Version Changes
Revised. Amendments from Version 1
In this version, we have expanded the discussion to address the reviewers' concerns around definitions of preterm birth and stillbirth used as well as to add global context to our estimates of the frequencies of adverse birth outcomes. We have updated Figure 2 to illustrate the co-occurrence of very preterm birth, very small-for-gestational-age, and stillbirth. We present an additional linear regression analysis of continuous exposures and continuous outcomes and note that maternal height is not associated with either preterm birth or small-for-gestational-age.
Abstract
Background: Few cohort studies of pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa use rigorous gestational age dating and clinical phenotyping. As a result, incidence and risk factors of adverse birth outcomes are inadequately characterized.
Methods: The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS) is a prospective observational cohort established to investigate adverse birth outcomes at a referral hospital in urban Lusaka. This report describes ZAPPS phase I, enrolled August 2015 to September 2017. Women were followed through pregnancy and 42 days postpartum. At delivery, study staff assessed neonatal vital status, birthweight, and sex, and assigned a delivery phenotype. Primary outcomes were: (1) preterm birth (PTB; delivery <37 weeks), (2) small-for-gestational-age (SGA; <10 th percentile weight-for-age at birth), and (3) stillbirth (SB; delivery of an infant without signs of life).
Results: ZAPPS phase I enrolled 1450 women with median age 27 years (IQR 23–32). Most participants (68%) were multiparous, of whom 41% reported a prior PTB and 14% reported a prior stillbirth. Twins were present in 3% of pregnancies, 3% of women had short cervix (<25mm), 24% of women were HIV seropositive, and 5% were syphilis seropositive. Of 1216 (84%) retained at delivery, 15% were preterm, 18% small-for-gestational-age, and 4% stillborn. PTB risk was higher with prior PTB (aRR 1.88; 95%CI 1.32–2.68), short cervix (aRR 2.62; 95%CI 1.68–4.09), twins (aRR 5.22; 95%CI 3.67–7.43), and antenatal hypertension (aRR 2.04; 95%CI 1.43–2.91). SGA risk was higher with twins (aRR 2.75; 95%CI 1.81–4.18) and antenatal hypertension (aRR 1.62; 95%CI 1.16–2.26). SB risk was higher with short cervix (aRR 6.42; 95%CI 2.56–16.1).
Conclusio ns: This study confirms high rates of PTB, SGA, and SB among pregnant women in Lusaka, Zambia. Accurate gestational age dating and careful ascertainment of delivery data are critical to understanding the scope of adverse birth outcomes in low-resource settings.
Keywords: adverse birth outcomes, pregnancy, preterm birth, small for gestational age, stillbirth, sub-Saharan Africa, Zambia
Introduction
The often overlapping outcomes of preterm birth (PTB), small for gestational age (SGA), and stillbirth (SB), collectively called ‘adverse birth outcomes’, are responsible for most perinatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. 1, 2 Low- and middle-income countries bear the overwhelming burden of global PTB, SB, and SGA. 3– 5 However, reliable classification and estimation of adverse birth outcomes in low-resources settings is challenging because of a number of interrelated factors, including (1) uncertain gestational age dating, 6 (2) conflation of fetal growth restriction and PTB into the less useful metric of ‘low birthweight’, 3, 5 (3) inconsistent thresholds for fetal viability, 7 and (4) misclassification of stillbirth and neonatal death. 8, 9 In many countries, including Zambia, data sources that adequately address these methodological challenges are lacking to the extent that national estimates of adverse birth outcomes must be modeled. 3, 6, 10, 11
In sub-Saharan Africa, cohort studies in pregnancy rarely use reliable gestational age dating or clinical phenotyping to classify outcomes. Deliberate clinical phenotyping that characterizes the events that incite parturition (i.e., spontaneous vs. provider-initiated), quantifies maternal and fetal co-morbid conditions, and reliably distinguishes the timing of perinatal death is essential for rigorous classification of adverse birth outcomes. 12, 13 Accurate estimation of gestational age with fetal ultrasound is also critical. Other dating methods, such as maternal recall of last menstrual period (LMP), 14– 17 symphisial-fundal height measurement, 18 or newborn physical exam 19, 20 introduce error (and in some cases, bias 21).
We established a cohort of 1450 pregnant women and their infants at a tertiary care institution in Lusaka, Zambia, with the goal of better understanding the epidemiological factors and biological mechanisms leading to adverse birth outcomes. This report presents the outcomes of the first phase of this cohort.
Methods
The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS) is an ongoing prospective observational cohort study at the Women and Newborn Hospital of the University Teaching Hospitals (UTH-WNH), the primary referral hospital in Lusaka. Phase 1 of ZAPPS, the subject of this report, recruited and enrolled participants beginning in August 2015 and completed follow-up in June 2018. The sample size for this observational study was initially set at 2000 women, with a target of 250 preterm birth events based on published regional population estimates. 4 For budgetary reasons and because the prematurity rate was higher than initially expected, enrollment was stopped in September 2017 after 1450 women had been enrolled. The ZAPPS protocol was developed to align with the Guidelines for Strengthening The Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). 22
Study population
Pregnant women meeting the following criteria were eligible for enrollment in Phase 1 of the ZAPPS cohort: (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) viable intrauterine singleton or twin gestation; (3) presentation to antenatal care prior to 20 weeks of gestation if HIV-uninfected or 24 weeks if HIV-infected; (4) residing within Lusaka with no plans to relocate during the study follow-up period; (4) willing to provide written, informed consent; (5) willing to allow participation of their infant(s) in the study; (6) willing to be contacted and followed up at home if necessary.
The ZAPPS protocol was approved prior to study initiation and is subjected to annual review by the University of Zambia School of Medicine Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 016-04-14) and the University of North Carolina School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (study number: 14-2113). The study also received approval from the Zambian Ministry of Health National Health Research Authority. Each participant provided written informed consent before enrollment.
Procedures
Full study procedures are described in detail elsewhere. 23 Community educators identified potential participants at antenatal care clinics of UTH-WNH and five surrounding clinics in Lusaka, assessing basic eligibility criteria such as age and approximate gestational age. Interested volunteers underwent ultrasound examination per standard of care to determine pregnancy location, fetal viability, number of fetuses, and gestational age by standard biometry (Sonosite M-Turbo, Fuji Sonosite, Bothell, WA). Gestational age was calculated at enrollment by crown-rump length if <14 gestational weeks or by head circumference and femur length if ≥14 weeks. Fetal biometry structures were each measured twice and then averaged to calculate gestational age using INTERGROWTH-21st equations. 24, 25 Pregnancies below the lower threshold for INTERGROWTH-21st equations were dated by the Hadlock formula. 26 Interested women who met preliminary ultrasound eligibility criteria completed an informed consent process in their preferred language of English, Nyanja, or Bemba.
At enrollment, study nurses collected demographic and behavioral information through medical record review and participant interview, and documented a thorough health history including prior pregnancy outcomes. As part of standard antenatal care, participants underwent a physical exam and rapid testing for hemoglobin, urinalysis, syphilis (SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0, Abbott Diagnostics), and HIV (SD Bioline 3.0, Abbott Diagnostics).
After enrollment, participants received routine antenatal care at follow-up visits scheduled at approximately 24 weeks, 32 weeks, and 36 weeks. All participants underwent cervical length measurement in the second trimester (i.e., 14–28 weeks) and fetal growth assessment by biometry in the third trimester. 27, 28 Cervical length measurements were performed by sonographers with certification in the Cervical Length Education and Review (CLEAR) program. Study nurses staffed the UTH-WNH labor ward full-time and collected detailed information about the clinical course and perinatal outcomes of participants and their infants, including gestational age at birth, neonatal vital status, birthweight, and sex, and assigned a delivery phenotype. For participants who did not deliver at UTH-WNH or were not captured by study staff during their delivery admission, study staff collected perinatal outcomes either in person or by phone. Cohort retention in this analysis was defined as ascertainment of date of delivery.
Exposures
Primary exposures evaluated included maternal age (years), height (cm), and body mass index (BMI, kg/m 2); reported prior preterm birth (nulliparous, parous with no prior PTB, or parous with one or more prior PTB); cervical length (mm) and short cervix (<25mm); gestation (single or twin); hypertension during pregnancy (≥140 systolic or ≥90mmHg diastolic at any antepartum study visit); anemia at enrollment (<10.5g/dL); bacteriuria during pregnancy (1+ leukocyte esterase and/or nitrites at any antepartum study visit); syphilis seropositivity (reactive at enrollment); and HIV seropositivity (reactive at enrollment).
Outcomes
Primary outcomes of this analysis were: PTB, defined as birth between 16 0/ 7 and 36 6/ 7 gestational weeks, SGA (newborn weight-for-age <10th percentile by INTERGROWTH-21st norms), 29 and SB (delivery of an infant without signs of life ≥16 0/ 7 weeks). Secondary outcomes included very PTB (birth before 34 0/ 7 weeks), very SGA (newborn weight-for-age <3rd percentile), gestational duration (days), and birthweight centile for gestational age at delivery. Both PTB and very PTB were further characterized as either spontaneous (spontaneous labor or membrane rupture prior to labor) or provider-initiated (induction of labor or pre-labor cesarean). We differentiated antepartum stillbirth (i.e., fetal heart tones absent on admission or, if not assessed, maceration skin changes present at delivery) from intrapartum stillbirth (i.e., fetal heart tones present on admission or, if not assessed, absence of maceration skin changes at delivery).
Statistical analysis
We performed descriptive analyses of baseline characteristics and exposures of the cohort, reporting median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables, and frequency and percent for categorical variables. Differences in baseline characteristics between women retained at delivery and those lost to follow-up were evaluated by univariate tests of association.
We summarized parturition phenotype among our retained participants by preterm versus term and spontaneous versus provider-initiated following a standard rubric. 12 Among spontaneous PTB, we identified primary maternal, fetal, and/or placental conditions present at the time of delivery. Among provider-initiated PTB, we reported the primary indication for delivery as recorded by the provider. Finally, key individual conditions present and phenotypic clusters were used to classify all PTB, spontaneous PTB, and provider-initiated PTB.
We calculated the incidence of adverse birth outcomes: PTB, spontaneous PTB, very PTB, spontaneous very PTB, SGA, very SGA, and SB among all participants retained at delivery. Twin deliveries in which at least one neonate was SGA or stillborn were classified as having met the respective outcome. Crude associations between key exposures and outcomes were analyzed as risk ratios estimated using Poisson regression analyses with a robust variance. 30 Adjusted risk ratios were also estimated using Poisson regression accounting for other key exposures plus maternal age, BMI, estimated gestational age at enrollment, and HIV serostatus at enrollment. We then analyzed the association between continuous exposure variables and outcomes (gestational duration and birthweight centile by gestational age at birth) using linear regression.
Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for time to delivery for participants with and without a history of prior PTB, short cervix, and twin gestation. We accounted for loss to follow-up by right censoring women at their last study visit (if before delivery) and compared survival between exposure groups by log-rank tests. We also used Cox regression to calculate the hazard of delivery between participants with and without prior PTB, short cervix, and twin gestation, adjusting for maternal age. The proportional-hazards assumption was tested based on Schoenfeld residuals. 31 Because of the inherent converging of survival curves in pregnancy at term, we restricted our models to the preterm period by administratively censoring all participants at 37 gestational weeks. 32, 33
All statistical analyses were performed with Stata version 14 (College Station, TX, USA) and SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC, USA).
Results
From August 2015 to September 2017, 1784 pregnant women were screened and 1450 (81%) enrolled ( Figure 1). 23 The median age of enrolled participants was 27 (IQR: 23–32) ( Table 1). 34 Median estimated gestational age (EGA) at enrollment was 16 weeks; 30% (n=427/1450) were enrolled before 14 completed gestational weeks. Of 1042 (72%) participants who had been pregnant at least once in the past; 19% (n=194/1042) reported a prior miscarriage. Of 992 (68%) with a prior delivery, 41% (n=411) reported a prior PTB. On ultrasound exam, 3% (n=35/1175) had short cervix <25mm, and 3% (n=38/1450) had twin gestation. The prevalence of HIV seropositivity at enrollment was 24% (n=350/1447). Syphilis seropositivity was detected in 5% (70/1342).
Figure 1. ZAPPS cohort participant flowchart.
ANC, antenatal care; UTH-WNH, Women and Newborn Hospital of University Teaching Hospital.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of ZAPPS cohort, N=1450.
| Characteristic | Total enrolled
N=1450 |
Retained at delivery visit
N=1216 (83.9%) |
Lost to follow-up
N=234 (16.1%) |
p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Value
% or Median (IQR) * |
N | Value
% or Median (IQR) * |
N | Value
% or Median (IQR) * |
||
| Maternal age, years | 1409 | 27 (23–32) | 1192 | 27 (23–32) | 217 | 24 (20–29) | <.001 |
| <20 | 111 | 7.9 | 72 | 6.0 | 39 | 18.0 | |
| 20–34 | 1116 | 79.2 | 956 | 80.2 | 160 | 73.7 | |
| ≥35 | 182 | 12.9 | 164 | 13.8 | 18 | 8.3 | |
| Missing | 41 | 24 | 17 | ||||
| Maternal education, years | 1435 | 12 (9–12) | 1204 | 12 (9–12) | 231 | 9 (7–12) | <.001 |
| None | 26 | 1.8 | 19 | 1.6 | 7 | 3.0 | |
| 0–12 years | 1225 | 85.4 | 1018 | 84.6 | 207 | 89.6 | |
| ≥12 years | 184 | 12.8 | 167 | 13.9 | 17 | 7.4 | |
| Missing | 15 | 12 | 3 | ||||
| Married or cohabiting | 1202 | 83.7 | 1014 | 84.1 | 188 | 81.4 | 0.310 |
| Missing | 13 | 10 | 3 | ||||
| Electricity in home | 1302 | 90.6 | 1105 | 91.6 | 197 | 85.3 | 0.002 |
| Missing | 13 | 10 | 3 | ||||
| Piped drinking water in home | 1340 | 93.3 | 1123 | 93.2 | 217 | 93.9 | 0.678 |
| Missing | 14 | 11 | 3 | ||||
| Toilet facilities in home | <.001 | ||||||
| Flush or Pour | 762 | 53.0 | 667 | 55.3 | 95 | 41.1 | |
| Pit / Latrine / Other | 675 | 47.0 | 539 | 44.7 | 136 | 58.9 | |
| Missing | 13 | 10 | 3 | ||||
| Floor material in home | 0.438 | ||||||
| Natural / rudimentary | 138 | 9.6 | 119 | 9.9 | 19 | 8.2 | |
| Finished | 1299 | 90.4 | 1087 | 90.1 | 212 | 91.8 | |
| Missing | 13 | 10 | 3 | ||||
| Domestic violence in past year | 71 | 5.0 | 58 | 4.9 | 13 | 5.6 | 0.641 |
| Missing | 28 | 26 | 2 | ||||
| Smoking in pregnancy | 8 | 0.6 | 7 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.4 | 0.768 |
| Missing | 24 | 23 | 1 | ||||
| Alcohol use in pregnancy | 124 | 8.7 | 106 | 8.9 | 18 | 7.7 | 0.563 |
| Missing | 25 | 24 | 1 | ||||
| Maternal height at enrollment, cm | 1368 | 156 (160–164) | 1151 | 156 (160–165) | 217 | 156 (160–164) | 0.263 |
| BMI at enrollment, kg/m 2 | 1366 | 23.6 (21.2–27.2) | 1149 | 23.9 (21.4–27.6) | 217 | 22.7 (20.7–25.5) | <.001 |
| <18.5 | 71 | 5.2 | 56 | 4.9 | 15 | 6.9 | |
| 18.5–30.0 | 1103 | 80.8 | 919 | 80.0 | 184 | 84.8 | |
| >30.0 | 192 | 14.1 | 174 | 15.1 | 18 | 8.3 | |
| Missing | 84 | 67 | 17 | ||||
| Gravidity | 1450 | 2 (1–4) | 1042 | 2 (1–4) | 408 | 2 (1–3) | 0.003 |
| Primigravida | 408 | 28.1 | 321 | 26.4 | 87 | 37.2 | 0.001 |
| Multigravida | 1042 | 71.9 | 895 | 73.6 | 147 | 62.8 | |
| Prior miscarriage, n=1042 | 0.933 | ||||||
| Multigravida, no prior miscarriage | 848 | 81.4 | 728 | 81.3 | 120 | 81.6 | |
| Multigravida, ≥1 prior miscarriage | 194 | 18.6 | 167 | 18.7 | 27 | 18.4 | |
| Parity | 1450 | 1 (0–2) | 1216 | 1 (0–2) | 234 | 1 (0–2) | 0.004 |
| Nulliparous | 458 | 31.6 | 365 | 30.0 | 93 | 39.7 | 0.003 |
| Parous | 992 | 68.4 | 851 | 70.0 | 141 | 60.3 | |
| Prior PTB, n=992 | 0.224 | ||||||
| Parous, no prior PTB | 581 | 58.6 | 505 | 59.3 | 76 | 53.9 | |
| Parous, ≥1 prior PTB | 411 | 41.4 | 346 | 40.7 | 65 | 46.1 | |
| Prior stillbirth, n=992 | 0.401 | ||||||
| Parous, no prior SB | 780 | 86.1 | 672 | 86.5 | 108 | 83.7 | |
| Parous, ≥1 prior SB | 126 | 13.9 | 105 | 13.5 | 21 | 16.3 | |
| Missing | 86 | 74 | 12 | ||||
| Short cervix < 2.5 cm | 35 | 3.0 | 32 | 3.0 | 3 | 3.2 | 0.899 |
| Missing | 275 | 135 | 140 | ||||
| Twin gestation | 38 | 2.6 | 31 | 2.6 | 7 | 3.0 | 0.698 |
| HIV positive at enrollment | 350 | 24.2 | 304 | 25.0 | 46 | 19.7 | 0.084 |
| Missing | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||||
| Syphilis reactive | 70 | 5.2 | 63 | 5.6 | 7 | 3.1 | 0.142 |
| Missing | 108 | 93 | 15 | ||||
| Hypertensive at enrollment ^ | 52 | 3.7 | 46 | 3.9 | 6 | 2.7 | 0.392 |
| Missing | 31 | 21 | 10 | ||||
| Hemoglobin at enrollment, g/dL | 1025 | 12 (11–13) | 854 | 12 (11–13) | 171 | 12 (11–13) | 0.274 |
| <10.5 | 140 | 13.7 | 123 | 14.4 | 17 | 9.9 | |
| Missing | 425 | 362 | 63 | ||||
| Abnormal UA at enrollment † | 69 | 5.0 | 55 | 4.8 | 14 | 6.3 | 0.343 |
| Missing | 79 | 67 | 12 | ||||
| EGA at enrollment, weeks | 1450 | 16.1 (13.3–18.3) | 1216 | 16.0 (13.3–18.3) | 234 | 16.3 (13.3–18.6) | 0.421 |
| <14 | 427 | 29.4 | 362 | 29.8 | 65 | 27.8 | |
BMI, body mass index; PTB, preterm birth; SB, stillbirth; UA, urinalysis; EGA, estimated gestational age; IQR, interquartile range.
* Not all columns sum to 100% due to rounding.
^ Defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90.
† Defined as 1+ leukocyte esterase and/or + nitrites.
p values calculated by Wilcoxon rank sum or chi-square for continuous and categorical comparisons, respectively.
Of enrolled participants, 1216 (84%) were retained with delivery date ascertained. Compared to participants lost to follow-up, those retained at delivery were older (median: 27 versus 24 years, p<.001), had more years of education (median: 12 versus 9 years, p<.001), were more likely to have electricity (91% versus 85%, p=.002) and flush or pour toilet facilities at home (55% versus 41%, p<.001), had higher body mass index (23.9 versus 22.7 kg/m 2, p<.001), and had higher gravidity (74% versus 63% multigravid, p=.001) and parity (70% versus 60% parous, p=.004).
Frequencies of our outcomes were as follows: 15% PTB (n=181/1216), 8% very PTB (n=92/1216), 18% SGA (n=207/1159), 7% very SGA (n=80/1159), and 4% SB (n=53/1209). Three participants (0.3%) experienced miscarriages before 16 weeks of gestation. Of the pregnancies that ended in SB, 44 (83%) were antepartum and 9 (17%) occurred intrapartum. Among 1159 deliveries within the EGA range for SGA calculation and with birthweight recorded, 35 150 (13%) were PTB, 65 (6%) were very PTB, 207 (18%) were SGA, 80 (7%) were very SGA, and 32 (3%) were stillborn ( Figure 2).
Figure 2. Preterm birth, very preterm birth, small for gestational age, very small for gestational age, and stillbirth among participants retained at delivery in ZAPPS cohort.
Among ZAPPS cohort participants retained at delivery, 15% (181/1216) were preterm (PTB), 8% (92/1216) were very PTB, 18% (207/1159) were small for gestational age (SGA), 7% (80/1159) were very SGA, and 4% (53/1209) were stillborn (SB). *11 preterm births (^9 of which were very preterm), one term stillbirth, and 20 preterm stillbirths (^18 of which were very preterm) were either outside the gestational age threshold for INTERGROWTH-21 st calculation of SGA, 28 or were missing birthweight at delivery. Figures created with: EulerAPE. 36
Of 181 total PTB, 120 (66%) occurred spontaneously, 56 (31%) were provider-initiated, and 5 (3%) could not be definitively classified ( Figure 3). The most common key conditions present in women with spontaneous PTB (n=120) were HIV infection (n=42, 35%), SB (n=26, 23%), hypertension alone (n=22; 18%), and twin gestation (n=18, 15%); 33 (28%) had no key condition identified. Most provider-initiated preterm deliveries were indicated for SB (n=16, 29%), preeclampsia or eclampsia (n=15, 27%) or hypertension alone (n=4, 7%), or both SB and preeclampsia (n=4, 7%). We identified major phenotypic clusters of PTB, spontaneous PTB, and provider-initiated PTB by presence of maternal, fetal, and/or placental conditions ( Table 2).
Figure 3. Parturition phenotypes among ZAPPS participants with preterm delivery.
Of participants who underwent preterm delivery (n=181) in the ZAPPS cohort, 120 of them were spontaneous and 56 were indicated. This figure presents the frequencies of primary conditions present in spontaneous preterm deliveries, primary indications for indicated preterm deliveries, and the overall frequency with 95% confidence intervals of key conditions in each group. Gray bars represent missing values. APH, antepartum hemorrhage; OB HX, obstetrical history.
Table 2. Phenotypes of preterm birth in ZAPPS cohort, N=181.
| All preterm birth
N (%) * |
Spontaneous
N (%) † |
Provider-initiated
N (%) † |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All preterm | 181 | 100 | 120 | 68 | 56 | 32 |
| Phenotypic clusters | ||||||
| No significant clinical conditions | 41 | 23 | 33 | 87 | 5 | 13 |
| Maternal condition(s) only | 60 | 33 | 40 | 67 | 20 | 33 |
| Fetal condition(s) only | 27 | 15 | 21 | 81 | 5 | 19 |
| Placental condition(s) only | 4 | 2 | 1 | 25 | 3 | 75 |
| Maternal and fetal conditions | 37 | 20 | 17 | 47 | 19 | 53 |
| Maternal and placental conditions | 6 | 3 | 3 | 50 | 3 | 50 |
| Fetal and placental conditions | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Maternal, fetal, and placental conditions | 5 | 3 | 4 | 80 | 1 | 20 |
| Significant maternal conditions | 108 | 60 | 64 | 60 | 43 | 40 |
| HIV infection | 53 | 29 | 42 | 81 | 10 | 19 |
| Urinary tract infection, n=41 | 9 | 22 | 7 | 78 | 2 | 22 |
| Clinical chorioamnionitis, n=120 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Diabetes (mellitus or gestational), n=179 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 20 | 4 | 80 |
| Hypertension | 34 | 19 | 19 | 56 | 15 | 44 |
| Preeclampsia, n=107 | 23 | 21 | 6 | 26 | 17 | 74 |
| Eclampsia, n=125 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 100 |
| Significant fetal conditions | 70 | 39 | 43 | 63 | 25 | 37 |
| Twin gestation | 21 | 12 | 18 | 90 | 2 | 10 |
| Stillbirth, n=176 | 48 | 27 | 26 | 55 | 21 | 45 |
| Fetal growth restriction | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 100 |
| Fetal distress | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 |
| Polyhydramnios | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 |
| Oligohydramnios | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 |
| Significant placental conditions | 16 | 9 | 9 | 56 | 7 | 44 |
| Placental abruption | 15 | 8 | 9 | 60 | 6 | 40 |
| Placenta previa | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 100 |
* column percent.
† row percent.
Maternal age ≥35, prior PTB, short cervix, twin gestation, antenatal hypertension, and EGA at enrollment <14 weeks were associated with PTB ( Table 3). Overall, these associations were stable or strengthened when restricting the outcome to spontaneous PTB and to very PTB ( Table 4). Although associated with PTB, antenatal hypertension did not significantly predict spontaneous phenotypes of PTB. Maternal height was not significantly associated with PTB or very PTB in univariate analyses. In multivariable regression models adjusting for maternal age, BMI, EGA at enrollment, and HIV status at enrollment, participants with prior PTB (aRR 1.88; 95% CI 1.32–2.68), short cervix (aRR 2.62; 95% CI 1.68–4.09), twin gestation (aRR 5.22; 95% CI 3.67–7.43), and antenatal hypertension (aRR 2.04; 95% CI 1.43–2.91) had increased risk of PTB ( Table 2). The associations between the exposures of prior PTB, short cervix, and twin gestation with PTB were stable or strengthened when restricting the outcome to spontaneous phenotypes and very PTB ( Table 4). The risk of PTB decreased with increasing cervical length (RR 0.58 per cm; 95% CI 0.46–0.73) ( Figure 4). In multiple linear regression of continuous exposure variables, gestational duration was associated with number of prior PTB (coeff -5.11 days; 95% CI -6.42 to -3.79), cervical length (coeff 6.49 days; 95% CI 4.18–8.81), and EGA at enrollment (0.70 days; 0.28–1.12) ( Table 6).
Table 3. Risk of adverse birth outcomes among ZAPPS participants retained at delivery, n=1213.
| Exposure | Preterm birth 16 to <37 weeks | Spontaneous preterm birth 16 to <37 weeks | Small for gestational age | Stillbirth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | events | % | RR | 95%
CI |
aRR * | 95%
CI |
n | events | % | RR | 95%
CI |
aRR * | 95%
CI |
n | events | % | RR | 95%
CI |
aRR ‡ | 95%
CI |
n | events | % | RR | 95%
CI |
aRR ‡ | 95%
CI |
|
| Age at enrollment, years | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <20 | 72 | 5 | 6.9 | 1.00 | 70 | 3 | 4.3 | 1.00 | 70 | 13 | 18.6 | 1.00 | 72 | 0 | 0.0 | - | ||||||||||||
| 20–34 | 953 | 144 | 15.1 | 2.18 | 0.92–
5.14 |
950 | 103 | 10.8 | 2.53 | 0.82–
7.77 |
911 | 157 | 17.2 | 0.93 | 0.56–
1.55 |
954 | 39 | 4.1 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| ≥35 | 164 | 31 | 18.9 | 2.72 | 1.10–
6.72 |
164 | 13 | 7.9 | 1.85 | 0.54–
6.29 |
155 | 33 | 21.3 | 1.15 | 0.64–
2.04 |
159 | 14 | 8.8 | 2.15 | 1.20–
3.88 |
||||||||
| BMI at enrollment, kg/m 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <18.5 | 56 | 12 | 21.4 | 1.00 | 56 | 10 | 17.9 | 1.00 | 53 | 10 | 18.9 | 1.00 | 55 | 1 | 1.8 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
| 18.5–30.0 | 916 | 136 | 14.9 | 0.69 | 0.41–
1.17 |
912 | 90 | 9.9 | 0.55 | 0.30–
1.00 |
876 | 172 | 19.6 | 1.04 | 0.59–
1.85 |
913 | 41 | 4.5 | 2.47 | 0.35–
17.6 |
||||||||
| >30.0 | 174 | 20 | 11.5 | 0.54 | 0.28–
1.03 |
173 | 10 | 5.8 | 0.32 | 0.14–
0.74 |
168 | 18 | 10.7 | 0.57 | 0.28–
1.15 |
173 | 7 | 4.1 | 2.23 | 0.28–
17.7 |
||||||||
| Prior PTB | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nulliparous | 364 | 40 | 11.0 | 1.13 | 0.76–
1.68 |
0.93 | 0.60–
1.43 |
363 | 25 | 6.9 | 1.23 | 0.73–
2.08 |
0.86 | 0.47–
1.55 |
345 | 73 | 21.2 | 1.42 | 1.06–
1.91 |
1.36 | 0.98–
1.87 |
363 | 8 | 2.2 | 0.62 | 0.27–
1.40 |
0.95 | 0.36–
2.50 |
| Parous, no prior
PTB |
504 | 49 | 9.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 502 | 28 | 5.6 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 491 | 73 | 14.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 503 | 18 | 3.6 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Parous, ≥1 prior
PTB |
345 | 92 | 26.7 | 2.74 | 1.99–
3.77 |
1.88 | 1.32–
2.68 |
343 | 67 | 19.5 | 3.5 | 2.30–
5.33 |
2.62 | 1.69–
4.06 |
323 | 61 | 18.9 | 1.27 | 0.93–
1.73 |
1.12 | 0.82–
1.54 |
343 | 27 | 7.9 | 2.20 | 1.23–
3.93 |
1.63 | 0.78–
3.40 |
| Cervical length | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ≥2.5cm | 1049 | 137 | 13.1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1045 | 91 | 8.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1021 | 181 | 17.7 | 1.00 | 1046 | 35 | 3.4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| <2.5cm | 32 | 16 | 50.0 | 3.83 | 2.62–
5.60 |
2.62 | 1.68–
4.09 |
32 | 9 | 28.1 | 3.23 | 1.79–
5.81 |
1.95 | 1.01–
3.77 |
31 | 9 | 29.0 | 1.64 | 0.93–
2.89 |
32 | 6 | 18.8 | 5.60 | 2.54–
12.4 |
6.42 | 2.56–
16.1 |
||
| Gestation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Single | 1182 | 160 | 13.5 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1178 | 102 | 8.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1128 | 191 | 16.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1177 | 51 | 4.3 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| Twin | 31 | 21 | 67.7 | 5.00 | 3.77–
6.64 |
5.22 | 3.67–
7.43 |
30 | 18 | 60.0 | 6.93 | 4.90–
9.80 |
7.86 | 5.37–
11.5 |
31 | 16 | 51.6 | 3.05 | 2.12–
4.39 |
2.75 | 1.81–
4.18 |
31 | 2 | 6.5 | 1.49 | 0.38–
5.85 |
||
| HIV serostatus at
enrollment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Negative | 908 | 128 | 14.1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 904 | 78 | 8.6 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 871 | 152 | 17.5 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 906 | 37 | 4.1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Positive | 303 | 53 | 17.5 | 1.24 | 0.93–
1.66 |
1.17 | 0.85–
1.62 |
302 | 42 | 13.9 | 1.61 | 1.13–
2.29 |
1.36 | 0.91–
2.03 |
286 | 55 | 19.2 | 1.10 | 0.83–
1.46 |
1.09 | 0.80–
1.47 |
301 | 16 | 5.3 | 1.30 | 0.73–
2.31 |
1.29 | 0.65–
2.56 |
| Syphilis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Non-reactive | 1057 | 159 | 15.0 | 1.00 | 1053 | 109 | 10.4 | 1.00 | 1006 | 184 | 18.3 | 1.00 | 1053 | 41 | 3.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||||||
| Reactive | 63 | 9 | 14.3 | 0.95 | 0.51–
1.77 |
63 | 3 | 4.8 | 0.46 | 0.15–
1.41 |
63 | 13 | 20.6 | 1.13 | 0.68–
1.86 |
63 | 6 | 9.5 | 2.45 | 1.08–
5.55 |
2.34 | 0.91–
6.04 |
||||||
| Blood pressure
during pregnancy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Normotensive | 1072 | 145 | 13.5 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1067 | 106 | 9.9 | 1.00 | 1025 | 173 | 16.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1068 | 42 | 3.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| Hypertensive ‡ | 141 | 36 | 25.5 | 1.89 | 1.37–
2.60 |
2.04 | 1.43–
2.91 |
141 | 14 | 9.9 | 1.00 | 0.59–
1.70 |
134 | 34 | 25.4 | 1.50 | 1.09–
2.07 |
1.62 | 1.16–
2.26 |
141 | 11 | 7.8 | 1.98 | 1.05–
3.76 |
1.83 | 0.84–
3.96 |
||
| Hemoglobin at
enrollment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ≥10.5 g/dL | 730 | 111 | 15.2 | 1.00 | 727 | 70 | 9.6 | 1.00 | 700 | 125 | 17.9 | 1.00 | 726 | 30 | 4.1 | 1.19 | 0.51–
2.80 |
|||||||||||
| <10.5 g/dL | 121 | 21 | 17.4 | 1.14 | 0.75–
1.75 |
121 | 15 | 12.4 | 1.29 | 0.76–
2.17 |
113 | 20 | 17.7 | 0.99 | 0.65–
1.52 |
122 | 6 | 4.9 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| UA during
pregnancy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Normal | 907 | 125 | 13.8 | 1.00 | 903 | 82 | 9.1 | 1.00 | 880 | 168 | 19.1 | 1.00 | 903 | 32 | 3.5 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
| Abnormal ^ | 189 | 31 | 16.4 | 1.19 | 0.83–
1.71 |
189 | 20 | 10.6 | 1.17 | 0.73–
1.85 |
182 | 26 | 14.3 | 0.75 | 0.51–
1.10 |
191 | 6 | 3.1 | 0.89 | 0.38–
2.09 |
||||||||
| EGA at
enrollment, weeks |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <14 | 360 | 72 | 20.0 | 1.00 | 358 | 45 | 12.6 | 1.00 | 333 | 62 | 18.6 | 1.00 | 357 | 20 | 5.6 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
| ≥14 | 853 | 109 | 12.8 | 0.64 | 0.49–
0.84 |
850 | 75 | 8.8 | 0.70 | 0.50–
0.99 |
826 | 145 | 17.6 | 0.94 | 0.72–
1.23 |
851 | 33 | 3.9 | 0.69 | 0.40–
1.19 |
||||||||
BMI, body mass index; PTB, preterm birth; UA, urinalysis; EGA, estimated gestational age; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; aRR, adjusted risk ratio
* Risk ratios calculated via Poisson regression with robust error variance. Multivariable model estimates of adjusted risk ratios include other exposure variables listed and all models adjusted for: maternal age, maternal BMI, and EGA at enrollment as continuous variables.
‡ Defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 at enrollment or at any follow-up ANC visit.
^ Defined as 1+ leukocyte esterase and/or + nitrites.
Table 4. Risk of severe adverse birth outcomes in ZAPPS participants retained at delivery, n=1213.
| Exposure | Very preterm birth 16 to <34 weeks | Spontaneous very preterm birth 16 to <34 weeks | Very small for gestational age | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | events | % | RR | 95% CI | aRR * | 95% CI | n | events | % | RR | 95% CI | aRR * | 95% CI | n | events | % | RR | 95% CI | aRR * | 95% CI | |
| Age at enrollment,
years |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| <20 | 72 | 3 | 4.2 | 1.00 | 71 | 2 | 2.8 | 1.00 | 70 | 7 | 10.0 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 20–34 | 953 | 75 | 7.9 | 1.89 | 0.61–5.84 | 950 | 50 | 5.3 | 1.87 | 0.46–7.53 | 913 | 55 | 6.0 | 1.66 | 0.79–3.51 | ||||||
| ≥35 | 164 | 13 | 7.9 | 1.90 | 0.56–6.48 | 164 | 6 | 3.7 | 1.30 | 0.27–6.28 | 155 | 17 | 11.0 | 1.82 | 1.09–3.05 | ||||||
| BMI at enrollment,
kg/m 2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| <18.5 | 56 | 4 | 7.1 | 1.00 | 56 | 3 | 5.4 | 1.00 | 53 | 8 | 15.1 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 18.5–30.0 | 916 | 72 | 7.9 | 1.10 | 0.42–2.90 | 913 | 46 | 5.0 | 0.94 | 0.30–2.93 | 879 | 60 | 6.8 | 0.45 | 0.23–0.90 | ||||||
| >30.0 | 174 | 9 | 5.2 | 0.72 | 0.23–2.27 | 173 | 5 | 2.9 | 0.54 | 0.13–2.19 | 167 | 10 | 6.0 | 0.40 | 0.17–0.95 | ||||||
| Prior PTB | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Nulliparous | 364 | 22 | 6.0 | 1.45 | 0.81–2.60 | 1.10 | 0.55–2.21 | 364 | 14 | 3.9 | 1.61 | 0.75–3.44 | 0.88 | 0.34–2.31 | 345 | 32 | 9.3 | 1.98 | 1.18–3.32 | 1.92 | 1.12–3.32 |
| Parous, no prior
PTB |
504 | 21 | 4.2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 502 | 12 | 2.4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 491 | 23 | 4.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| Parous, ≥1 prior
PTB |
345 | 49 | 14.2 | 3.41 | 2.08–5.58 | 2.27 | 1.28–4.04 | 343 | 33 | 9.6 | 4.02 | 2.11–7.68 | 2.89 | 1.39–5.98 | 323 | 25 | 7.7 | 1.65 | 0.95–2.86 | 1.39 | 0.76–2.53 |
| Cervical length | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ≥2.5cm | 1049 | 63 | 6.0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1046 | 39 | 3.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1022 | 68 | 6.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| <2.5cm | 32 | 12 | 37.5 | 6.24 | 3.76–10.4 | 3.97 | 2.15–7.33 | 32 | 7 | 21.9 | 5.87 | 2.84–12.1 | 3.19 | 1.35–7.55 | 31 | 5 | 16.1 | 2.42 | 1.05–5.59 | 2.06 | 0.88–4.82 |
| Gestation | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Single | 1182 | 81 | 6.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1179 | 51 | 4.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1130 | 74 | 6.6 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| Twin | 31 | 11 | 35.5 | 5.18 | 3.08–8.70 | 5.18 | 2.75–9.77 | 30 | 8 | 26.7 | 6.16 | 3.21–11.8 | 7.53 | 3.58–15.9 | 31 | 6 | 19.4 | 2.96 | 1.39–6.27 | 2.71 | 1.12–6.57 |
| HIV serostatus at
enrollment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Negative | 908 | 67 | 7.4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 905 | 41 | 4.5 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 871 | 61 | 7.0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| Positive | 303 | 25 | 8.3 | 1.12 | 0.72–1.74 | 1.20 | 0.71–2.01 | 302 | 18 | 6.0 | 1.32 | 0.77–2.26 | 1.35 | 0.68–2.66 | 286 | 19 | 6.6 | 0.95 | 0.58–1.56 | 0.86 | 0.48–1.53 |
| Syphilis | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Non-reactive | 1057 | 81 | 7.7 | 1.00 | 1054 | 53 | 5.0 | 1.00 | 1009 | 71 | 7.0 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| Reactive | 63 | 5 | 7.9 | 1.04 | 0.44–2.46 | 63 | 2 | 3.2 | 0.63 | 0.16–2.53 | 63 | 6 | 9.5 | 1.35 | 0.61–2.99 | ||||||
| Blood pressure
during pregnancy |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Normotensive | 1072 | 78 | 7.3 | 1.00 | 1068 | 55 | 5.2 | 1.00 | 1025 | 65 | 6.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Hypertensive ‡ | 141 | 14 | 9.9 | 1.36 | 0.79–2.34 | 141 | 4 | 2.8 | 0.55 | 0.20–1.50 | 134 | 15 | 11.2 | 1.77 | 1.04–3.00 | 1.68 | 0.92–3.06 | ||||
| Hemoglobin at
enrollment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| ≥10.5 g/dL | 730 | 60 | 8.2 | 1.00 | 727 | 35 | 4.8 | 1.00 | 703 | 46 | 6.5 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| <10.5 g/dL | 121 | 7 | 5.8 | 0.70 | 0.33–1.50 | 121 | 5 | 4.1 | 0.86 | 0.34–2.15 | 113 | 5 | 4.4 | 0.68 | 0.27–1.67 | ||||||
| UA during
pregnancy |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Normal | 907 | 59 | 6.5 | 1.00 | 904 | 37 | 4.1 | 1.00 | 881 | 68 | 7.7 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| Abnormal ^ | 189 | 14 | 7.4 | 1.14 | 0.65–2.00 | 189 | 7 | 3.7 | 0.81 | 0.41–2.00 | 183 | 10 | 5.5 | 0.71 | 0.37–1.35 | ||||||
| EGA at
enrollment, weeks |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| <14 | 360 | 39 | 10.8 | 1.00 | 358 | 26 | 7.3 | 1.00 | 333 | 25 | 7.5 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| ≥14 | 853 | 53 | 6.2 | 0.57 | 0.39–0.85 | 851 | 33 | 3.9 | 0.92 | 0.86–0.99 | 828 | 55 | 6.6 | 0.88 | 0.56–1.40 | ||||||
BMI, body mass index; PTB, preterm birth; UA, urinalysis; EGA, estimated gestational age; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; aRR, adjusted risk ratio
* Risk ratios calculated via Poisson regression with robust error variance. Multivariable models include other exposure variables listed and adjusted for: maternal age, maternal BMI, and EGA at enrollment.
‡ Defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 at enrollment or at any follow-up visit.
^ Defined as 1+ leukocyte esterase and/or + nitrites.
Figure 4. Predicted probability of preterm birth <37 weeks by mid-trimester cervical length.
Among ZAPPS cohort participants with a cervical length measured by ultrasound in the second trimester (n=1081), the probability of preterm birth <37 weeks decreased with increasing cervical length. PTB, preterm birth; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval.
Nulliparity, twin gestation, and antenatal hypertension were each associated with SGA in univariate analysis, and older age, low BMI, nulliparity, short cervix, twin gestation, and antenatal hypertension were associated with very SGA. In multivariable analysis, twin gestation (aRR 2.75; 95% CI 1.81–4.18) and antenatal hypertension (aRR 1.62; 95% CI 1.16–2.26) were associated with an increased risk of SGA; nulliparity was marginally associated with SGA (aRR 1.36; 95% CI 0.98–1.87). Nulliparity (aRR 1.92; 95% CI 1.12–3.32) and twin gestation (aRR 2.71, 95% CI 1.12–6.57) were associated with very SGA. Maternal height was not associated with SGA or very SGA in univariate analyses of categorical outcomes, but was associated with mean centile of birthweight in adjusted linear regression (coeff 0.32; 95% CI 0.04,0.59), along with maternal weight (coeff 0.34; 95% CI 0.21,0.47), and EGA at enrollment (coeff -0.75; 95% CI -1.25 to -0.25) ( Table 6).
Finally, older maternal age, prior PTB, short cervix, syphilis seropositivity, and antenatal hypertension were individually associated with an elevated risk of SB ( Table 3). In multivariable analysis, short cervix predicted SB (aRR 6.42; 95% CI 2.56–16.1), while syphilis was only marginally associated (aRR 2.34; 95% CI 0.91–6.04).
Elevated risks of PTB among women with prior PTB, short cervix, and twin gestation were supported by survival analyses, with log-rank tests of association demonstrating significant differences between groups of each variable ( Figure 5; Table 5). In proportional hazards models adjusted for maternal age at enrollment, participants with prior PTB, short cervix, and twin gestation had significantly higher hazards of delivering before 37 gestational weeks compared to parous women with no prior PTB, women with cervical lengths ≥25mm, or with single gestations. Participants with increasing numbers of prior preterm births demonstrated increasing hazard ratios of delivering preterm.
Figure 5.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves by ( a) prior preterm birth, ( b) short cervix (<25mm), and ( c) twin gestation. Survival curves are presented for participants with increasing numbers of prior preterm birth, those with cervical length <25mm compared to ≥25 mm, and those with twin compared to singleton gestation. The dashed vertical line represents a gestational age of 37 weeks, the threshold for preterm versus term delivery. EGA, estimated gestational age; PTB, preterm birth.
Table 5. Log-rank and Cox proportional hazards regression with test of proportionality assumption for prior preterm birth, short cervical length, and twin gestation.
| Log-rank | Cox proportional
hazards |
Schoenfeld
residual test |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | HR * | 95% CI | p | rho | Χ 2 | p | |
| Prior preterm birth | global | 3.23 | 0.66 | ||||
| Parous, no prior | <.001 ^ | ref | ref | ||||
| Parous, 1 prior | 2.21 | 1.47– 3.33 | <.001 | -0.01 | 0.01 | 0.92 | |
| Parous, 2 prior | 2.79 | 1.70– 4.58 | <.001 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.95 | |
| Parous, 3+ prior | 4.70 | 2.94– 7.53 | <.001 | -0.11 | 2.33 | 0.13 | |
| Nulliparous | - | 1.16 | 0.75– 1.78 | 0.51 | -0.06 | 0.80 | 0.37 |
| Cervical length | global | 4.42 | 0.11 | ||||
| ≥ 25mm | <.001 | ref | ref | ||||
| <25mm | 5.19 | 3.09– 8.74 | <.001 | -0.15 | 3.26 | 0.07 | |
| Gestation | global | 3.19 | 0.20 | ||||
| Singleton | <.001 | ref | ref | ||||
| Twin | 6.70 | 4.25– 10.60 | <.001 | 0.13 | 3.19 | 0.07 | |
HR, hazards ratio; CI, confidence interval.
* Each proportional hazards model adjusted for maternal age at enrollment.
^ log-rank of trend, excluding nulliparas.
Table 6. Association between continuous exposures by gestational duration and birthweight centile.
| Exposure | Gestational duration, days | Birthweight centile for gestational age | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| coeff | 95% CI | adjusted | 95% CI | coeff | 95% CI | adjusted | 95% CI | |
| Age at enrollment, years | -0.18 | -0.44,0.08 | 0.30 | 0.01,0.60 | -0.02 | -0.32,0.29 | ||
| Maternal height at enrollment, m | -0.05 | -0.28,0.17 | 0.63 | 0.37,0.88 | 0.32 | 0.04,0.59 | ||
| Maternal weight at enrollment, kg | -0.01 | -0.11,0.09 | 0.41 | 0.30,0.53 | 0.34 | 0.21,0.47 | ||
| BMI at enrollment, kg/m 2 | 0.09 | -0.20,0.37 | 0.84 | 0.51,1.17 | ||||
| Number of prior PTB | -6.54 | -8.07,-5.00 | -5.11 | -6.42,-3.79 | -1.94 | -3.80,-0.07 | ||
| Cervical length | 6.93 | 5.05,8.82 | 6.49 | 4.18,8.81 | 0.87 | -1.84,3.58 | ||
| Systolic blood pressure at
enrollment |
-0.11 | -0.22,0.01 | -0.05 | -0.18,0.08 | ||||
| Diastolic blood pressure at
enrollment |
-0.17 | -0.32,-0.02 | -0.01 | -0.18,0.17 | ||||
| Hemoglobin at enrollment | 0.45 | -0.59,1.48 | 1.17 | -0.01,2.34 | ||||
| EGA at enrollment, weeks | 1.12 | 0.70,1.54 | 0.70 | 0.28,1.12 | -0.77 | -1.26,-0.29 | -0.75 | -1.25,-0.25 |
Coefficients and confidence intervals calculated by linear regression. Adjusted coefficients calculated in multivariable models that included other exposure variables with estimates shown.
PTB, preterm birth; EGA, estimated gestational age; coeff, coefficient; CI, confidence interval.
Discussion
We present the primary results of the ZAPPS pregnancy cohort, established to evaluate the risk factors associated with adverse birth outcomes in Lusaka, Zambia. This study was notable for enrollment of pregnant women at early presentation to antenatal care, gestational age determination by early ultrasound, universal cervical length screening, comprehensive and uniform antenatal and postpartum care, and clinical phenotyping of birth outcomes. Our analyses revealed strong risks of prior preterm birth, short mid-trimester cervical length, and twin gestation on incident preterm birth, and these risks were supported by analyses of pregnancy ‘survival’ to term. We also report increased risks of small-for-gestational-age infants among nulliparous women and women with twin gestation, and of stillbirth among those with short cervix.
The proportion of gravidas who deliver before term varies significantly across individual studies and national estimates in sub-Saharan Africa. The most recent global report estimated a PTB rate of 8% in Europe and 11% in North America, compared to 12% across sub-Saharan Africa and 12% in Zambia specifically, where the rate was based on modeled regional estimates instead of national data. 6 In contrast, a census accounting of 237,219 public sector births over 6 years in Lusaka — where the vast majority of pregnancies are dated by last menstrual period — classified 46% of singleton deliveries as preterm. 37, 38 In Zambia, obstetrical ultrasound is rare and the reliance on maternal recall of LMP alone substantially over-estimates preterm birth rates, 17, 39 an inaccuracy that worsens with later presentation to care. 21 We report PTB based on ultrasound gestational age dating and prospectively ascertained delivery outcomes such that our data are likely more accurate than reports that rely on LMP recall or regional models.
Inconsistent global PTB definitions hinder inter-regional comparisons of rates and risk factors, and we acknowledge that gestational age boundaries are somewhat arbitrary. We chose a lower gestational age limit of 16 weeks because of evidence of similar etiological risk factors between preterm births occurring as early as 16 weeks and those that occur later in pregnancy 12, 40. In addition, we included preterm stillbirths in our definition of PTB since excluding stillbirths that occur in the process of parturition would falsely lower the rate of PTB. In a sensitivity analysis that excluded all stillbirths from PTB outcomes, the PTB incidence was modestly reduced. However, risk estimates calculated in regression models remained stable, which supports evidence that risk factors for live and stillborn PTB demonstrate substantial overlap 40.
The distinction of preterm parturition as spontaneously occurring versus provider-initiated is important but rarely reported from national surveillance or clinical research data in low-resource settings. Deliveries that are preceded by spontaneous labor or membrane rupture are phenotypically distinct from those that are induced medically or surgically for complications such as preeclampsia, antepartum fetal demise, or other maternal or fetal conditions. 12, 41– 44 Further classification based on primary conditions present in spontaneous PTB and the primary indications for provider-initiated PTB is based on a standardized rubric proposed to elucidate phenotypic clusters of PTB 12. An understanding of prevailing phenotypes can direct research, policy, and preventive interventions towards regional and population-specific needs. 13, 45, 46 While our cohort is limited by a small number of PTB events (n=181), we were able to classify nearly all (i.e., 97%) as either spontaneous or provider-initiated, and to identify the primary complications and phenotypic characteristics of each. Further granularity and generalizability of PTB classification requires a larger sample size, signaling a need for future high-quality obstetrical research on a greater scale.
As with PTB classification, identifying infants born SGA requires accurate gestational age estimation, which can be at best imprecise, and at worst biased, when based solely on LMP. 21 The incidence of SGA in our cohort (18%) was modestly higher than regional estimates of SGA in sub-Saharan Africa of 16%, 5 and compared to a recent estimate in Zambia of 13%, which was modeled from published rates in other neighboring countries because of scarcity of data from Zambia itself. 5 In comparison to the ZAPPS cohort, in which older maternal age, low BMI, nulliparity, twin gestation, and antenatal hypertension predicted either SGA or very SGA, a study among over 19,000 singletons in Tanzania identified younger maternal age, height, and nulliparity as strong risk factors for SGA. 47 The WHO Multi-country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health found nulliparity and hypertensive disorders to indicate higher risk of preterm SGA and hypertensive disorders, sociodemographic factors, and anemia to predict term SGA. 48 With a much smaller sample size and fewer outcomes compared to these two studies, we were not able to differentiate our outcome by preterm vs. term SGA due to low statistical precision for stratified associations with key risk factors. Due to this low precision, we are not able to discern whether or not SGA outcomes were modified by gestational age at delivery. However, both of these studies relied on reported LMP to estimate gestational age at delivery, which itself may have introduced error. Whether growth restriction is a distinct pathological process before 37 weeks compared to after 37 weeks is unclear. Finally, while the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project 49 intended to define universal fetal growth and newborn weight standards derived from an extensive multi-ethnic sample of women with adequate antenatal care and nutrition, its widespread use over ethnicity-specific or customized standards has been disputed. 43, 50– 56 Despite this, we chose to define SGA in our cohort based on INTERGROWTH-21 st standards since local standards that include all pregnancies affected by undernutrition and/or pregnancy comorbidities tend to identify only the severest 10% of cases by definition.
Stillbirth, a composite outcome comprising antepartum and intrapartum fetal death, is particularly understudied in low-resource settings. Compared to developed regions with a stillbirth rate of 3.4 per 1000 total births, the rate in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated as 28.7 per 1000, while 4% of our cohort delivered stillbirths. 3 The true global burden of stillbirth and its underlying causes are poorly classified due to inconsistent fetal viability limits and imperfect classification of neonatal death versus stillbirth, limited resources for case investigations, under-reporting of home births that result in perinatal death, and inadequate national and regional reporting of identified cases. 3 Indeed, recent global and regional estimates of stillbirth included just 17% of its datapoints from sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, regions that bear 77% of the global burden. 3 Data from the recent Zambia Demographic and Health Survey reported a rate of stillbirth, defined as fetal death over 7 months’ gestation, as 1.3% among 13,563 births reported, with equal rates outside Lusaka province as within. 57 This is similar to estimates from a Global Network study in Zambia, in which 2% of women enrolled delivered stillbirths. 9 The higher proportion of deliveries that resulted in stillbirth in the ZAPPS cohort, at least partly attributable to a broader gestational age range, was reflected in the ZEPRS database, in which 6% of 66,395 deliveries at UTH resulted in stillbirth. 38 However, over half of stillbirths in ZEPRS and 67% in a Global Network study in Zambia were classified as intrapartum, compared to less than 20% in the ZAPPS cohort. These disparities may result from differential classification; it is standard practice outside of our study to classify stillbirths solely by neonatal skin maceration at delivery, particularly in the absence of but even despite the presence of documented fetal heart activity during labor. 9 Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated that reliance on observed skin maceration alone can over-estimate stillbirth proportions attributable to the intrapartum period. 58
This study has several limitations, many of which have been noted previously. 23 First, 16% of participants were lost to follow-up. While this is commensurate with other longitudinal pregnancy cohort studies in the region, 59, 60 error may be introduced if outcomes are not missing at random. 61 Women lost to follow-up were younger, more likely to be primigravida and nulliparous, had lower BMIs, and had multiple lower measures of socioeconomic status; many of these characteristics were risk factors for at least one adverse outcome. Further, 250 (21%) of the retained participants either did not deliver at the study hospital or delivered at a time when ZAPPS staff were not present, requiring delivery outcomes to be ascertained by record review and/or participant report (it is worth noting that we found no difference in frequencies of outcomes between deliveries attended by ZAPPS staff versus those that were not; see Underlying data). Second, our data have noted missingness of key antenatal test results at baseline (i.e., hemoglobin, syphilis, and urinalysis) because tests were not routinely repeated nor results recorded in our database if performed at the recruitment clinic before enrollment. Of these test results, only syphilis was associated with an outcome (stillbirth), but we cannot determine with certainty whether missingness introduced bias or simply reduced statistical power. Third, while the ZAPPS study recruits from several surrounding primary clinics, it is based at a tertiary referral hospital and many of our participants were drawn from this higher-risk pool. We note high prevalence of prior PTB, miscarriage, and stillbirth, and high HIV and syphilis seropositivity, which may have resulted from self-selection of high-risk women into a cohort study investigating adverse birth outcomes. It is likely that this resulted in an over-representation of outcomes, but less likely to have also introduced a biased association with identified risk factors.
In summary, the ZAPPS cohort study demonstrates high prevalence of antenatal comorbidities and identifies a number of factors associated with increased risks of preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age infants, and stillbirth. This is the first study of its kind to be conducted in Zambia, and one of the largest on the African continent. An understanding of the true global scope of adverse birth outcomes will require consistent definitions, meticulous ascertainment, and systematic reporting that has eluded those settings where the burden of these outcomes is highest. In the absence of sophisticated registry infrastructure, large pregnancy cohort studies may be able to approximate regional incidence estimates and can provide important data to stratify and direct care for pregnancies at highest risk. Future sub-studies using data and stored biological specimens from the ZAPPS cohort will aim to identify underlying biological mechanisms, causal pathways, and appropriate interventions for the accurate prediction and prevention of adverse birth outcomes in Zambia and worldwide.
Data availability
Underlying data
Open Science Framework: Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS) – Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WT6Q8 34
This project contains the following underlying data:
-
-
Z1A minimum dataset 2019-06-30.csv (underlying data for all participants)
-
-
Z1A Codebook 2019-06-30.rtf (codebook for the variables within the dataset)
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the invaluable contributions to the study design and conduct by Eve Lackritz, James Litch, Marcela Castillo, Nancy Hancock, and Nurain Fuseini. The study protocol is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02738892.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1033514] through a grant to the Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth. Additional support was provided by the US National Institutes of Health through the UNC Center for AIDS Research [P30 AI50410] and trainee / mentor support: [T32 HD075731] (JTP), [K01 TW010857] (JTP), [D43 TW009340] (KJR), and [K24 AI120796] (BHC).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
References
- 1. You D, Hug L, Ejdemyr S, et al. : Global, regional, and national levels and trends in under-5 mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2275–86. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00120-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Hug L, Alexander M, You D, et al. : National, regional, and global levels and trends in neonatal mortality between 1990 and 2017, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(6):e710–e720. 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30163-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Jassir FB, et al. : National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(2):e98–e108. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00275-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, et al. : National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–72. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Lee AC, Kozuki N, Cousens S, et al. : Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21 st standard: analysis of CHERG datasets. BMJ. 2017;358:j3677. 10.1136/bmj.j3677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller AB, et al. : Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(1):e37–e46. 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Saleem S, Tikmani SS, McClure EM, et al. : Trends and determinants of stillbirth in developing countries: results from the Global Network's Population-Based Birth Registry. Reprod Health. 2018;15(Suppl 1):100. 10.1186/s12978-018-0526-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Lawn JE, Gravett MG, Nunes TM, et al. : Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (1 of 7): definitions, description of the burden and opportunities to improve data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10 Suppl 1:S1. 10.1186/1471-2393-10-S1-S1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. McClure EM, Saleem S, Goudar SS, et al. : Stillbirth rates in low-middle income countries 2010 - 2013: a population-based, multi-country study from the Global Network. Reprod Health. 2015;12 Suppl 2:S7. 10.1186/1742-4755-12-S2-S7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, et al. : Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. Lancet. 2016;387(10018):587–603. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00837-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Blencowe H, Krasevec J, de Onis M, et al. : National, regional, and worldwide estimates of low birthweight in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(7):e849–e60. 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30565-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Villar J, Papageorghiou AT, Knight HE, et al. : The preterm birth syndrome: a prototype phenotypic classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(2):119–23. 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.866 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Manuck TA, Esplin MS, Biggio J, et al. : The phenotype of spontaneous preterm birth: application of a clinical phenotyping tool. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):487 e1–e11. 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Vwalika B, Price JT, Rosenbaum A, et al. : Reducing the global burden of preterm births. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(4):e415. 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30060-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Lynch CD, Zhang J: The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21 Suppl 2:86–96. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00865.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kramer MS, McLean FH, Boyd ME, et al. : The validity of gestational age estimation by menstrual dating in term, preterm, and postterm gestations. JAMA. 1988;260(22):3306–8. 10.1001/jama.1988.03410220090034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Savitz DA, Terry JW, Jr, Dole N, et al. : Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(6):1660–6. 10.1067/mob.2002.127601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Unger H, Thriemer K, Ley B, et al. : The assessment of gestational age: a comparison of different methods from a malaria pregnancy cohort in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):12. 10.1186/s12884-018-2128-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Lee AC, Panchal P, Folger L, et al. : Diagnostic Accuracy of Neonatal Assessment for Gestational Age Determination: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics. 2017;140(6): pii: e20171423. 10.1542/peds.2017-1423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Taylor RA, Denison FC, Beyai S, et al. : The external Ballard examination does not accurately assess the gestational age of infants born at home in a rural community of The Gambia. Ann Trop Paediatr. 2010;30(3):197–204. 10.1179/146532810X12786388978526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Price JT, Winston J, Vwalika B, et al. : Quantifying bias between reported last menstrual period and ultrasonography estimates of gestational age in Lusaka, Zambia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;144(1):9–15. 10.1002/ijgo.12686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. : The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Castillo MC, Fuseini NM, Rittenhouse K, et al. : The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS): Cohort characteristics at enrollment [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Gates Open Res. 2018;2:25. 10.12688/gatesopenres.12820.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Papageorghiou AT, Kennedy SH, Salomon LJ, et al. : International standards for early fetal size and pregnancy dating based on ultrasound measurement of crown-rump length in the first trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(6):641–8. 10.1002/uog.13448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Papageorghiou AT, Kemp B, Stones W, et al. : Ultrasound-based gestational-age estimation in late pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(6):719–26. 10.1002/uog.15894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Hadlock FP, Shah YP, Kanon DJ, et al. : Fetal crown-rump length: reevaluation of relation to menstrual age (5-18 weeks) with high-resolution real-time US. Radiology. 1992;182(2):501–5. 10.1148/radiology.182.2.1732970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Romero R, Yeo L, Miranda J, et al. : A blueprint for the prevention of preterm birth: vaginal progesterone in women with a short cervix. J Perinat Med. 2013;41(1):27–44. 10.1515/jpm-2012-0272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Papageorghiou AT, Sarris I, Ioannou C, et al. : Ultrasound methodology used to construct the fetal growth standards in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG. 2013;120 Suppl 2:27–32, v. 10.1111/1471-0528.12313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Papageorghiou AT, Kennedy SH, Salomon LJ, et al. : The INTERGROWTH-21 st fetal growth standards: toward the global integration of pregnancy and pediatric care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2S):S630–S40. 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Zou G: A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–6. 10.1093/aje/kwh090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Schoenfeld D: Chi-squared goodness of fit test for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika. 1981;67(1):147–53. 10.2307/2335327 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM: Modeling survival data: extending the Cox model. New York: Springer;2000;xiii, 350 10.1007/978-1-4757-3294-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Quantin C, Moreau T, Asselain B, et al. : A regression survival model for testing the proportional hazards hypothesis. Biometrics. 1996;52(3):874–85. 10.2307/2533049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Stringer JSA: Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS) - Outcomes.2019. 10.17605/OSF.IO/WT6Q8 [DOI]
- 35. Stirnemann J, Villar J, Salomon LJ, et al. : International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(4):478–86. 10.1002/uog.17347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Micallef L, Rodgers P: euler APE: drawing area-proportional 3-Venn diagrams using ellipses. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e101717. 10.1371/journal.pone.0101717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Chi BH, Vwalika B, Killam WP, et al. : Implementation of the Zambia electronic perinatal record system for comprehensive prenatal and delivery care. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113(2):131–6. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Vwalika B, Stoner MC, Mwanahamuntu M, et al. : Maternal and newborn outcomes at a tertiary care hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, 2008-2012. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;136(2):180–7. 10.1002/ijgo.12036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Ambrose CS, Caspard H, Rizzo C, et al. : Standard methods based on last menstrual period dates misclassify and overestimate US preterm births. J Perinatol. 2015;35(6):411–4. 10.1038/jp.2015.25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Kramer MS, Papageorghiou A, Culhane J, et al. : Challenges in defining and classifying the preterm birth syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(2):108–12. 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Buck Louis GM, Grewal J, Albert PS, et al. : Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(4):449 e1–e41. 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Cheng Y, Leung TY, Lao T, et al. : Impact of replacing Chinese ethnicity-specific fetal biometry charts with the INTERGROWTH-21 st standard. BJOG. 2016;123 Suppl 3:48–55. 10.1111/1471-0528.14008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, et al. : INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):509 e1–e7. 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, et al. : The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight. PLoS Med. 2017;14(1):e1002220. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Barros FC, Papageorghiou AT, Victora CG, et al. : The distribution of clinical phenotypes of preterm birth syndrome: implications for prevention. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(3):220–9. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Esplin MS: The Importance of Clinical Phenotype in Understanding and Preventing Spontaneous Preterm Birth. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33(3):236–44. 10.1055/s-0035-1571146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Muhihi A, Sudfeld CR, Smith ER, et al. : Risk factors for small-for-gestational-age and preterm births among 19,269 Tanzanian newborns. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:110. 10.1186/s12884-016-0900-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Ota E, Ganchimeg T, Morisaki N, et al. : Risk factors and adverse perinatal outcomes among term and preterm infants born small-for-gestational-age: secondary analyses of the WHO Multi-Country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105155. 10.1371/journal.pone.0105155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Villar J, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora CG, et al. : International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project. Lancet. 2014;384(9946):857–68. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60932-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Villar J, Papageorghiou AT, Pang R, et al. : The likeness of fetal growth and newborn size across non-isolated populations in the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study and Newborn Cross-Sectional Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(10):781–92. 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70121-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Cheng YKY, Lu J, Leung TY, et al. : Prospective assessment of INTERGROWTH-21 st and World Health Organization estimated fetal weight reference curves. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(6):792–798. 10.1002/uog.17514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Francis A, Hugh O, Gardosi J: Customized vs INTERGROWTH-21 st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2S):S692–S9. 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Revollo GB, Martinez JI, Grandi C, et al. : Prevalence of underweight and small for gestational age in Argentina: Comparison between the INTERGROWTH-21st standard and an Argentine reference. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2017;115(6):547–55. 10.5546/aap.2017.eng.547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Savirón-Cornudella R, Esteban LM, Lerma D, et al. : Comparison of fetal weight distribution improved by paternal height by Spanish standard versus Intergrowth 21st standard. J Perinat Med. 2018;46(7):750–759. 10.1515/jpm-2016-0298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Tuzun F, Yucesoy E, Baysal B, et al. : Comparison of INTERGROWTH-21 and Fenton growth standards to assess size at birth and extrauterine growth in very preterm infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(17):2252–2257. 10.1080/14767058.2017.1339270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Zeitlin J, Vayssiere C, Ego A, et al. : More validation is needed before widespread adoption of INTERGROWTH-21 st fetal growth reference standards in France. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(4):547–8. 10.1002/uog.17423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Health Zambia, ICF International: Zambia Demographic and Health Survey 2013–2014. In: ICF International, editor. Rockville, MD.2014. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 58. Gold KJ, Abdul-Mumin AR, Boggs ME, et al. : Assessment of "fresh" versus "macerated" as accurate markers of time since intrauterine fetal demise in low-income countries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125(3):223–7. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.12.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Accrombessi M, Yovo E, Cottrell G, et al. : Cohort profile: effect of malaria in early pregnancy on fetal growth in Benin (RECIPAL preconceptional cohort). BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e019014. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Kurewa EN, Kandawasvika GQ, Mhlanga F, et al. : Realities and Challenges of a Five Year Follow Up of Mother and Child Pairs on a PMTCT Program in Zimbabwe. Open AIDS J. 2011;5:51–8. 10.2174/1874613601105010051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Howe CJ, Cole SR, Lau B, et al. : Selection Bias Due to Loss to Follow Up in Cohort Studies. Epidemiology. 2016;27(1):91–7. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]





