Suchergebnisse

IntroductionIncreased life expectancy of HIV‐positive individuals during recent years has drawn attention to their quality of life, which includes fulfilment of fertility desires. In particular, heterosexual HIV serodiscordant couples constitute a special group for whom the balance between desired pregnancy and the risk of viral transmission should be carefully considered and optimized. Although advanced assisted reproductive technologies are available, such treatments are expensive and are often unavailable. Moreover, standard viral load testing and antiretroviral therapy may not be accessible due to structural or individual barriers. To reduce the risk of HIV transmission, a lower cost alternative is timed condomless sex combined with other risk‐reduction strategies. However, timed condomless sex requires specific knowledge of how to accurately predict the fertile window in a menstrual cycle. The aim of this study was to summarize inexpensive fertility awareness methods (FAMs) that predict the fertile window and may be useful for counselling HIV‐positive couples on lower cost options to conceive.MethodsOriginal English‐language research articles were identified by a detailed Medline and Embase search in July 2014. Relevant citations in the included articles were also retrieved.Results and discussionCalendar method, basal body temperature and cervicovaginal mucus secretions are the most accessible and sensitive FAMs, although poor specificity precludes their independent use in ovulation detection. In contrast, urinary luteinizing hormone testing is highly specific but less sensitive, and more expensive. To maximize the chance of conception per cycle, the likelihood of natural conception needs to be assessed with a basic fertility evaluation of both partners and a combination of FAMs should be offered. Adherence to other risk‐reduction strategies should also be advised, and timely referral to reproductive medicine specialists is necessary when sub/infertility is suspected.ConclusionsFAMs provide effective, economical and accessible options for HIV serodiscordant couples to conceive while minimizing unnecessary viral exposure. It is important for health care providers to initiate conversations about fertility desires in HIV‐positive couples and to educate identified couples on safer conception strategies.

AbstractIntroductionCurrently, the United States (U.S.) recommends that infants born to women living with HIV (WLHIV) be fed formula, whereas many low‐resource settings follow the World Health Organization's recommendation to exclusively breastfeed with ongoing antiretroviral therapy. Evidence on infant feeding among WLHIV in high‐resource countries suggest that these contrasting recommendations create challenges for providers and patients. Our study used multiple methods to understand providers' infant feeding perspectives on caring for their pregnant and post‐partum WLHIV in the U.S.MethodsWe sent a survey (n = 93) to providers across the U.S. who have cared for WLHIV. A subset of survey participants opted into a follow‐up qualitative interview (n = 21). These methods allowed us to capture a broad understanding of provider attitudes via the survey and more nuanced qualitative interviews. The study was completed prior to an updated breastfeeding section of the U.S. Perinatal Guidelines.ResultsThe majority of providers (66.7%) discussed infant feeding intent with their patients using open‐ended questions. Many also discussed alternative feeding methods (37.6%) and disclosure avoidance strategies (34.4%). Over 75% (95% confidence interval (CI): 65.1 to 84.2) of participants reported that a WLHIV asked if she could breastfeed her child, and 29% (95% CI 20 to 40.3) reported caring for a patient who breastfed despite recommendations against breastfeeding. Providers reported that their patients' primary concern was stigma associated with not breastfeeding (58%), while providers were primarily concerned about medication adherence during breastfeeding (70%). Through qualitative analysis, four overarching categories emerged that reflect providers' sentiments, including (1) U.S. guidelines inadequately addressing WLHIV's desire to breastfeed; (2) negotiating patient autonomy amidst complex feeding situations; (3) harm reduction approaches to supporting WLHIV in breastfeeding; and (4) providers anticipating multilayered patient stigmatization.ConclusionsThe majority of provider respondents cared for a WLHIV who desired to breastfeed, and a third had WLHIV who breastfed despite recommendations against it. Providers found that the status of U.S. guidelines and their incongruity with WHO guidelines left them without adequate resources to support WLHIV's infant feeding decisions. Our findings provide important insight to inform professional associations' discussions about public health policy as they consider future directions for infant feeding guidelines among WLHIV.

Clinical research to inform the evidence base to guide nonobstetrical care during pregnancy is critically important for the well-being of women and their future offspring. Conversations about regulations for such research, including whether paternal consent should ever be required, should be informed by the perspectives of those most affected, namely, pregnant women. We conducted in-depth interviews with 140 pregnant women living with or at risk of HIV—70 in Malawi, 70 in the United States—exploring their views on requiring paternal consent for pregnant women's participation in trials offering the prospect of direct benefit solely to the fetus. The majority of women supported such a requirement; others raised concerns. A trio of themes—the father's or pregnant woman's rights, fetal protection, and gender/relationship dynamics—characterized views both supporting and against a paternal consent requirement, expanding the range of considerations that should inform approaches to paternal involvement in research with pregnant women.