Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Apr 13;21(4):e0346045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346045

Virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Berihun Agegn Mengistie 1,*, Getie Mihret Aragaw 1, Gebrye Gizaw Mulatu 2, Kindu Yinges Wondie 3, Alemneh Tadesse Kassie 3, Alemken Eyayu Abuhay 4, Wondimnew Mersha Biset 5, Moges Tesfa Tsega 6, Abay Eyayu Asrie 7, Tazeb Alemu Anteneh 3, Habtu Kifle Negash 8, Eshet Gebrie 9, Nuhamin Tesfa Tsega 10
Editor: Richard Makurumidze11
PMCID: PMC13075719  PMID: 41973701

Abstract

Background

The elimination of mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a key global public health priority. In Africa, virologic failure among people living with HIV continues to pose a significant public health challenge, affecting both individual well-being and community health. Maintaining viral load suppression is crucial to prevent vertical transmission of HIV and to minimize maternal morbidity and mortality. To stop the vertical transmission of HIV and lower the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality, it is important to achieve viral load suppression. Although many African countries have adopted the global 95-95-95 targets, comprehensive data on virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating mothers across the continent remains limited. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the pooled estimate of virologic suppression and to examine the factors associated with it among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women on antiretroviral therapy in Africa.

Methods

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251186121). We carried out a thorough systematic review by examining PubMed, ScienceDirect, Hinari, and Google Scholar for relevant studies. Data from the studies were retrieved using an Excel sheet and analyzed with STATA version 17. The Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of studies. A random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) was applied to determine the pooled prevalence of virologic suppression (viral load threshold ≤1000 copies/ml) among pregnant and lactating mothers in Africa. A funnel plot and the Egger’s test were used to investigate publication bias. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane’s Q test.

Results

A total of 55 eligible studies, comprising 304,883 participants, were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Accordingly, the overall prevalence of virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and breastfeeding women in Africa was 80.86% (95% CI: 77.63%, 84.09%, I2 = 99.84%). In contrast, the pooled estimate for achieving an undetectable viral load was substantially lower, at 60.92% (95% CI: 52.46%, 69.39%; I2 = 99.91%). Virologic suppression was significantly associated with women’s age (15–24 years) (AOR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32–0.77), disclosure of HIV status to a partner (AOR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.31–2.11), first-line antiretroviral therapy regimen (AOR = 6.53; 95% CI: 1.93–22.06), and good antiretroviral drug adherence (AOR = 3.61; 95% CI: 1.18–11.02). In addition, other socio-demographic variables, higher educational level, being married/cohabitant, urban residency, healthcare utilization (time of ANC booking, time of ART initiation, duration of ART), fear of stigma, distance to health facility, shortage of health professionals, ART drug stock-out, and lack of HIV care commodities were significantly associated with virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women in Africa.

Conclusion

The pooled estimate of virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and breastfeeding women in Africa was approximately 81%, below the global target of 95% virological suppression. This emphasizes the necessity of targeted strategies for younger HIV-positive women, disclosing HIV status, initiating first-line antiretroviral regimens, and promoting antiretroviral treatment adherence. Upgrading health care systems to enable regular viral load monitoring, as well as addressing socio-demographic and antiretroviral therapy-related variables, are vital steps towards attaining and sustaining VS in these groups of population, ultimately assisting in achieving elimination of MTCT of HIV.

Introduction

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is one of the world’s most critical public health challenges, affecting millions of people [1,2]. According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and World Health Organization (WHO) report, approximately 40.8 million people worldwide were infected with HIV, of which 21.0 million were women (15 + years); 1.3 million new HIV cases were reported, and 630,000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses at the end of 2024. In this report, nearly 1.4 million children aged below 15 years were living with HIV [1,2]. Sub-Saharan African countries were responsible for 65% (an estimated 26.3 million) of the worldwide HIV burden [1,2]. Women and girls of all ages contributed to 44% of all new HIV infections globally in 2023 [3].

The primary route of HIV infection in children is mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum periods through breastfeeding [4]. It accounts for more than 90% of all newly acquired pediatric HIV infections worldwide [5]. Without intervention, the overall MTCT of HIV incidence ranges from 15% to 45% [6]. However, appropriate interventions during pregnancy, labor, and breastfeeding can lower the risk of perinatal HIV transmission to less than 2% in non-breastfeeding and 5% in breastfeeding populations, respectively [7,8].

The World Health Organization (WHO) is committed to a global public health mission that focuses on expanding access to HIV testing, antiretroviral therapy (ART), and treatment monitoring, aiming to enhance clinical management of HIV, achieve sustained viral suppression, and lower HIV-related morbidity and mortality [9]. Maternal plasma HIV viral load (VL) status is the strongest determinant of HIV transmission from mother to child (MTCT) [1012]. Nowadays, viral load assessment has become the main approach for monitoring HIV patients’ clinical and virologic outcome to ART [13]. HIV viral load is categorized into three main stages: unsuppressed (>1000 copies/mL), suppressed (detected but ≤1000 copies/mL), and undetectable (<50 copies/mL or not detected by the assay used) [9,10,14]. In 2021, the World Health Organization revised its HIV treatment monitoring algorithm to enhance support for people living with HIV in attaining viral suppression, with the ultimate aim of maintaining an undetectable viral load [9]. Achieving HIV viral suppression is crucial for enhancing individual health, preventing sexual transmission, and lowering the risk of perinatal transmission [9]. On the contrary, pregnant and lactating women who do not achieve virologic suppression (VS) are at a higher risk of HIV-related complications, death, and vertical transmission to their infants [10,15].

Studies show that achieving and maintaining VS among pregnant and postpartum WLWH remains to be challenging, despite significant progress in the scaling up of ART via prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) initiatives [1618]. Several countries have been implementing the PMTCT program packages [1921]. It includes lifetime ART for pregnant and breastfeeding women, preventive antiretroviral (ARV) medications for HIV-exposed infants (HEIs), serial testing for HEIs, and prompt ART initiation for children who acquire HIV [4,22]. Maintaining virologic suppression (≤1000 copies/ml) in HIV-positive pregnant and postpartum women is a global public health goal for improving maternal health and producing HIV-free children [12,23].

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) as part of PMTCT is an important strategy to combat the global AIDS crisis and lower vertical transmission rates [24]. The WHO guidelines indicated that ART should be initiated in all pregnant and breastfeeding HIV-positive women, regardless of their VL, clinical stage, or CD4 cell count [15]. The fixed-dose combination (FDC) of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), lamivudine (3TC), and dolutegravir (DTG) is the ideal first-line regimen for the treatment of HIV infection in adults and adolescents, including pregnant and breastfeeding women [25]. Timely initiation and consistent adherence to ART are key predictors for achieving virologic suppression, specifically undetectable HIV viral load and preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV, mitigating a range of clinical, virological, and immunological risks [15,26]. Additionally, viral suppression enhances health outcomes for HIV-positive women, notably decreased illness, longer life expectancy, and better birth outcomes [2729].

To tackle the continuing HIV crisis, the UNAIDS program is striding toward a 95-95-95 global target, ensuring that 95% of individuals living with HIV are aware of their HIV status, 95% of those diagnosed initiate lifelong ART, and at least 95% of patients beginning ART achieve virologic suppression [3032]. However, in many of the SSA countries, virologic suppression is still behind the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets [3234].

In Africa, ART treatment failure or virologic failure among HIV-positive individuals continues to be a significant public health concern [3537]. Similarly, the rate of virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women is still unsatisfactory throughout the continent [16,38]. In Africa, previous study findings on the proportion of virologic suppression among pregnant and breastfeeding women living with HIV revealed inconsistent and equivocal results that ranged from 29.1% to 97.8% [39,40]. A body of evidence has shown that sociodemographic variables, adherence to ART, ART regimens, enhanced counseling, baseline viral load status, duration of ART, disclosing HIV status, medication tolerance, drug–drug interactions, CD4 cell counts, prior treatment history, and antiretroviral drug resistance were found to be significantly associated with virologic suppression [36,4144].

Achieving the third target of the UNAIDS 95-95-95 goals, ensuring that 95% of people living with HIV on ART achieve sustained VS, is essential to curbing HIV transmission and improving health outcomes [45]. Despite substantial progress in scaling up ART and PMTCT services through national, regional, and international initiatives, virologic suppression among pregnant and breastfeeding women remains suboptimal in many African countries. This enduring gap represents a critical, yet under-addressed challenge with profound implications for maternal health and the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission. This persistent gap highlights an urgent, unresolved challenge with critical implications for both maternal health and the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Numerous studies have demonstrated that late ART initiation, poor adherence during pregnancy and the postpartum period, insufficient viral load monitoring, treatment interruptions, loss to follow-up during breastfeeding, and delayed ART initiation are all interrelated factors that contribute to virologic non-suppression. Sociocultural and institutional obstacles, including stigma, limited access to high-quality maternal HIV services, socioeconomic vulnerability, and limitations in the health system, further hamper long-term participation in maternity care [4447,48].

Despite the fact that numerous studies document local viral suppression rates in particular countries, there is no rigorous and consolidated quantitative synthesis for this particular population group (pregnant and lactating women) has been conducted across Africa. This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses this gap by pooling data from diverse settings, estimating overall virologic suppression rates, and identifying key determinants of virologic suppression in these particular population groups. This study is unique in its geographical scope and target population since it consolidates fragmented and heterogeneous findings into a coherent continent-wide perspective. It provides robust and actionable evidence to guide health professionals, policymakers, and guideline developers in designing and implementing targeted, evidence-based strategies to enhance virologic suppression in these populations, ultimately contributing to eliminating perinatal transmission of HIV.

Methods and materials

Study protocol and search strategy

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) standards [49]. The study protocol for the review has been registered on PROSPERO with reference ID CRD420251186121 and available on: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251186121 (S1 File).

A rigorous and comprehensive review of Google Scholar, PubMed, Hinari, and ScienceDirect for original research on virologic suppression and associated factors conducted in Africa. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on the condition, context, and study population (Co Co Pop) approach. Previous studies that met the eligibility criteria were retrieved.

A search strategy was developed for the databases by combining keywords with Boolean operators. Ultimately, we employed the following search term combination: “viral load suppression”, “virologic suppression”, “viral suppression”, “HIV viral load non-suppression”, “viral load”, “detectable viral load”, “undetectable viral load”, “virological suppression”, “HIV viral load”, “plasma viremia”, “HIV viral suppression”, “HIV viremia”, “HIV-positive women”, pregnant, “lactating mothers”, “postpartum women”, “breastfeeding mothers”, “antiretroviral therapy”, ART and Africa. To obtain additional articles from the citation list of publications found in the databases that were accessible, snowballing techniques were also employed (S2 File).

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria.

Condition: The condition of interest was virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa.

Context: All primary studies that reported the prevalence and/or associated factors of virologic suppression in the Africa context.

Population: The study population for this review is pregnant and lactating mothers living with HIV on ART.

Study design: All primary observational studies, including cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies that reported the prevalence and/or associated factors virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART.

Publication year: Both published and unpublished articles from end of 2015 (benchmark for the beginning of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) era, and July 30, 2025, were included.

Exclusion criteria.

Articles that failed to report the outcome of interest, narrative reviews, qualitative reviews, expert comments, case reports, editorials, letters, and methodological studies were excluded from the review.

Measurement of outcome variables

This study aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa. This study’s second objective was to determine the variables that are associated with virologic suppression in these key populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined virological suppression as when viral load copies become ≤1,000 copies/mL of blood after six months of ART initiation [9,50]. However, virologic failure (VF) is defined as a VL persistently over 1000 copies/mL in two consecutive measurements after 6 months (3 months apart) on enhanced ART adherence support. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we employed a viral load threshold of ≤1,000 copies/mL (virologic suppression), which is consistent with the WHO guideline criteria utilized in standard clinical decision-making [16,50,51].

Quality assessment for included studies

The quality of the included primary studies was evaluated independently by two authors (BAM and NTT). Each study was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Checklist developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Twenty-eight of the included papers were evaluated using the 9-item cross-sectional checklist, while 27 used the 11-item cohort checklist [52,53]. Studies with a JBI checklist score of five or above were regarded as being of acceptable quality, indicating a low likelihood of bias. Any disputes between the two authors were settled by open conversation and consultation with GMA, the third author.

Data extraction and management

Data extraction from the included publications was performed independently by two authors (BAM and NTT) using a standardized abstraction form developed in Excel. In accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, all identified studies were imported into the reference manager EndNote 20. After screening titles and abstracts, full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (GMA). To avoid duplication, studies with overlapping or identical data were excluded. For eligible studies, the following information was extracted: identification details (first author’s last name and year of publication), proportion of virologic suppression, factors associated with virologic suppression, adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, study area, study design, study population, sample size, and risk of bias assessment method (S3 File, S4 Table).

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

All statistical data analyses were carried out after the data were collected using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and exported to the statistical program STATA version 17. Texts, tables, and forest plots were used to display the extracted data. A binomial distribution was used to determine each study’s standard error of prevalence of the outcome variable. The Higgins I-squared (I2) test was used to check for heterogeneity in the pooled prevalence of the studies. The heterogeneity among the included studies was classified as low, moderate, or high based on I2 values of <25%, 50–75%, and >75%, respectively [54].

A random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) was used to determine the pooled prevalence of virologic suppression in Africa. REML is preferred over the Der Simonian and Laird method because it employs a likelihood-based approach, which typically offers a more stable and unbiased estimate of between-study variance (τ²) and more accurate confidence interval coverage, especially in the presence of high heterogeneity. Even though Der Simonian and Laird’s method offers a narrower confidence interval (CI), it underestimates the between-study variance (τ²) and inflates type I error (false positive) under extreme heterogeneity, which affects the robustness of the pooled estimate [55,56].

A subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis were conducted across the publication year, country, regions of Africa, ART regimen, and study population to identify potential sources of study heterogeneity. In addition, we performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis to look at how particular studies influence the pooled estimate. The pooled estimates from across the continent were then displayed in forest plots and tables, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Potential small-study effects were assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s regression test. Visually, publication bias has been assessed using a funnel plot (23). Statistically, potential publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test, with a p-value < 0.05 suggesting evidence of publication bias [57]. Finally, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic synthesis to examine the determinants of virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa.

Results

Study selection and characteristics of the included studies

All searched databases, including Google Scholar, yielded a total of 1,639 research articles; 406 duplicate records were deleted, and the remaining 1,233 papers were further screened. However, the majority of papers (n = 1,108) were removed after reading their titles and abstracts. The remaining 125 full-text articles were then reviewed for eligibility criteria, and 70 studies were excluded for a variety of reasons, including insufficient data, a difference in the viral load suppression cutoff point, variation in the study context, being unrelated to the outcome of interest, systematic reviews, and qualitative reviews. Then, the remaining 55 eligible studies with a total of 304,883 HIV-positive pregnant and breastfeeding women were included in the final quantitative meta-analysis [16,28,44,51,5879,8083,8494]. Among the included studies, 26 articles had reported an undetectable VL threshold (VL < 50 copies/ml). In terms of study distribution across Africa, 31 and 13 studies were undertaken in Southern Africa and Eastern Africa, respectively (Fig 1).

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram showing the selection process of studies for the virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa.

Fig 1

Prevalence of virological suppression among pregnant and lactating mothers receiving ART in Africa

In this meta-analysis, the pooled prevalence of virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa was 80.86% (95% CI: 77.63%, 84.09%, I2 = 99.84%, τ² = 146.21, p-value = 0.000). Additionally, the pooled estimate showed that only 60.92% (95% CI: 52.46%, 69.39%, I2 = 99.91%) of participants achieved an undetectable viral load status. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, such as differences in study setting, population characteristics, and study design. Besides, sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the pooled prevalence and to determine whether any single study had a disproportionate influence on the overall results (Fig 2).

Fig 2. A forest plot that shows the pooled prevalence of virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa.

Fig 2

The 95% prediction interval (PI) was 57.4% to 95.5%, indicating that the effect size of a new study conducted in a comparable setting could plausibly fall within this CI. Even though the pooled prevalence offers a useful overall summary, the wide prediction interval indicates substantial between-study heterogeneity. Accordingly, the pooled estimate should be interpreted as a descriptive summary of existing studies rather than a precise estimate for all settings. Due to the substantial heterogeneity among studies, a median-based summary was employed as an alternative statistical method. Consequently, the median prevalence across studies was 84.1% (IQR: 75.5%, 89.7%), providing a robust, non-parametric summary that is not influenced by extreme values or high variability among studies.

Heterogeneity and subgroup analysis

Subgroup analysis was performed based on the country, the regions of Africa, and the study population. Accordingly, Ethiopia had the highest prevalence of VS, 94.11% (95% CI: 91.16, 97.07), while the Democratic Republic of Congo had the lowest prevalence, 62.66% (95% CI: 58.56, 66.75). Moreover, the lowest overall prevalence of VS in pregnant and lactating mothers living with HIV was found in the Central Africa region (62.66%; 95% CI: 58.56, 66.75), whereas the highest was in Western and East Africa, which found nearly 84% of viral suppression. In terms of the study population, 81% of pregnant and postpartum mothers had VS, which is nearly the same pooled prevalence.

Overall, the subgroup analysis demonstrated substantial geographic variation in virologic suppression across Africa, highlighting differences in ART program effectiveness and context-specific variables. This significant between-studies heterogeneity suggests that multiple factors, such as variations in ART regimens, level of ART adherence, health system capacity, availability of viral load monitoring, and sociocultural barriers, contribute to the observed differences in virologic suppression (Table 1).

Table 1. Subgroup analysis for virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa.

Parameters Studies VS (%) at 95% CI I2 (%) P-value
Stud y design
Cohort studies 27 82.74% (80.80, 84.69) 99.35% 0.000
Cross-sectional studies 28 79.34% (74.06, 84.63) 99.69% 0.000
Country
Cameroon 2 91.89% (89.23, 94.55) 0.00 0.327
DR Congo 4 62.66% (58.56, 66.75) 92.49 0.000
Ethiopia 4 94.11% (91.16, 97.07) 94.97 0.000
Kenya 3 84.82% (74.86, 94.78) 92.80 0.000
Malawi 6 88.06% (85.62, 90.51) 80.81 0.000
SSA 3 66.28% (60.04, 72.51) 95.09 0.000
South Africa 21 82.8% (80.42, 85.21) 99.64 0.000
Uganda 3 66.99% (23.93, 110.05) 99.72 0.000
Rwanda 2 88.30% (81.15, 95.46) 93.31 0.000
Zimbabwe 2 82.58% (73.20, 91.97) 87.27 0.005
Others* 3 76.52% (69.68, 83.35) 71.31 0.031
Regions of Africa
Central Africa 4 62.66% (58.56, 66.75) 92.49 0.000
East Africa 13 83.49% (77.69, 89.3) 99.09 0.000
Sub-Saharan Africa 4 66.28% (60.04, 72.51) 95.09 0.000
Southern Africa 31 83.74% (81.72, 85.76) 99.47 0.000
Western Africa 3 84.49% (72.77, 96.20) 94.24 0.000
Study population
Pregnant women 38 81.15% (78.66, 83.63) 99.61 0.000
Postpartum women 9 80.61% (73.28, 87.94) 99.08 0.000
Both 8 80.21% (73.25, 87.18) 98.87 0.000

*Nigeria, Estiwani, Tanzania.

Publication bias

The presence of publication bias was graphically checked using a funnel plot, and it was confirmed statistically using Egger’s test. Thus, the funnel plot shows some visual asymmetry, but according to the Egger’s test (p-value = 0.2402), there is no statistically significant evidence of publication bias. The asymmetry may be due to extreme heterogeneity across studies (Fig 3).

Fig 3. A funnel plot test that indicates the virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa.

Fig 3

Sensitivity analysis

To examine the impact of a single study on the estimated effect size, a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The results, however, demonstrate that the pooled estimate was not substantially impacted by a single study, and the point estimate of the excluded study is within the confidence interval of the overall estimate of virologic suppression.

This demonstrated that the average estimate of virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and breastfeeding mothers in Africa was robust (Fig 4).

Fig 4. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis of virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women on antiretroviral therapy in Africa.

Fig 4

Meta-regression analysis.

A meta-regression analysis, together with subgroup and sensitivity analyses, was conducted to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. Study-level characteristics, including publication year (before vs. after 2020), ART regimen, country, African region, and sample size, were entered as covariates in the model. The analysis showed that use of a DTG-based ART regimen and the African region were significant moderators, accounting for part of the observed heterogeneity across studies. Thus, DTG-based ART regimens demonstrated significantly higher virologic suppression compared to non-DTG-based regimens (β = 16.43, p = 0.012). This suggests that variations in ART regimens had a significant role in the observed heterogeneity between studies, with DTG-based therapy significantly associated with virologic suppression. Furthermore, the region of Africa was substantially linked with viral load suppression (β = −2.92, p = 0.037), indicating considerable regional variations in virologic suppression rate. This study suggests that contextual factors related to geographic location, such as disparities in health system capability, implementation of ART programs, and VL monitoring, influence the observed between-study heterogeneity (Table 2).

Table 2. Meta-regression for factors correlated with virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa.
Variables β-coefficient Std. error z P-value 95% CI
Publication year
After 2020 (Ref.)
Before 2020 −2.73 3.55 −0.77 0.443 −9.69, 4.24
ART regimen
Non-DTG based (Ref.)
DTG-based 16.43 6.55 2.51 0.012 3.58, 29.26
Country −0.24 0.183 −1.33 0.183 −0.60, 0.12
Region of Africa −2.92 1.40 −2.08 0.037 −5.66, −0.17
Sample size −0.001 0.0002 −1.30 0.195 −0.0005, 0.0001
Constant 91.48 5.77 15.85 0.000 80.17, 102.80

Factors associated with virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating mothers receiving ART in Africa

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated 16 studies that identified factors associated with virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating mothers receiving ART in Africa [16,17,44,59,60,63,64,73,75,78,79,84,86,95]. In general, virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women was substantially correlated with sociodemographic variables (women’s age, higher educational level, being married/cohabitating, urban residency) [16,17,44,51,59,64,73,9597], healthcare utilization (time of ANC booking and ART initiation, regimen and duration of ART, baseline VL threshold, adherence status of ART) [17,39,44,59,64,95,96,98], and accessibility and availability of healthcare services (long distance to health facility, shortage of health professionals, inadequate counseling, ART drugs running out, sub-optimal sample transportation) [12,99,100].

The odds of having virologic suppression were higher among women living in urban compared with rural resident women [64,95,97]. Furthermore, women’s educational status was significantly associated with VS. Evidence from different studies consistently showed that women with secondary school or above had higher VS compared to women with no formal education [64,73].

Virologic suppression was not achieved among women who started ANC booking or initiated ART in the second or third trimester [44,64,95,98]. Similarly, long distance to reach a health facility, shortage of health providers, inadequate counseling, ART drugs running out, and sub-optimal sample transportation are linked with failure of virologic suppression [12,99,100]. In addition, advanced WHO stage of HIV (clinical stage II, III or IV) [39,98]; fear of stigma and discrimination [12,99,100]; and disclosure of HIV status [16,39,95,101,102] were found to be significantly associated with virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART (S5 Table).

In this meta-analysis, younger women (15–24 years) (AOR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32–0.77) were 51% less likely to attain virologic suppression compared to those aged 25 years and older [16,64,96]. Furthermore, a pooled analysis of three studies found that women who disclosed their HIV status (AOR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.31, 2.11) were 1.66 times more likely to achieve virologic suppression compared to their counterparts.

In addition, the likelihood of achieving viral load suppression was 6.5 times higher for pregnant and lactating women on a first-line ART regimen (AOR = 6.53; 95% CI: 1.93, 22.06) than for those on second- or third-line regimens. Finally, the odds of virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women who had good ART adherence (AOR = 3.61, 95% CI: 1.18, 11.02) were 3.61 times more likely compared to those who had poor adherence to ART (Table 3).

Table 3. Meta-analysis for factors associated virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women on antiretroviral therapy in Africa.

Variables No_ studies AOR (95% CI) I2 (%) P-value
Maternal age
≥25 years (Ref.) 4
15-24 years 0.49 (0.32, 0.77) 79.7% 0.002
Disclosing HIV status to partner 4 1.66 (1.31, 2.11) 0.00% 0.04
ART type
First line ART 3 6.53 (1.93, 22.03) 86.07% 0.001
Second and/ third line ART (Ref.)
Adherence status to ART 5
Good 3.61 (1.18, 11.02) 94.6% 0.001
Poor (Ref.)

Discussion

The main objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to determine the proportion of virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women receiving ART and identify factors associated with it. Thus, the pooled prevalence of virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women taking ART in Africa was 80.86% (95% CI: 77.63%, 84.09%). Additionally, the pooled estimate showed that only 60.92% of participants achieved an undetectable viral load (95% CI: 52.46%, 69.39%; I2 = 99.91%). This conclusion was comparable with a study conducted in East Africa, which found 80.6% virologic suppression among patients living with HIV. However, the finding of this review was lower than studies reported: 84% in Ethiopia [103], 85% in Sub-Saharan Africa [104], and far lower than the global target of achieving 95% viral suppression in patients receiving ART [31]. In contrast, the findings of the current study were higher than a study conducted in Ethiopia (71%) [105].

This could be due to the difference in the study population, study setting, and availability and adherence to ART. Thus, the study population for the previous studies was adults living with HIV, whereas the current study involves pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa. The possible explanation could relate to physiological and immunological changes during perinatal periods [106]. Pregnancy alters the immune system and pharmacokinetics of ART drugs, which reduce the effectiveness of ART and increase maternal viral load [106,107].

Furthermore, delayed initiation or inadequate adherence to ART, perceived shame, and socioeconomic or health system constraints, such as limited regular VL surveillance, ART stock-outs, and a shortage of maternity professionals, could be the possible reason for non-virological suppression [16,59,108]. Suboptimal viral suppression or virologic failure jeopardizes not only the health of women but also raises the risk of HIV MTCT during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, posing a challenge to the global effort towards eliminating pediatric HIV infection [59,109,110].

The UNAIDS’s 95-95-95 goals for all groups of populations, including pregnant and lactating women, demonstrate the globe’s ongoing dedication to combating HIV/AIDS and reaching the 2030 sustainable development goal of “ending AIDS” as a global health concern [32]. Despite considerable global progress towards reaching the 95-95-95 goals in the past decade, many low-middle-income countries, including many African countries, are still far from this goal [111]. Reaching UNAIDS’s third 95% target, ensuring that 95% of people living with HIV on ART maintain sustained VS, is vital for preventing HIV transmission, improving health outcomes, and optimizing the quality of life [47]. Nonetheless, ART availability and adherence, ongoing structural and socioeconomic inequities, health-care system fragilities, and financing constraints Despite the hurdles, targeted interventions, including better ART adherence support, integrated maternal-HIV care, robust VL monitoring, and addressing structural, financial, and sociocultural barriers to close the gap and achieve the global target, ultimately lower vertical transmission and improve maternal and child health outcomes [47,112].

According to the findings of this study, Africa has not yet achieved the global target of attaining virological suppression in 95% of patients who received ART. To increase the possibility of successful virological outcomes, a variety of factors and problems must be addressed. In this systematic review, individual-level variables, healthcare utilization (time of ANC booking, time of ART initiation, being on a first-line ART regimen, duration of ART, baseline VL threshold, adherence status to ART), and barriers to healthcare services, including distance to health facility, shortage of health professionals, disclosure of HIV status, inadequate counseling, ART drug stock-out, and sub-optimal sample transportation, were significantly associated with virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women in Africa.

In this study, the odds of virologic suppression among young women, particularly those 15–24 years old, were decreased by 51% when compared with those aged 25 years and above. The finding of this study was consistent with other studies [108,113115]. Younger people receiving treatment for HIV might have difficulty with compliance due to various factors, including employment status, societal expectations, worries regarding stigma and disclosure, mental health challenges, and lacking health literacy [108,116]. In Africa, the stigma that exists at the individual, interpersonal, social, and organizational levels remain to pose significant hurdles for receiving and adhering to ART for adolescents living with HIV [117,118].

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) has changed the treatment of HIV from a deadly illness to a chronic condition that can be managed owing to its increased accessibility and continuing adherence [119]. Nevertheless, there are several obstacles in the adolescents HIV care cohort, which frequently put this age group at risk for less favorable outcomes than adults in the HIV care pathway. These issues include poorer adherence, lower retention in therapy, a lower rate of virological suppression, and greater rates of mortality [116,120122].

Collaborated global, regional, and national efforts are needed to reach the UNAIDS 95% sustained viral suppression rate, especially for adolescents living with HIV, who are frequently linked with elevated rates of virological failure (VF) [32,112]. Understanding and addressing the unique challenges faced by young women helps healthcare workers and decision-makers create specific treatments that boost viral suppression rates and enhance health for this vulnerable age group. Therefore, promoting ART adherence support, regular VL monitoring, and accessible and flexible adolescent-youth-friendly HIV care, while guaranteeing accessibility, privacy, and a favorable environment, plays a pivotal role in achieving VS in these groups of populations [117,118].

The odds of achieving virologic suppression were higher among women living in urban areas than women residing in rural areas. This finding was consistent with previous study findings [64,95,97]. This could be due to women living in urban areas being more likely to have better awareness and access to HIV care, including periodic VL monitoring and continuous ART supply, as well as enhanced counseling on ART adherence. Whereas rural women frequently encounter geographical, infrastructural, and service-related barriers that impede optimal ART adherence and VS [95].

Furthermore, women’s educational status was significantly associated with virologic suppression, as studies consistently show that women with secondary or higher education are more likely to achieve VS than those with no formal education [64,73]. This could be explained by the fact that education increases awareness of navigating medical care, the importance of ART adherence, and access to HIV care; in contrast, less educated women could find it challenging to grasp treatment, receive regular medical care, and fear stigma. Moreover, pregnant and breastfeeding women who disclosed their HIV status were significantly associated with achieving virological suppression compared to those who did not. This finding is in agreement with other studies that revealed disclosure of HIV status increases the likelihood of virologic suppression [16,36,39,95,101,102,103,108,123]. Disclosing one’s HIV status to family, friends, and intimate partners can have positive health impacts. Several studies show that individuals who disclosed their serostatus had better social assistance, stronger family and relationship solidarity, lower symptoms of depression and anxiety, improved physical health, psychological assistance, financial support, and better adherence to ART [124126]. However, fear of stigma and discrimination was found to be significantly associated with virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART [12,99,100,108]. Stigma can take many forms, including societal discrimination, internalized prejudice, family stigma, and stigma in healthcare environments. This may result in fear of disclosing status or withholding drugs, lack of self-worth, and failure to adhere to ART [45,127,128].

Women who began ANC contacts or started ART in the second or third trimester were less likely to achieve virologic suppression [44,64,95,98]. A late beginning of ANC follow-up and ART decreases the time period of effective ART for decreasing VL before childbirth and limits chances for regular monitoring of ART treatment outcomes, enhanced counseling for adherence, and prompt response to treatment challenges, which are essential for attaining and sustaining optimum virologic suppression to prevent MTCT of HIV.

Advanced WHO HIV stages (II, III, or IV), marked by opportunistic infections, were significantly associated with failure to achieve virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women on ART [39,98,108]. Advanced HIV stages elevate the likelihood of virologic suppression failure because growing immune suppression and opportunistic infections may hamper ART efficacy, alter adherence, and increase the risk of treatment failure, thereby rendering VL control more challenging for pregnant and breastfeeding women [39,108].

This study also found that patients on first-line ART regimens had higher rates of virologic suppression compared to those on second- or third-line regimens, consistent with findings from other studies [36,37,129,130]. This could be explained as first-line ART drugs (TDF-3TC-DTG) having higher efficacy (sustained VL suppression), fewer adverse effects, and lower resistance when compared to second- and third-line ART regimens [25,131,132]. Therefore, all HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women should initiate triple ART as early as possible, regardless of their CD4 count or WHO clinical stage. This leads to optimal suppression of viral load to undetectable levels, thereby preventing the vertical transmission of HIV [133]. Nevertheless, the virus can never be totally eliminated from the human body, so an individual should continue to take the treatments even after the signs and symptoms have subsided and adhere to safer sexual practices [25,131,134].Furthermore, good adherence to antiretroviral therapy was significantly associated with virologic suppression among pregnant and breastfeeding women, aligning with findings from previous studies [36,37,39,129]. The plausible explanation is due to the fact that good adherence to ART sustains maximal viral load suppression to undetectable levels, lowers drug resistance, and boosts the immune system (CD4 cell counts), which leads to substantially lowering the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and improving the overall health of individuals [131,135]. However, adherence to ART remains a major health issue worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income nations. Virologic and clinical outcomes are highly dependent on strong compliance to ART, while poor adherence to antiretroviral drugs has been found to be a significant predictor of virologic failure, drug resistance, progression of disease, admissions to hospitals, high death rate, and medical care expenses [108,136,137].

On the other hand, long distance to reach a health facility, shortage of health providers, inadequate counseling, ART drugs running out, and shortage of HIV commodities linked are with failure of virologic suppression [12,45,95,99,100]. [45,138]. Health facility availability is a crucial infrastructural variable determining adherence to ART, especially in low-income countries, in which medical infrastructure is frequently poor. Individuals with work or domestic responsibilities have significant challenges due to the facility’s limited operation hours or inconvenient hours, which are often only available during weekday daytime [45].

Similarly, ART stockouts in healthcare facilities result in viral rebounding, missed ART doses, drug resistance, and switching to the second-line therapy [45,139141]. ART drugs can occasionally be inaccessible due to supply chain issues or financing shortages in several developing countries. Patients may receive an insufficient supply or nothing at all as they come for refills following a stockout, which would cause them to skip medications [45,141,142].

In general, the findings of this review have various implications for clinical practice, policy, and future research works in these population groups. Since lifelong first-line ART regimens and enhanced adherence to ART have been strongly linked to greater virologic suppression, healthcare practitioners should increase adherence counseling, particularly during prenatal and postpartum contacts. The lower suppression rates in younger women demonstrate the necessity for youth-specific strategies like youth-friendly clinics, psychosocial assistance, and sexual and reproductive health education incorporated into HIV treatment programs. Optimizing virologic suppression in pregnant and breastfeeding women on ART in Africa requires a comprehensive strategy that includes upgrading clinical practices, ensuring responsive policy, and ongoing VL monitoring and evaluation to address ongoing barriers, gaps, and disparities to achieve VS. Further qualitative and quantitative studies are required to investigate different sociocultural, behavioral, psychological, and structural factors that lead to virologic non-suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and breastfeeding women in Africa.

Strengths and limitations of the study

To our knowledge, this would be the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the overall estimate of virologic suppression and associated factors among HIV-positive pregnant and breastfeeding women in Africa. We have searched multiple databases to include both published and unpublished studies and followed a meticulous screening approach to compile all eligible studies. Thus, the findings of this review provide important baseline evidence for health providers, policymakers, academicians, and global partners to design and implement evidence-based interventions to achieve the WHO 95-95-95 global target to eliminate vertical transmission of HIV.

However, the following limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this review. Despite the fact that enough primary studies were used to estimate the overall viral load suppression, many countries and some African regions were not evenly represented. The presence of significant heterogeneity among the included studies might affect the generalizability of the finding. This might be due to variations in the study area and the methodological quality of the studies, such as study design, sampling technique, response rate, sample size, and study setting, that could alter the pooled estimate’s generalizability. Additionally, due to the concentration of studies in some countries, such as South Africa, it could restrict the conclusion of the finding to the entire continent. To account this variability, we employed a random-effects model for analysis in order to overcome this significant variability. Additionally, we performed subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression to identify potential causes of substantial between-study heterogeneity.

Future studies should focus on longitudinal and mixed-methods designs that are geographically representative and methodologically robust to gain deeper understanding of virologic suppression during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum phase. Longitudinal studies can show the temporal relationship between viral load and associated factors; whereas mixed-methods approaches can deepen understanding of the sociocultural, behavioral, and structural facilitators and barriers influencing virologic suppression in these targeted populations. In order to guide focused interventions and promote the elimination of perinatal transmission of HIV in various African contexts, it is imperative to generate such robust and scientifically grounded evidence.

Conclusions

According to this systematic review and meta-analysis, the overall prevalence of virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women taking ART in Africa (80.86%) is lower than USAID’s 95% global target of VL suppression. In this study, socio-demographic characteristics (women’s age, higher educational level, being married/cohabitant, and urban residency) and healthcare utilization (time of ANC booking, time of ART initiation, being on a first-line ART regimen, duration of ART, and adherence status to ART) were significantly associated with virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women in Africa.

Additionally, virologic suppression is also substantially linked with various facilitators and barriers, including disclosing of HIV status, fear of stigma, distance to health facility, shortage of health professionals, ART drug stock-out, and lack of HIV care commodities. This highlights the importance of targeted interventions for young HIV-positive women, encouraging disclosing HIV status, initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy regimens, and promoting antiretroviral therapy adherence; strengthening healthcare systems that offer regular viral load monitoring; and addressing socio-demographic and ART-related factors as vital steps toward improving treatment outcomes and reducing perinatal transmission of HIV.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0346045.s001.docx (33KB, docx)
S2 File. Search strategies for virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa.

(DOCX)

pone.0346045.s002.docx (16.4KB, docx)
S3 File. Excel data extraction spreadsheet for virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women in Africa.

(XLSX)

pone.0346045.s003.xlsx (26.4KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Descriptive summary of studies included in systematic review of virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women on ART in Africa.

(DOCX)

pone.0346045.s004.docx (25.3KB, docx)
S5 Table. Factors associated with virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa.

(DOCX)

pone.0346045.s005.docx (25.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors of this study would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all of the authors of the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abbreviations

ART

Antiretroviral therapy

AOR

Adjusted odds ratio

CI

Confidence Interval

CD4

Cluster of differentiation 4

HIV

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

JBI

Joanna Briggs Institute

MTCT

Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV

SRM

Systematic review and meta-analysis

VL

Viral load

VS

Virologic Suppression

UNAIDS

United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

WHO

World health organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization (WHO). HIV statistics, globally and by WHO region. 2025. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/hq-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-library/who-ias-hiv-statistics_2025-new.pdf
  • 2.United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS UNAIDS. Global HIV & AIDS statistics — Fact sheet. 2025. https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet
  • 3.United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS UNAIDS. Fact sheet 2024 - Latest global and regional HIV statistics on the status of the AIDS epidemic. 2024.
  • 4.Tilaye BA, Hailemeskel HS, Baye FD, Hailu MK, Mekonnen GB, Arage G, et al. Incidence of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and predictors of positivity among HIV exposed infants in South Gondar public hospitals, Northwest Ethiopia: competing risk regression model. BMC Pediatr. 2024;24(1):597. doi: 10.1186/s12887-024-05061-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chi BH, Mbori-Ngacha D, Essajee S, Mofenson LM, Tsiouris F, Mahy M, et al. Accelerating progress towards the elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV: a narrative review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23(8):e25571. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health Organization WHO. Mother-to-child transmission of HIV. 2024. https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/hiv/prevention/mother-to-child-transmission-of-hiv
  • 7.Omonaiye O, Kusljic S, Nicholson P, Manias E. Medication adherence in pregnant women with human immunodeficiency virus receiving antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):805. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5651-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization (WHO). Progress report 2016: prevent HIV, test and treat all: WHO support for country impact. 2016.
  • 9.Seale A, Baggaley R, Vojnov L, Doherty M. Role of viral suppression in HIV treatment and prevention and its potential in addressing harmful laws and discrimination. Sex Health. 2023;20(3):181–5. doi: 10.1071/SH23048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.World Health Organization (WHO). The role of HIV viral suppression in improving individual health and reducing transmission: policy brief. World Health Organization. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chilaka VN, Konje JC. HIV in pregnancy - An update. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;256:484–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.11.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Musanhu CCC, Takarinda KC, Shea J, Chitsike I, Eley B. Viral load testing among pregnant women living with HIV in Mutare district of Manicaland province, Zimbabwe. AIDS Res Ther. 2022;19(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12981-022-00480-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.World Health Organization (WHO). Updated recommendations on HIV prevention, infant diagnosis, antiretroviral initiation and monitoring. World Health Organization. 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.World Health Organization (WHO). Updated recommendations on HIV prevention, infant diagnosis, antiretroviral initiation and monitoring. World Health Organization. 2022. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.World Health Organization (WHO). Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schrubbe LA, Stöckl H, Hatcher AM, Marston M, Kuchukhidze S, Calvert C. Prevalence and risk factors of unsuppressed viral load among pregnant and breastfeeding women in sub-Saharan Africa: analysis from population-based surveys. AIDS. 2023;37(4):659–69. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000003459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hailu G, Keraleme A, Zealiyas K, Tesema A, Nuramed N, Girmachew F, et al. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) viral load suppression status and associated factors among pregnant women receiving Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) in Ethiopia. Virol J. 2025;22(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12985-025-02659-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Munyaneza A, Kim H-Y, Shi Q, Brazier E, Ross J, Muhoza B, et al. Factors associated with viral load suppression in pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV in Rwanda: an open-observational cohort study. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1544165. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1544165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Elijah O, Umukoro E, Igben V, Moke E, Ojezele M, Onitiri-Elijah C. Prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) in sub-Saharan Africa: past and present perspectives. International Journal of Forensic Medical Investigation. 2025;11(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mukose AD. Implementation of lifelong ART (Option B) for Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission (PMTCT) of HIV in Uganda. University of Antwerp. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.World Health Organization WHO. Introducing a framework for implementing triple elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B virus: policy brief. World Health Organization. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Adelekan B, Harry-Erin B, Okposo M, Aliyu A, Ndembi N, Dakum P, et al. Final HIV status outcome for HIV-exposed infants at 18 months of age in nine states and the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0263921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gilleece DY, Tariq DS, Bamford DA, Bhagani DS, Byrne DL, Clarke DE, et al. British HIV Association guidelines for the management of HIV in pregnancy and postpartum 2018. HIV Med. 2019;20 Suppl 3:s2–85. doi: 10.1111/hiv.12720 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rasmussen DN, Vieira N, Hønge BL, da Silva Té D, Jespersen S, Bjerregaard-Andersen M, et al. HIV-1 and HIV-2 prevalence, risk factors and birth outcomes among pregnant women in Bissau, Guinea-Bissau: a retrospective cross-sectional hospital study. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12174. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-68806-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.World Health Organization WHO. Updated recommendations on first-line and second-line antiretroviral regimens and post-exposure prophylaxis and recommendations on early infant diagnosis of HIV. World Health Organization. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hoffman RM, Black V, Technau K, van der Merwe KJ, Currier J, Coovadia A, et al. Effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy duration and regimen on risk for mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Johannesburg, South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54(1):35–41. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181cf9979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fox MP, Pascoe S, Huber AN, Murphy J, Phokojoe M, Gorgens M, et al. Adherence clubs and decentralized medication delivery to support patient retention and sustained viral suppression in care: Results from a cluster-randomized evaluation of differentiated ART delivery models in South Africa. PLoS Med. 2019;16(7):e1002874. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chagomerana MB, Miller WC, Tang JH, Hoffman IF, Mthiko BC, Phulusa J, et al. Optimizing prevention of HIV mother to child transmission: Duration of antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression at delivery among pregnant Malawian women. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lazenby GB, Powell AM, Sullivan SA, Soper DE. The Impact of Delivery in a Rural County on a Cohort of Women Living with HIV Infection and Their Infants. J Rural Health. 2019;35(3):319–29. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Awaidy SA, Ghazy RM, Mahomed O. Progress of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries Towards Achieving the 95-95-95 UNAIDS Targets: A Review. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2023;13(3):397–406. doi: 10.1007/s44197-023-00097-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mwende Wairimu G. The Global Burden of HIV and Progress toward the 2030 UNAIDS Targets: A Comprehensive Review. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Frescura L, Godfrey-Faussett P, Feizzadeh A, El-Sadr W, Syarif O, Ghys PD. Achieving the 95 95 95 targets for all: a pathway to ending AIDS. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0272405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mosha IH, Nyondo GG, Munishi CG, Njiro BJ, Bwire GM. Prevalence and factors associated with viral non-suppression in people living with HIV receiving antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Med Virol. 2024;34(3):e2540. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Agegnehu CD, Techane MA, Mersha AT, Atalell KA. Burden and Associated Factors of Virological Failure Among People Living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AIDS Behav. 2022;26(10):3327–36. doi: 10.1007/s10461-022-03610-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Namaganda MM, Mukasa Kafeero H, Nakatumba Nabende J, Kateete DP, Batte C, Wanyengera M, et al. Prevalence and predictors of virological failure among the people living with HIV on antiretroviral treatment in East Africa: evidence from a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of published studies from 2016 to 2023. HIV Res Clin Pract. 2025;26(1):2490774. doi: 10.1080/25787489.2025.2490774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Melak D, Bayou FD, Yasin H, Zerga AA, Wagaye B, Ayele FY, et al. Virological Suppression and its Predictors Among HIV/AIDS Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy in Ethiopia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2024;11(4):ofae168. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofae168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Temere BC, Mewahegn AA, Zewudie BT, GebreEyesus FA, Abebe H, Nuru A, et al. Burden of virologic failure, and its determinants among HIV positive children in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Afr Health Sci. 2024;24(3):1–9. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v24i3.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Abuogi LL, Humphrey JM, Mpody C, Yotebieng M, Murnane PM, Clouse K, et al. Achieving UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets for pregnant and postpartum women in sub-Saharan Africa: progress, gaps and research needs. J Virus Erad. 2018;4(Suppl 2):33–9. doi: 10.1016/S2055-6640(20)30343-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Woldesemayat B, Yizengaw A, Worku A, Yilma A, Adane S, Bulti J. HIV viral non-suppression and its associated factors among PMTCT mothers receiving ARV treatment in Ethiopia. medRxiv. 2024;2024:13.24308915. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gabagaya G, Rukundo G, Amone A, Wavamunno P, Namale-Matovu J, Lubega I, et al. Prevalence of undetectable and suppressed viral load in HIV-infected pregnant women initiating Option B+ in Uganda: an observational study nested within a randomized controlled trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):907. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06608-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bulage L, Ssewanyana I, Nankabirwa V, Nsubuga F, Kihembo C, Pande G, et al. Factors Associated with Virological Non-suppression among HIV-Positive Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy in Uganda, August 2014-July 2015. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):326. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2428-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Agegnehu CD, Techane MA, Mersha AT, Atalell KA. Burden and Associated Factors of Virological Failure Among People Living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AIDS Behav. 2022;26(10):3327–36. doi: 10.1007/s10461-022-03610-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bakari HM, Alo O, Mbwana MS, Salim SM, Ally ZM, Musoke R, et al. Enhanced adherence counselling completion rates, viral load suppression in people with HIV in Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis. Discov Public Health. 2025;22(1). doi: 10.1186/s12982-025-00386-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Woldesenbet SA, Kufa T, Barron P, Chirombo BC, Cheyip M, Ayalew K, et al. Viral suppression and factors associated with failure to achieve viral suppression among pregnant women in South Africa. AIDS. 2020;34(4):589–97. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Magura J, Nhari SR, Nzimakwe TI. Barriers to ART adherence in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review toward achieving UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1609743. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1609743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kulohoma BW, Wesonga CA. HIV response financing challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa: barriers to achieving the 95-95-95 UNAIDS targets. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1658229. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1658229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mukuku O, Govender K. At a crossroads: confronting setbacks and advancing the 95-95-95 HIV targets in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS Res Ther. 2025;22(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12981-025-00792-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kadia BM, Dimala CA, Fongwen NT, Smith AD. Barriers to and enablers of uptake of antiretroviral therapy in integrated HIV and tuberculosis treatment programmes in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Res Ther. 2021;18(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12981-021-00395-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.World Health Organization (WHO). Consolidated guidelines on HIV prevention, testing, treatment, service delivery and monitoring: recommendations for a public health approach. World Health Organization. 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Moyo F, Mazanderani AH, Murray T, Sherman GG, Kufa T. Achieving maternal viral load suppression for elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in South Africa. AIDS. 2021;35(2):307–16. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):147–53. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Barker TH, Hasanoff S, Aromataris E, Stone JC, Leonardi-Bee J, Sears K, et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies. JBI Evid Synth. 2025;23(3):441–53. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?. Psychological Methods. 2006;11(2):193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Langan D, Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Bowden J, Veroniki AA, Kontopantelis E, et al. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(1):83–98. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Boedeker P, Henson RK. Evaluation of heterogeneity and heterogeneity interval estimators in random-effects meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference in education and psychology. Psychol Methods. 2020;25(3):346–64. doi: 10.1037/met0000241 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101. doi: 10.2307/2533446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ntombela NP, Kharsany ABM, Soogun A, Yende-Zuma N, Baxter C, Kohler H-P, et al. Viral suppression among pregnant adolescents and women living with HIV in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a cross sectional study to assess progress towards UNAIDS indicators and Implications for HIV Epidemic Control. Reprod Health. 2022;19(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s12978-022-01419-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ngandu NK, Lombard CJ, Mbira TE, Puren A, Waitt C, Prendergast AJ, et al. HIV viral load non-suppression and associated factors among pregnant and postpartum women in rural northeastern South Africa: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2022;12(3):e058347. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Adeniyi OV, Obi CL, Goon DT, Iweriebor B, Selanto-Chairman N, Carty C. Factors Associated With Peripartum Virologic Suppression in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(10):1750–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Chetty T, Newell ML, Thorne C, Coutsoudis A. Viraemia before, during and after pregnancy in HIV-infected women on antiretroviral therapy in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 2010-2015. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2018;23(1):79–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Phillips TK, Clouse K, Zerbe A, Orrell C, Abrams EJ, Myer L. Linkage to care, mobility and retention of HIV-positive postpartum women in antiretroviral therapy services in South Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018;21 Suppl 4(Suppl Suppl 4):e25114. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Woldesenbet S, Cheyip M, Lombard C, Manda S, Ayalew K, Kufa T, et al. Progress towards the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets among pregnant women in South Africa: Results from the 2017 and 2019 national Antenatal HIV Sentinel Surveys. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0271564. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Woldesenbet S, Kufa T, Manda S, Ayalew K, Lombard C, Cheyip M, et al. Association between viral suppression during the third trimester of pregnancy and unintended pregnancy among women on antiretroviral therapy: Results from the 2019 antenatal HIV Sentinel Survey, South Africa. PLoS One. 2022;17(3):e0265124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Myer L, Dunning L, Lesosky M, Hsiao N-Y, Phillips T, Petro G, et al. Frequency of Viremic Episodes in HIV-Infected Women Initiating Antiretroviral Therapy During Pregnancy: A Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(4):422–7. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Myer L, Phillips TK, Hsiao N-Y, Zerbe A, Petro G, Bekker L-G, et al. Plasma viraemia in HIV-positive pregnant women entering antenatal care in South Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(1):20045. doi: 10.7448/IAS.18.1.20045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Brittain K, Remien RH, Mellins CA, Phillips TK, Zerbe A, Abrams EJ, et al. Determinants of suboptimal adherence and elevated HIV viral load in pregnant women already on antiretroviral therapy when entering antenatal care in Cape Town, South Africa. AIDS Care. 2018;30(12):1517–23. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2018.1503637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Moyo F, Haeri Mazanderani A, Murray T, Technau K-G, Carmona S, Kufa T, et al. Characterizing Viral Load Burden Among HIV-Infected Women Around the Time of Delivery: Findings From Four Tertiary Obstetric Units in Gauteng, South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020;83(4):390–6. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Myer L, Phillips TK, McIntyre JA, Hsiao N-Y, Petro G, Zerbe A, et al. HIV viraemia and mother-to-child transmission risk after antiretroviral therapy initiation in pregnancy in Cape Town, South Africa. HIV Med. 2017;18(2):80–8. doi: 10.1111/hiv.12397 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Langwenya N, Phillips TK, Brittain K, Zerbe A, Abrams EJ, Myer L. Same-day antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in pregnancy is not associated with viral suppression or engagement in care: A cohort study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018;21(6):e25133. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Anderson K, Kalk E, Heekes A, Phelanyane F, Jacob N, Boulle A, et al. Factors associated with vertical transmission of HIV in the Western Cape, South Africa: a retrospective cohort analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2024;27(3):e26235. doi: 10.1002/jia2.26235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Tsondai PR. HIV viral load monitoring in HIV-infected pregnant women established on antiretroviral therapy in Cape Town, South Africa. University of Cape Town. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Landes M, van Lettow M, van Oosterhout JJ, Schouten E, Auld A, Kalua T, et al. Early post-partum viremia predicts long-term non-suppression of viral load in HIV-positive women on ART in Malawi: Implications for the elimination of infant transmission. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248559. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Chagomerana MB, Miller WC, Tang JH, Hoffman IF, Harrington BJ, DiPrete B, et al. Prevalence of antiretroviral therapy treatment failure among HIV-infected pregnant women at first antenatal care: PMTCT Option B+ in Malawi. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209052. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Landes M, van Lettow M, Nkhoma E, Tippett Barr B, Truwah Z, Shouten E, et al. Low detectable postpartum viral load is associated with HIV transmission in Malawi’s prevention of mother-to-child transmission programme. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22(6):e25290. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Napyo A, Tumwine JK, Mukunya D, Tumuhamye J, Arach AAO, Ndeezi G, et al. Detectable HIV-RNA Viral Load Among HIV-Infected Pregnant Women on Treatment in Northern Uganda. Int J MCH AIDS. 2020;9(2):232–41. doi: 10.21106/ijma.374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Munyaneza A, Kim H-Y, Shi Q, Brazier E, Ross J, Muhoza B, et al. Factors associated with viral load suppression in pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV in Rwanda: an open-observational cohort study. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1544165. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1544165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Gill MM, Hoffman HJ, Bobrow EA, Mugwaneza P, Ndatimana D, Ndayisaba GF, et al. Detectable Viral Load in Late Pregnancy among Women in the Rwanda Option B+ PMTCT Program: Enrollment Results from the Kabeho Study. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168671. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Koss CA, Natureeba P, Kwarisiima D, Ogena M, Clark TD, Olwoch P, et al. Viral Suppression and Retention in Care up to 5 Years After Initiation of Lifelong ART During Pregnancy (Option B+) in Rural Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;74(3):279–84. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Humphrey JM, Songok J, Ofner S, Musick B, Alera M, Kipchumba B, et al. Retention in care and viral suppression in the PMTCT continuum at a large referral facility in western Kenya. AIDS Behav. 2022;26(11):3494–505. doi: 10.1007/s10461-022-03666-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Sandbulte M, Brown M, Wexler C, Maloba M, Gautney B, Goggin K, et al. Maternal viral load monitoring: Coverage and clinical action at 4 Kenyan hospitals. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Boisson-Walsh A, Ravelomanana NLR, Tabala M, Malongo F, Kawende B, Babakazo P, et al. Association of comprehensiveness of antiretroviral care and detectable HIV viral load suppression among pregnant and postpartum women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a cross-sectional study. Front Glob Womens Health. 2024;5:1308019. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2024.1308019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Yotebieng M, Mpody C, Ravelomanana NL, Tabala M, Malongo F, Kawende B, et al. HIV viral suppression among pregnant and breastfeeding women in routine care in the Kinshasa province: a baseline evaluation of participants in CQI-PMTCT study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22(9):e25376. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Hailu G, Keraleme A, Zealiyas K, Tesema A, Nuramed N, Girmachew F, et al. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) viral load suppression status and associated factors among pregnant women receiving Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) in Ethiopia. Virol J. 2025;22(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12985-025-02659-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Demissie DB, Bulto GA, Mekuria WT, Dufera FN, Gamshe EN. Evaluation of Antiretroviral Therapy Initiated Among Pregnant Women Under Option B+ by Viral Load and CD4 Count Outcomes in Selected Hospitals of West Shewa Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. HIV AIDS (Auckl). 2020;12:127–34. doi: 10.2147/HIV.S242320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Endalamaw Alamneh D, Shiferaw MB, Getachew Demissie M, Emiru MA, Zemene Kassie T, Endaylalu Lakew K, et al. Virological Outcomes Among Pregnant Women Receiving Antiretroviral Treatment in the Amhara Region, North West Ethiopia. HIV AIDS (Auckl). 2023;15:209–16. doi: 10.2147/HIV.S389506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Aduloju OP, Aduloju T, Ade-Ojo IP, Akintayo AA. Medication adherence in HIV-positive pregnant women on antiretroviral therapy attending antenatal clinics in Ado metropolis, south-west Nigeria: A multicentre study. S Afr J OG. 2020;26(2):65. doi: 10.7196/sajog.1611 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Musanhu CCC, Takarinda KC, Shea J, Chitsike I, Eley B. Viral load testing among pregnant women living with HIV in Mutare district of Manicaland province, Zimbabwe. AIDS Res Ther. 2022;19(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12981-022-00480-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Duri K, Munjoma PT, Mazhandu AJ, Marere T, Gomo E, Banhwa S, et al. Predictors and Timing to Viral Suppression in HIV-Infected Pregnant Women in the University of Zimbabwe Birth Cohort Study During the Era of Lifelong Antiretroviral Therapy (Option B+ Treatment Strategy). FrontVirol. 2022;2. doi: 10.3389/fviro.2022.838234 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Atanga PN, Ndetan HT, Fon PN, Meriki HD, Muffih TP, Achidi EA, et al. Using a composite adherence tool to assess ART response and risk factors of poor adherence in pregnant and breastfeeding HIV-positive Cameroonian women at 6 and 12 months after initiating option B. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Kafack EVF, Fokam J, Nana TN, Saniotis A, Halle-Ekane GE. Evaluation of plasma viral-load monitoring and the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in three health facilities of the Littoral region of Cameroon. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0277271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Tegueni K, Gbeasor-Komlanvi FA, Adama OIW, Sadio AJ, Amenyah-Ehlan AP, Dagnra CA, et al. Epidemiological and virological surveillance of the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV among pregnant women in Togo. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24(1):278. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06435-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Flynn PM, Taha TE, Cababasay M, Butler K, Fowler MG, Mofenson LM, et al. Association of Maternal Viral Load and CD4 Count With Perinatal HIV-1 Transmission Risk During Breastfeeding in the PROMISE Postpartum Component. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021;88(2):206–13. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Mazuguni NS, Mazuguni F, Muro EP. Detectable viral load among HIV -1 positive pregnant women on ART (Option B +) in northern Tanzania: Baseline results from the HIVDR study. EASci. 2021;3(1):44–50. doi: 10.24248/easci-d-20-00009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Yotebieng M, Mpody C, Ravelomanana NL, Tabala M, Malongo F, Kawende B, et al. HIV viral suppression among pregnant and breastfeeding women in routine care in the Kinshasa province: a baseline evaluation of participants in CQI-PMTCT study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22(9):e25376. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Adeniyi OV, Obi CL, Goon DT, Iweriebor B, Selanto-Chairman N, Carty C, et al. Factors Associated With Peripartum Virologic Suppression in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(10):1750–8. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Boisson-Walsh A, Ravelomanana NLR, Tabala M, Malongo F, Kawende B, Babakazo P, et al. Association of comprehensiveness of antiretroviral care and detectable HIV viral load suppression among pregnant and postpartum women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a cross-sectional study. Front Glob Womens Health. 2024;5:1308019. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2024.1308019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Alamneh ED, Shiferaw MB, Demissie GM, Emiru MA, Kassie ZT, Lakew EK. Virological outcomes among pregnant women receiving antiretroviral treatment in the Amhara Region, North West Ethiopia. HIV/AIDS-Research and Palliative Care. 2023;:209–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Kabami J, Balzer LB, Kagoya F, Okiring J, Nangendo J, Ruhamyankaka E, et al. A multicomponent, peer-led intervention for pregnant and postpartum women with HIV improves viral suppression over time in rural Uganda. AJE Advances: Research in Epidemiology. 2025;1(3). doi: 10.1093/ajeadv/uuaf017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Kabami J, Akatukwasa C, Kabageni S, Nangendo J, Byamukama A, Atwiine F, et al. “I desire to have an HIV-free baby”: pregnant and breastfeeding mothers’ perceptions of Viral load testing and suppression in HIV care in southwestern Uganda. Discov Soc Sci Health. 2024;4(1):60. doi: 10.1007/s44155-024-00120-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Koss CA, Natureeba P, Kwarisiima D, Ogena M, Clark TD, Olwoch P, et al. Viral Suppression and Retention in Care up to 5 Years After Initiation of Lifelong ART During Pregnancy (Option B+) in Rural Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;74(3):279–84. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Chohan BH, Ronen K, Khasimwa B, Matemo D, Osborn L, Unger JA, et al. Food insecurity, drug resistance and non-disclosure are associated with virologic non-suppression among HIV pregnant women on antiretroviral treatment. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0256249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Aytenew TM, Asferie WN, Ejigu N, Birhane BM, Tiruneh YM, Kassaw A, et al. Virological failure and associated factors among patients receiving anti-retroviral therapy in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2024;14(11):e087569. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Taieb F, Madec Y, Cournil A, Delaporte E. Virological success after 12 and 24 months of antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa: Comparing results of trials, cohorts and cross-sectional studies using a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0174767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Melak D, Bayou FD, Yasin H, Zerga AA, Wagaye B, Ayele FY, et al. Virological Suppression and its Predictors Among HIV/AIDS Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy in Ethiopia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2024;11(4):ofae168. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofae168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Mor G, Cardenas I. The immune system in pregnancy: a unique complexity. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2010;63(6):425–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2010.00836.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Hodel EM, Marzolini C, Waitt C, Rakhmanina N. Pharmacokinetics, Placental and Breast Milk Transfer of Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnant and Lactating Women Living with HIV. Curr Pharm Des. 2019;25(5):556–76. doi: 10.2174/1381612825666190320162507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Mosha IH, Nyondo GG, Munishi CG, Njiro BJ, Bwire GM. Prevalence and factors associated with viral non-suppression in people living with HIV receiving antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Med Virol. 2024;34(3):e2540. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Jiang W. Adverse pregnancy outcomes, non-retention, eligibility of differentiated care and virologic failure among women living with HIV in prevention of vertical transmission programs. University of Washington. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Ankunda C. Longitudinal analysis of viral suppression before, during, and after pregnancy among women on antiretroviral therapy in Uganda: six-year real-world evidence. 2025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 111.Ngoufack Jagni Semengue E, N K A AD, Tueguem PP, Ka’e CA, Molimbou E, Forgwei LY, et al. Gaps, challenges and opportunities towards achieving the 95-95-95 targets in Cameroon: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. PLoS One. 2025;20(2):e0317850. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Mukuku O, Govender K, Kulohoma B, Wembonyama SO. Challenges in reaching the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets in sub-Saharan Africa: status, innovations and pathways forward. Frontiers in Public Health. 2025;:1701425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Nyongesa MK, Mwatasa MH, Kagonya VA, Mwambingu G, Ngetsa C, Newton CRJC, et al. HIV virological non-suppression is highly prevalent among 18- to 24-year-old youths on antiretroviral therapy at the Kenyan coast. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):449. doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07428-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS UNAIDS. Young people and HIV. https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/young-people-and-hiv_en.pdf [PubMed]
  • 115.Hlophe LD, Tamuzi JL, Shumba CS, Nyasulu PS. Barriers and facilitators to anti-retroviral therapy adherence among adolescents aged 10 to 19 years living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(5):e0276411. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Han WM, Law MG, Egger M, Wools-Kaloustian K, Moore R, McGowan C, et al. Global estimates of viral suppression in children and adolescents and adults on antiretroviral therapy adjusted for missing viral load measurements: a multiregional, retrospective cohort study in 31 countries. Lancet HIV. 2021;8(12):e766–75. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00265-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Ruel T, Mwangwa F, Balzer LB, Ayieko J, Nyabuti M, Mugoma WE, et al. A multilevel health system intervention for virological suppression in adolescents and young adults living with HIV in rural Kenya and Uganda (SEARCH-Youth): a cluster randomised trial. Lancet HIV. 2023;10(8):e518–27. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(23)00118-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Johnson-Peretz J, Lebu S, Akatukwasa C, Getahun M, Ruel T, Lee J, et al. “I was still very young”: agency, stigma and HIV care strategies at school, baseline results of a qualitative study among youth in rural Kenya and Uganda. J Int AIDS Soc. 2022;25 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):e25919. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Deeks SG, Lewin SR, Havlir DV. The end of AIDS: HIV infection as a chronic disease. Lancet. 2013;382(9903):1525–33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61809-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Mengesha MM, Teshome A, Ajema D, Tura AK, Hallström IK, Jerene D. The association between HIV diagnosis disclosure and adherence to anti-retroviral therapy among adolescents living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(5):e0285571. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Lamb MR, Fayorsey R, Nuwagaba-Biribonwoha H, Viola V, Mutabazi V, Alwar T, et al. High attrition before and after ART initiation among youth (15-24 years of age) enrolled in HIV care. AIDS. 2014;28(4):559–68. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000000054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Salou M, Dagnra AY, Butel C, Vidal N, Serrano L, Takassi E, et al. High rates of virological failure and drug resistance in perinatally HIV-1-infected children and adolescents receiving lifelong antiretroviral therapy in routine clinics in Togo. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):20683. doi: 10.7448/IAS.19.1.20683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Duri K, Munjoma PT, Mazhandu AJ, Marere T, Gomo E, Banhwa S, et al. Predictors and Timing to Viral Suppression in HIV-Infected Pregnant Women in the University of Zimbabwe Birth Cohort Study During the Era of Lifelong Antiretroviral Therapy (Option B+ Treatment Strategy). FrontVirol. 2022;2. doi: 10.3389/fviro.2022.838234 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Dessie G, Wagnew F, Mulugeta H, Amare D, Jara D, Leshargie CT, et al. The effect of disclosure on adherence to antiretroviral therapy among adults living with HIV in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):528. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4148-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Endalamaw A, Assefa Y, Geremew D, Belete H, Dachew BA, Belachew A, et al. Disclosure of HIV seropositivity to sexual partner in Ethiopia: A systematic review. Womens Health (Lond). 2021;17:17455065211063021. doi: 10.1177/17455065211063021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Mekonnen FA, Lakew AM, Muchie KF, Teshome DF. Sero-positive HIV result disclosure to sexual partner in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1743. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-8097-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Jones HS, Floyd S, Stangl A, Bond V, Hoddinott G, Pliakas T, et al. Association between HIV stigma and antiretroviral therapy adherence among adults living with HIV: baseline findings from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial in Zambia and South Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2020;25(10):1246–60. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Perger T, Davtyan M, Foster C, Evangeli M, Berman C, Kacanek D, et al. Impact of HIV-Related Stigma on Antiretroviral Therapy Adherence, Engagement and Retention in HIV Care, and Transition to Adult HIV Care in Pediatric and Young Adult Populations Living With HIV: A Literature Review. AIDS Behav. 2025;29(2):497–516. doi: 10.1007/s10461-024-04534-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Zhao S, Wang W, Li S, He J, Duan W, Fang Z, et al. The prevalence of low-level viraemia and its association with virological failure in people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2025;14(1):2447613. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2024.2447613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Kibui NK. Factors associated with virological non-suppression in treatment-experienced HIV patients in Kenya: a populationwide study. University of Nairobi. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Ministry of Health E. National guideline for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B virus. 2021. https://www.prepwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/National-Guideline-for-Prevention-of-Mother-to-child-Transmission-of-HIV-Syphilis-and-Hepatitis-B-Virus-2021.pdf
  • 132.Yang J, Zhao X, Li F. INSTIs-centered antiviral regimens for first-line treatment of HIV/AIDS: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2025;25(1):604. doi: 10.1186/s12879-025-10858-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Fleșeriu T, Meliț LE, Mărginean CO, Pop AV, Văsieșiu A-M. Maternal HIV Infection and Antiretroviral Therapy in Pregnancy: Implications for Vertical Transmission, Fetal Safety, and Long-Term Infant Outcomes. Pathogens. 2025;14(8):818. doi: 10.3390/pathogens14080818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Fassinou LC, Songwa Nkeunang D, Delvaux T, Nagot N, Kirakoya-Samadoulougou F. Adherence to option B + antiretroviral therapy and associated factors in pregnant and breastfeeding women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):94. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-17004-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Sibiude J, Le Chenadec J, Mandelbrot L, Hoctin A, Dollfus C, Faye A, et al. Update of Perinatal Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Transmission in France: Zero Transmission for 5482 Mothers on Continuous Antiretroviral Therapy From Conception and With Undetectable Viral Load at Delivery. Clin Infect Dis. 2023;76(3):e590–8. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac703 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Nachega JB, Marconi VC, van Zyl GU, Gardner EM, Preiser W, Hong SY, et al. HIV treatment adherence, drug resistance, virologic failure: evolving concepts. Infect Disord Drug Targets. 2011;11(2):167–74. doi: 10.2174/187152611795589663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Daltro ACB, Almeida CS, Unfried AGC, de Aquino TR, Travassos AGÁ. Virological failure and adherence to antiretroviral therapy in adolescents and young adults living with human immunodeficiency virus. Trop Med Int Health. 2023;28(3):162–74. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13854 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Gils T, Bossard C, Verdonck K, Owiti P, Casteels I, Mashako M, et al. Stockouts of HIV commodities in public health facilities in Kinshasa: Barriers to end HIV. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191294. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Thomford NE, Mhandire D, Dandara C, Kyei GB. Promoting undetectable equals untransmittable in sub-saharan africa: Implication for clinical practice and art adherence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(17):6163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Jennings Mayo-Wilson L, Devoto B, Coleman J, Mukasa B, Shelton A, MacCarthy S, et al. Habit formation in support of antiretroviral medication adherence in clinic-enrolled HIV-infected adults: a qualitative assessment using free-listing and unstructured interviewing in Kampala, Uganda. AIDS Res Ther. 2020;17(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12981-020-00283-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Colvin CJ, Konopka S, Chalker JC, Jonas E, Albertini J, Amzel A, et al. A systematic review of health system barriers and enablers for antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV-infected pregnant and postpartum women. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e108150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Moriarty K, Genberg B, Norman B, Reece R. The Effect of Antiretroviral Stock-Outs on Medication Adherence Among Patients Living With HIV in Ghana: A Qualitative Study. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2018;29(2):231–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jana.2017.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Richard Makurumidze

27 Oct 2025

Dear Dr. Mengistie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 11 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols....

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Richard Makurumidze (MBChB, MPH, PhD, FCPHP)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: Yes

Reviewer #11: Yes

Reviewer #12: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: I Don't Know

Reviewer #10: No

Reviewer #11: Yes

Reviewer #12: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: Yes

Reviewer #11: Yes

Reviewer #12: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: No

Reviewer #11: Yes

Reviewer #12: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript addresses a critical public health concern by evaluating virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women in Africa. Its significance is evident given the implications for mother-to-child transmission and the broader context of achieving global HIV targets. The inclusion of 55 studies and over 300,000 participants strengthens the analysis through a large sample size, and the use of PRISMA guidelines, PROSPERO registration, and appropriate statistical tools such as random-effects models and Egger’s tests demonstrate methodological rigor. The study presents relevant findings with public health utility, highlighting key factors such as age, adherence, disclosure of HIV status, and ART regimen as significantly associated with viral suppression.

Despite these strengths, several issues warrant attention. A major concern lies in the extremely high heterogeneity (I² > 99%), which remains unexplained even after subgroup analyses. The use of meta-regression would have been appropriate to explore potential sources of heterogeneity more systematically. The overrepresentation of studies from South Africa introduces geographical bias, making it difficult to generalize findings across the diverse healthcare contexts of the African continent. Furthermore, although the authors state there was no publication bias, the Egger’s test result (p = 0.0512) suggests borderline significance, which should not be dismissed as negligible without further investigation.

The study also overlooks key confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, healthcare accessibility, or rural–urban disparities, which are known to influence ART outcomes. In addition, the reporting lacks clarity in some areas. The year range for included studies curiously extends to 2025, which undermines credibility and suggests a typographical or planning oversight. The quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool is not detailed, and no summary of individual study scores is provided, which limits transparency. Wide confidence intervals for certain effect estimates (e.g., ART adherence) further point to imprecision or potential small-study effects.

Narratively, the discussion is repetitive, often restating results without providing deeper contextual interpretation or drawing clear distinctions between policy implications and existing literature. The paper also misses the opportunity to provide targeted, practical recommendations for policymakers, especially considering its relevance to achieving UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets. Finally, factors such as ART duration, viral load assay variability, and breastfeeding practices, which could significantly influence virologic suppression, are insufficiently addressed. Overall, while the study presents valuable findings, it would benefit from a more nuanced analytical approach, clearer methodological transparency, and a stronger focus on contextual and actionable insights.

Reviewer #2: thank you for your interested topic

The study is scientifically relevant, methodologically solid, and has potential impact for HIV programmatic policy in Africa.

I advice to Revise for minor grammar mistakes, consistent abbreviation use, and concise phrasing.

Reviewer #3: 1. Does the title accurately reflect the study’s objectives and population?

2. The abstract mentions an 80.92% pooled prevalence should confidence intervals or heterogeneity measures (I2) also appear for completeness?

3. Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria too broad (2016–2025) given the variability in ART regimens over time?

4. How were overlapping datasets or duplicate reports from large cohort programs handled?

5. Were data extraction and bias assessments blinded and independently verified by more than two reviewers?

6. How did the authors deal with variations in the definition of “virologic suppression” across studies (e.g., ≤50 vs ≤1000 copies/mL)?

7. Given the high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.57%), was the use of a pooled random-effects model justified without meta-regression?

8. Could differences in study design (cross-sectional vs. cohort) have contributed to heterogeneity, and were these tested?

9. How were missing data handled in the included studies?

10. Could differences in viral-load testing availability or assay methods influence reported suppression rates?

I appreciate the authors efforts of gathering huge data and preparing. I am making a request to author to answer these question which are necessary.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

The topic, “virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women in Africa” is important and policy-relevant.

With a few targeted methodological clarifications and stronger transparency, this can become a solid, reproducible synthesis.

Major comments

1) Outcome definition & measurement window

Please harmonize the outcome definition and clarify, at study level, the VL threshold used (e.g., ≤1000 vs other), specimen type (plasma vs DBS), and timing (pregnancy trimester / intrapartum / postpartum window). Provide either:

• a succinct subgroup/meta-regression using these moderators; or

• a sensitivity analysis restricted to ≤1000 copies/mL.

This avoids definitional mixing and improves interpretability.

2) Modeling proportions under extreme heterogeneity

Given the very high between-study heterogeneity (I² ≈ 99.6%), please complement DerSimonian–Laird with HKSJ or REML, and add a logit/GLMM approach suitable for proportions (with appropriate continuity correction where needed).

In the main text, report τ² and a 95% prediction interval (PI) alongside the pooled mean.

3) Explaining heterogeneity rather than averaging it away

Your region/country subgrouping is helpful. If feasible, consider a compact set of clinically/programmatically meaningful moderators, ART era (EFV vs DTG rollout) and maternal age (15-24 vs ≥25 years), via simple stratified analyses or a brief meta-regression.

If further analyses are not practical, a short justification for the current scope plus a more cautious interpretation (with the PI) is acceptable.

4) Small-study effects / publication bias

Under heavy heterogeneity, Egger is suboptimal for single-arm proportions. Please consider Peters/Harbord tests where the number of studies permits and temper funnel-plot interpretations accordingly; if underpowered, state this explicitly.

5) Unit of analysis & potential double counting

Where a single dataset contributes multiple effects (e.g., pregnant vs intrapartum vs postpartum; or multiple VL thresholds), please explain how you avoided double counting, for example, by pre-specifying one time-point, aggregating within-study effects, or using a multilevel model.

6) Risk of bias & transparency (search, RoB, data/code)

Include a per-study JBI risk-of-bias matrix in the supplement, justify any scoring thresholds, and add a sensitivity analysis excluding higher-risk studies. For search reproducibility, provide full search strings, last search date, and the deduplication procedure; also clarify whether Embase/Scopus and Africa-focused sources (e.g., AIM/AJOL) were searched or provide a documented rationale for their exclusion.

For reproducibility, make the extraction sheet (study-level events/total and moderators) fully available per PLOS policy (as SI or in a DOI-minted repository). Sharing analysis code (Stata/R) is strongly encouraged; at minimum, include sufficient model/command detail for re-analysis.

7) Determinants / associated factors (AORs)

Please specify the eligibility criteria for studies entering the determinants analysis and ensure alignment of reference categories and reasonable consistency of adjustment sets before pooling on the log-OR scale. If adjustment sets differ substantially or heterogeneity is high with wide CIs, consider a narrative synthesis or meta-regression rather than a pooled AOR. Clarify why only a subset of studies contributed and whether others were excluded for design/measure reasons.

Minor comments

• Move very long descriptive tables to the supplement and keep concise summary tables in the main text.

• Include the 95% prediction interval in the Abstract/Results so readers immediately see expected variability across settings.

• Define acronyms at first use (VS/VLS, PMTCT, DTG/EFV) and streamline a few long sentences with a light language edit.

• Proofread tables for numerical slips (e.g., any CI exceeding 100%) and ensure consistent terminology.

• Generalizability: where certain sub-analyses rely heavily on national program data, please comment on applicability to smaller or non-program settings.

• Briefly cite the PROSPERO registration (ID) and ensure the PRISMA flow diagram is referenced in the main text for reproducibility.

Recommendation: Major Revision.

The manuscript is valuable; the requested clarifications, outcome harmonization, robust proportion modeling, focused heterogeneity exploration (including ART era and age), and transparent materials (search/RoB/extraction file and, ideally, code), will make the conclusions more reliable and reproducible.

Reviewer #5: This manuscript presents a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the pooled prevalence of virologic suppression (VS) among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Africa. The authors included 55 studies encompassing 304,883 participants across various African regions. The study followed PRISMA guidelines and used robust statistical methods, including a random-effects model, subgroup analyses, and heterogeneity assessment.

The topic is highly relevant, particularly in the context of achieving the global UNAIDS 95–95–95 targets and improving maternal and child health outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa. The manuscript contributes meaningful evidence regarding ART adherence and determinants of viral suppression in this key population group. This manuscript has major strengths such as relevance, scope and data size, systematic approach, robust analysis, policy value.

Minor Editorial Comments:

� In Abstract section , replace “remains low” with quantitative context (“approximately 81%, below global target of 95%”). Conduct meta-regression and sensitivity analysis by study design, ART regimen, and publication year.

� Provide more discussion on possible small-study or regional publication bias.

� Include qualitative evidence or secondary data review to contextualize findings.

� Ensure all forest plots (Figures 2–8) have consistent formatting and readable axis labels.

� For References, several citations lack full journal details or DOI (e.g., refs. 70, 77). Please verify all references conform to PLOS ONE style. Conduct sensitivity analysis by publication period (pre/post-2020.

� Minor edits needed for flow in Introduction and Discussion to grammar.

Closing Statement:

This manuscript is a well-executed, timely, and policy-relevant meta-analysis that adds significant value to the understanding of virologic suppression among HIV-positive women in Africa.

With minor clarifications on methodology, expanded heterogeneity analysis, and slight editorial adjustments, the paper will meet PLOS ONE’s publication standards and provide actionable insights for maternal HIV prevention and control programs across the continent.

Reviewer #6: Authors section: I suggest you only use Names, instead of Initials

Delete, Let’s only have correspondent Authors. The email addresses for each will be put in the PLOS ONE form as you submit the manuscript

Add Problem Statement, and Objectives. Research questions without Problem statement is hanging. I suggest you add

1. Problem statement

2. Significancy of this Systematic Review

Refer to the attached manuscript with tracj changes

Reviewer #7: Page 139-143 : The problem needs to be further refined, especially for research issues concerning viral load viruses. Ethical clearance issues also sometimes become obstacles and the lack of study in HIV research

......

page 168 -175 : Please clarify the source of the data taken, because in the background of the problem, you describe something that highlights the lack of research in the field regarding this topic.

.......

page 194 -200 : Could you provide more details on the research method conducted with a pooled prevalence, including which data was used and the operational definitions applied?

....

page 211- 220 : is it only using this data to determine the pooled prevalence ?

....

page 231-233 : Why you leave-one-out sensitivity anlysis ?

...

page 255 - 256 : can you more explain with this result ?

...

page 351 -356 : This explanation must be further clarified and supported by literature that underpins this statement.

...

page 417 : Although this research is a systematic review and meta-analysis using secondary data, researchers must still consider intellectual property rights and proper attribution for the data used.

Reviewer #8: Given the high prevalence of HIV-positive women in African countries, it is important to understand virological suppression in pregnant and breastfeeding women. Conducting this systematic review provides insight into the current status of this population.

The authors have considered the necessary methodological criteria and clearly described the process for developing this systematic review. However, it is not entirely clear how they analyzed and interpreted the determinants of virological suppression and associated variables, nor how they addressed potential confounders. It would be helpful to detail these aspects in the review manuscript.

When evaluating individual studies, why was the Critical Appraisal Checklist considered instead of a validated tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies? Potential biases arising from the study assessment are not addressed in the limitations section of the review. Please comment.

Reviewer #9: Thank you for doing research on his interesting topic. It is essential to emphasize the importance of implementing targeted interventions for young HIV-positive women, including the disclosure of HIV status, initiation of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens, and promotion of ART adherence.

Reviewer #10: Review comments on “Virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PONE-D-25-49195)”

The manuscript (PONE-D-25-49195) addresses a critical public health issue concerning HIV viral suppression among pregnant and lactating women on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Africa. The topic aligns well with global health and HIV epidemiology. The study is comprehensive but requires significant improvements in methodological transparency, reporting, and interpretation. I have the following concerns which if addressed will improve the study.

1.Prospero has CRD420251077063, registered as “Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and its prevention among reproductive-age women in Africa: a systematic and meta-analysis 2025”.

- Register your review again in Prospero and state the ID correctly.

2. Under introduction (line 144 – 153), the research question is a repetition from the goal of the study. Merge the goal and research question to avoid repetition.

3. Remove (line 168- 175) and present as part of your supplementary file S2 file.

4. Include a complete PRISMA 2020 checklist and flow diagram under the results as part of the manuscript not part of list of figures (Figure 1). Draw it nicely or get it the flow diagram rom online, present it well in the manuscript, with well labelled figure legend.

5. For the risk of bias assessment, present the JBI quality assessment results in a summary table or figure.

6. Table 1 should be added to the results section with a well described table legend under the table, stating what criteria or reference was used for the risk of bias.

7. Table 2 should be added to the results section, not as part of list of tables, then with a legend describing or stating what was used to achieve the sub-group analysis.

8. Figure 1-8 should be presented as part of the results with a well labelled figure legend, stating how it was achieved.

9. Consider sources of heterogeneity and use meta-regression by study year, region/country, ART regimen and viral load threshold to improve the robustness of the findings.

10.Include in the discussion, a more clearly link between the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets, national PMTCT programs and strategies to address low suppression in younger women.

Overall, this review is timely and relevant. Addressing the above comments will substantially enhance its scientific rigor, methodological transparency, and readability.

END.

Reviewer #11: Overall, this is good research, this review takes a deep dive into how well HIV-positive pregnant and

breastfeeding women in Africa are responding to antiretroviral therapy, specifically looking at how

many are achieving virologic suppression. The study is methodologically solid, using validated tools

and statistical models to analyze the data. It also identifies key factors that influence outcomes, like

age, relationship status, ART regimen, HIV status disclosure, and adherence. Younger women and

those with poor adherence were less likely to achieve suppression, pointing to the need for youth-

friendly care and stronger support systems. While the results are promising, the high variability

across studies and regions suggests more targeted interventions and further research are needed to

close the gap and reduce mother-to-child transmission

Reviewer #12: 1. General Assessment

This manuscript presents a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prevalence of virologic suppression and its associated factors among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa. The study is timely, methodologically sound, and addresses a critical gap in maternal HIV care across the continent. The authors adhered to PRISMA guidelines, registered their protocol on PROSPERO, and employed appropriate statistical techniques including random-effects modeling, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity testing. The manuscript is generally well-written and organized, with clear objectives and relevant findings. However, several areas require clarification or refinement to meet PLOS ONE’s standards for transparency, reproducibility, and scientific rigor.

2. Section-by-Section Evaluation

Methods and Materials

Areas for Improvement:

1. Search Strategy: The Boolean search string is extensive but lacks structure. Present full search strategies (e.g., for PubMed) in a supplementary file.

2. Database Justification: Justify inclusion of Google Scholar due to its non-standard indexing.

3. Quality Threshold: Rephrase “excellent quality” for studies scoring ≥5 on JBI to “acceptable quality.”

4. Outcome Definitions: Clarify whether all studies used the same VL threshold (≤1000 copies/mL).

5. Statistical Rationale: Justify use of DerSimonian and Laird’s method over alternatives like Hartung-Knapp.

6. Publication Bias Tests: Clarify whether Egger’s and Begg’s tests were applied to both prevalence and AORs.

Results

Areas for Improvement:

1. PRISMA Flow: Include a complete PRISMA diagram and a table of excluded studies with reasons.

2. Heterogeneity: I² = 99.57% is extremely high. Consider meta-regression or deeper exploration of sources.

3. Subgroup Analysis: Report statistical significance of subgroup differences and I² values per subgroup.

4. Associated Factors: Provide AORs and CIs for all discussed predictors. Clarify model type used for pooling.

5. Figures: Ensure all figures (e.g., funnel plot, forest plots) are clearly labeled and referenced.

Discussion, Strengths & Limitations, Conclusion

Areas for Improvement:

1. Interpretation: Discuss clinical significance of the 14% gap from the 95% target.

2. Causal Language: Soften causal claims to reflect observational nature (e.g., “associated with”).

3. Policy Framing: Reference WHO/UNAIDS frameworks when recommending interventions.

4. Limitations: Clarify geographic skew and discuss potential impact of publication bias despite non-significant tests.

5. Conclusion: Separate findings from recommendations for clarity. Specify which health system components need strengthening.

3. Minor Editorial Suggestions

• Correct grammar and phrasing (e.g., “All searching databases” → “All searched databases”).

• Ensure consistent terminology: “virologic suppression” vs. “viral load suppression.”

• Fix typos (e.g., “studies is required” → “studies are required”).

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Salvatore ChirumboloSalvatore ChirumboloSalvatore ChirumboloSalvatore Chirumbolo

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: sri chakradhar challagalisri chakradhar challagalisri chakradhar challagalisri chakradhar challagali

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes: James ArinaitweJames ArinaitweJames ArinaitweJames Arinaitwe

Reviewer #7: Yes: JANNO B B BERNADUSJANNO B B BERNADUSJANNO B B BERNADUSJANNO B B BERNADUS

Reviewer #8: No

Reviewer #9: No

Reviewer #10: No

Reviewer #11: Yes: Oluwatobi AtolagbeOluwatobi AtolagbeOluwatobi AtolagbeOluwatobi Atolagbe

Reviewer #12: Yes: Duressa Shafi AhmedDuressa Shafi AhmedDuressa Shafi AhmedDuressa Shafi Ahmed

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS_ONE(Review_Paper).pdf

pone.0346045.s006.pdf (301.9KB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript (3).docx

pone.0346045.s007.docx (213.5KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-49195_reviewer JB.pdf

pone.0346045.s008.pdf (2.8MB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments on PONE-D-25-49195.docx

pone.0346045.s009.docx (15.8KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_meta-analysis.pdf

pone.0346045.s010.pdf (85.6KB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Review 2.pdf

pone.0346045.s011.pdf (90KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Apr 13;21(4):e0346045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346045.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


27 Dec 2025

Dear Editorial Team,

Thank you for timely feedback and carefully reviewing our manuscript, "Virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis" (PONE-D-25-49195), and bringing to our attention the concerns about text overlap with previous articles.

We sincerely apologize for being late to revise our submitted manuscript. We are grateful to the academic editor for facilitating our submission and to the reviewers for their valuable scientific comments, expertise, and guidance, which were instrumental in improving the overall quality of our manuscript. The authors diligently and meticulously address all the comments and recommendations provided by all reviewers and the academic editor. As a result, we believe that the manuscript substantially improved in terms of grammar, punctuation, coherence, clarity, methodological rigor, transparency, and reproducibility. We have submitted the revised manuscript alongside the manuscript with track changes, "Response to Reviewers," and other relevant supplementary files.

We look forward to your timely feedback for our revised manuscript.

Thank you for your time and ongoing support.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

pone.0346045.s016.pdf (302.9KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Richard Makurumidze

4 Feb 2026

Dear Dr. Mengistie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 21 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols....

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Richard Makurumidze

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #9: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #10: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: I Don't Know

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I did not find a point-by-point reply to my recommendations. Next time I would like to find them. I read the revised paper. The revised manuscript effectively addresses most of the reviewer’s concerns. It now includes a meta-regression analysis that identifies significant moderators of heterogeneity, acknowledges and discusses the geographic concentration of studies in Southern Africa, and presents expanded discussion on key contextual factors such as socioeconomic status, healthcare access, and rural–urban disparities. The authors have also improved the narrative quality of the discussion, providing clearer interpretations and actionable policy recommendations aligned with the UNAIDS 95-95-95 goals. Additionally, they incorporated relevant factors such as ART duration, viral load assay thresholds, and breastfeeding practices, which were previously under-addressed.

However, a few issues remain unresolved. The manuscript still refers to an implausible study inclusion period extending to April 2025, which undermines credibility. Moreover, while the Joanna Briggs Institute tool is used for quality assessment, the authors do not provide a detailed summary of individual study scores, limiting transparency. These remaining concerns should be addressed to fully satisfy the reviewer’s expectations.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents a strong and timely systematic review and meta-analysis addressing virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women in Africa.

Reviewer #3: I would like to begin by commending the authors for undertaking such a comprehensive and high-impact study. Synthesizing data from over 304,000 participants across 55 studies provides an essential view of the PMTCT landscape in Africa. The focus on the specific window of pregnancy and lactation is vital, as this demographic is often underserved in broader adult HIV cohorts. I am appreciating the author for his interest.

Reviewer #6: I would like to thank the authors for the considerable effort invested in preparing this manuscript. The study is clearly structured, well-written, and presents its objectives, methodology, and findings in a coherent and logical manner. The topic addressed is timely and relevant, and the work makes a meaningful contribution to the existing body of literature in this field.

The authors demonstrate a solid understanding of the theoretical background and prior research, and the literature review is appropriately comprehensive and up to date. The methodology is sound and sufficiently detailed to allow for reproducibility, and the analysis is carried out rigorously. The results are clearly presented and thoughtfully interpreted, with conclusions that are well supported by the data.

I particularly appreciate the clarity of the discussion section, where the authors effectively link their findings to existing studies and highlight the implications of their work. The manuscript adheres to ethical research and publication standards, and I have no concerns regarding dual publication or research ethics.

Overall, this is a high-quality manuscript that meets the standards of the journal. I highly recommend this work for subsequent processing and publication, subject only to any minor editorial adjustments that the journal may deem necessary. The authors are to be commended for their contribution, and I believe this paper will be of significant interest and value to the journal’s readership.

Reviewer #7: I noticed in this journal writing that you used PROSPERO, but after I checked, it was only at the initial screening stage up to completion. The same applies to the subsequent stages, which are the most important in PROSPERO, namely data extraction, bias/quality assessment, and data synthesis. Could you explain this further? Some of the arguments, results, and conclusions do not sufficiently elaborate on the analysis that demonstrates the novelty and urgency of this research.

Reviewer #9: Thank you for addressing issues and comments that have been provided before. It has been a great subject to focus on to do a research.

Reviewer #10: Review comments on “Virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PONE-D-25-49195)”

I have carefully reviewed the revised manuscript and the authors’ point-by-point responses. The authors have adequately and thoughtfully addressed all the comments raised. The PROSPERO registration has been done again and correctly clarified, redundancies in the introduction have been resolved, and methodological transparency has been substantially improved through the inclusion of a complete PRISMA 2020 checklist and a clearly presented flow diagram.

Importantly, the addition of meta-regression analyses strengthens the robustness of the findings, and the revised discussion now clearly aligns the results with the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets and national PMTCT programs, highlighting strategies to improve viral suppression among younger women. Overall, the manuscript is scientifically sound, methodologically rigorous, and timely.

I have no further major concerns and recommend the manuscript for acceptance.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Salvatore ChirumboloSalvatore ChirumboloSalvatore ChirumboloSalvatore Chirumbolo

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hani Al-NajjarHani Al-NajjarHani Al-NajjarHani Al-Najjar

Reviewer #3: Yes: sri chakradhar challagalisri chakradhar challagalisri chakradhar challagalisri chakradhar challagali

Reviewer #6: Yes: James ArinaitweJames ArinaitweJames ArinaitweJames Arinaitwe

Reviewer #7: Yes: Janno Berty Bradly Bernadus, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, IndonesiaJanno Berty Bradly Bernadus, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, IndonesiaJanno Berty Bradly Bernadus, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, IndonesiaJanno Berty Bradly Bernadus, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, Indonesia

Reviewer #9: No

Reviewer #10: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Main Manuscript.docx

pone.0346045.s013.docx (313.8KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: 23012026_Review comments.docx

pone.0346045.s014.docx (13.9KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-49195_Reviewer JB 26012026.pdf

pone.0346045.s015.pdf (3.5MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Apr 13;21(4):e0346045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346045.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


12 Feb 2026

Dear Academic Editor and Reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate your prompt responses and for generously sharing your expertise through insightful comments and suggestions, which have been invaluable in guiding us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all comments to the best of our ability.

In response to the second-round revision, we have uploaded the revised manuscript with tracked changes, along with the updated main manuscript and the “Response to Reviewers” files.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.pdf

pone.0346045.s018.pdf (282.8KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 2

Richard Makurumidze

16 Mar 2026

Virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-25-49195R2

Dear Dr. Mengistie,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements which include addressing some minor comments raised by one of the reviewers.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Richard Makurumidze

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript demonstrates substantial improvement compared with earlier versions and addresses many of the reviewers’ concerns. In particular, the authors have strengthened the methodological transparency and analytical depth of the study. The inclusion of a meta-regression analysis to explore sources of heterogeneity represents an important improvement and directly responds to reviewer feedback requesting deeper analysis of variability among studies. This addition helps identify moderators such as ART regimen and geographic region, thereby improving the robustness and interpretability of the pooled estimates. The authors also expanded the discussion to better contextualize findings within socioeconomic and health-system factors such as rural–urban disparities, access to healthcare services, and ART adherence barriers. These additions enhance the explanatory power of the discussion and align the findings more clearly with public health policy frameworks such as the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets.

Furthermore, the authors appear to have addressed comments regarding the background and the significance of the research topic. The revised manuscript provides a clearer justification of the study’s novelty and urgency, particularly by emphasizing the lack of continent-wide quantitative synthesis on virologic suppression among pregnant and lactating women in Africa. The manuscript now explicitly highlights gaps in evidence and the implications for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

The reviewers also requested greater transparency regarding methodological procedures. In response, the authors clarified the PROSPERO registration and stated that data extraction, bias assessment, and synthesis were conducted according to the registered protocol. They also added the PROSPERO registration identifier and link in the manuscript, which improves methodological transparency.

However, not all concerns appear to be fully resolved. One reviewer noted that the manuscript previously reported an implausible study inclusion period extending to 2025, which could affect credibility. Although the authors provided clarification about the search timeframe and justification related to the SDG era, the explanation may still require clearer presentation in the manuscript. Additionally, transparency regarding quality appraisal remains partially limited; while the authors state that Joanna Briggs Institute scores are now included in supplementary materials, the main manuscript still lacks a concise summary of individual study quality.

Overall, the authors have fulfilled most of the reviewers’ comments, particularly regarding analytical depth, contextual discussion, and methodological clarification. Nevertheless, minor issues related to transparency and reporting clarity remain and should be carefully checked before final acceptance.

POINTS TO BE FURTER ADDRESSED

1. p values as 0.000 are meaningless and not scientific. You can use p <0.0001 or (better) report the correct p value as negative potencies (e.g, 5.78x10^-7);

2. Funnel plot. The funnel plot is not clearly correct/symmetric, and it suggests possible asymmetry, although it does not automatically prove publication bias.

Here is a brief scientific interpretation you could use: First, in a correct funnel plot, studies should be symmetrically distributed around the pooled effect size line, forming an inverted funnel. Larger studies (smaller standard error) should cluster near the top, while smaller studies should spread more widely at the bottom.

In the plot you reported, most studies cluster on the right side of the pooled estimate (~85%), while few studies appear on the left side. Additionally, several studies with larger standard errors (bottom of the plot) are predominantly located on one side. This creates visual asymmetry, meaning the funnel shape is not balanced. Such asymmetry may suggest small-study effects, publication bias, or heterogeneity among studies.

Another issue is the very wide spread of effect sizes (≈25–100%), which is unusual for prevalence meta-analysis and may reflect high heterogeneity, which is also consistent with the reported I² ≈ 99% in the manuscript. When heterogeneity is extremely high, funnel plots become less reliable for detecting publication bias.

However, visual inspection alone is insufficient. The correct interpretation should combine the funnel plot with statistical tests such as Egger’s regression test or Begg’s test. In the manuscript, Egger’s test was reported as p = 0.2402, indicating no statistically significant publication bias, even though the plot visually appears somewhat asymmetric.

Therefore, the appropriate conclusion is: the funnel plot shows some visual asymmetry, but according to the Egger’s test there is no statistically significant evidence of publication bias, and the asymmetry may be due to extreme heterogeneity across studies. This must be reported in the paper.

Reviewer #7: Thank you for revising all my review results. Please double check everything I provided and follow all the journal's obligations and requirements.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Salvatore ChirumboloSalvatore ChirumboloSalvatore ChirumboloSalvatore Chirumbolo

Reviewer #7: Yes: Janno Berty Bradly Bernadus, Sam Ratulangi University , ManadoJanno Berty Bradly Bernadus, Sam Ratulangi University , ManadoJanno Berty Bradly Bernadus, Sam Ratulangi University , ManadoJanno Berty Bradly Bernadus, Sam Ratulangi University , Manado

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-49195_R2_ JB 14032026.pdf

pone.0346045.s017.pdf (3.2MB, pdf)

Acceptance letter

Richard Makurumidze

PONE-D-25-49195R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Mengistie,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Richard Makurumidze

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0346045.s001.docx (33KB, docx)
    S2 File. Search strategies for virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0346045.s002.docx (16.4KB, docx)
    S3 File. Excel data extraction spreadsheet for virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women in Africa.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0346045.s003.xlsx (26.4KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Descriptive summary of studies included in systematic review of virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women on ART in Africa.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0346045.s004.docx (25.3KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Factors associated with virologic suppression among HIV-positive pregnant and lactating women receiving ART in Africa.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0346045.s005.docx (25.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS_ONE(Review_Paper).pdf

    pone.0346045.s006.pdf (301.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Manuscript (3).docx

    pone.0346045.s007.docx (213.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-49195_reviewer JB.pdf

    pone.0346045.s008.pdf (2.8MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments on PONE-D-25-49195.docx

    pone.0346045.s009.docx (15.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review_meta-analysis.pdf

    pone.0346045.s010.pdf (85.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review 2.pdf

    pone.0346045.s011.pdf (90KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pone.0346045.s016.pdf (302.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Main Manuscript.docx

    pone.0346045.s013.docx (313.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 23012026_Review comments.docx

    pone.0346045.s014.docx (13.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-49195_Reviewer JB 26012026.pdf

    pone.0346045.s015.pdf (3.5MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.pdf

    pone.0346045.s018.pdf (282.8KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-49195_R2_ JB 14032026.pdf

    pone.0346045.s017.pdf (3.2MB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES