, the tools available for context-specifi c health system implementation now, and the priorities for research and innovation. There is an urgent need for action on a dual track: (1) through strategic research to advance the prevention of preterm birth and (2) improved implementation and innovation for care of the premature neonate. We highlight evidence-based interventions along the continuum of care, noting gaps in coverage, quality, equity and implications for integration and scale up. Improved metrics are critical for both burden and tracking programmatic change. Linked to the United Nation's Every Women Every Child strategy, a target was set for 50% reduction in preterm deaths by 2025. Three analyses informed this target: historical change in high income countries, recent progress in best performing countries, and modelling of mortality reduction with high coverage of existing interventions. If universal coverage of selected interventions were to be achieved, then 84% or more than 921,000 preterm neonatal deaths could be prevented annually, with antenatal corticosteroids and Kangaroo Mother Care having the highest impact. Everyone has a role to play in reaching this target including government leaders, professionals, private sector, and of course families who are aff ected the most and whose voices have been critical for change in many of the countries with the most progress.

Preventing preterm births: analysis of trends and potential reductions with interventions in 39 countries with very high human development index.

BACKGROUND: Every year, 1·1 million babies die from prematurity, and many survivors are disabled. Worldwide, 15 million babies are born preterm (<37 weeks' gestation), with two decades of increasing rates in almost all countries with reliable data. The understanding of drivers and potential benefit of preventive interventions for preterm births is poor. We examined trends and estimate the potential reduction in preterm births for countries with very high human development index (VHHDI) if present evidence-based interventions were widely implemented. This analysis is to inform a rate reduction target for Born Too Soon. METHODS: Countries were assessed for inclusion based on availability and quality of preterm prevalence data (2000-10), and trend analyses with projections undertaken. We analysed drivers of rate increases in the USA, 1989-2004. For 39 countries with VHHDI with more than 10,000 births, we did country-by-country analyses based on target population, incremental coverage increase, and intervention efficacy. We estimated cost savings on the basis of reported costs for preterm care in the USA adjusted using World Bank purchasing power parity. FINDINGS: From 2010, even if all countries with VHHDI achieved annual preterm birth rate reductions of the best performers for 1990-2010 (Estonia and Croatia), 2000-10 (Sweden and Netherlands), or 2005-10 (Lithuania, Estonia), rates would experience a relative reduction of less than 5% by 2015 on average across the 39 countries. Our analysis of preterm birth rise 1989-2004 in USA suggests half the change is unexplained, but important drivers include non-medically indicated labour induction and caesarean delivery and assisted reproductive technologies. For all 39 countries with VHHDI, five interventions modelling at high coverage predicted a 5% relative reduction of preterm birth rate from 9·59% to 9·07% of livebirths: smoking cessation (0·01 rate reduction), decreasing multiple embryo transfers during assisted reproductive technologies (0·06), cervical cerclage (0·15), progesterone supplementation (0·01), and reduction of non-medically indicated labour induction or caesarean delivery (0·29). These findings translate to roughly 58,000 preterm births averted and total annual economic cost savings of about US$3 billion. INTERPRETATION: We recommend a conservative target of a relative reduction in preterm birth rates of 5% by 2015. Our findings highlight the urgent need for research into underlying mechanisms of preterm births, and development of innovative interventions. Furthermore, the highest preterm birth rates occur in low-income settings where the causes of prematurity might differ and have simpler solutions such as birth spacing and treatment of infections in pregnancy than in high-income countries. Urgent focus on these settings is also crucial to reduce preterm births worldwide. FUNDING: March of Dimes, USA, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and National Institutes of Health, USA.