RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Interpregnancy interval and pregnancy loss in a rural South Africa: A population-based cohort study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.18.21253877
DO 10.1101/2021.03.18.21253877
A1 Y. Moodley
A1 Kobus Herbst
A1 F. Tanser
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/20/2021.03.18.21253877.abstract
AB Study question What is the relationship between interpregnancy interval (IPI) and pregnancy loss in a a rural sub-Saharan African (SSA) setting?Summary answer IPIs >60 months, but not <6 months, were associated with a higher odds of pregnancy loss in our SSA setting.What is known already IPIs >60 months are detrimental to both fetal and maternal health, while contradictory findings exist for IPIs <6 months. No studies have investigated the relationship between IPI and pregnancy loss in SSA settings, despite high pregnancy loss rates and exponential population growth in the SSA region.Study design, size, duration Population-based cohort involving 8940 women aged 16-35 years who reported two consecutive singleton pregnancies between 2000 and 2017.Participants/materials, setting, methods Study participants were from the uMkhanyakude District in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. We obtained data on pregnancy-related characteristics and other variables relevant to pregnancy loss from regular surveys conducted by the Africa Health Research Institute (AHRI) as part of its demographic and health surveillance platform. IPI was determined as the time in months between the end of the first pregnancy and the start of the second pregnancy. Pregnancy loss was defined as either miscarriage or stillbirth. We used an adjusted logistic regression model to investigate the relationship between IPI and pregnancy loss.Main results and the role of chance IPIs >60 months were associated with an almost three-fold higher odds of pregnancy loss (Adjusted Odds Ratio: 2.64, 95% Confidence Interval:1.71-4.09) when compared with IPIs of 6-60 months. IPIs <6 months conferred a similar odds of pregnancy loss when compared with IPIs of 6-60 months (Adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.82, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.35-1.91).Limitations, reasons for caution Possible recall bias around some of the pregnancy-related data. Inability to adjust our multivariate statistical analysis for certain sexually transmitted diseases which are known risk factors for pregnancy loss.Wider implications of the findings Family planning services in SSA should consider discouraging IPIs >60 months. Although IPIs <6 months had no impact on pregnancy loss, these should also be discouraged in SSA, given the potential socioeconomic consequences for the already vulnerable women of this region.Study funding/competing interest(s) The corresponding author was supported with a postdoctoral fellowship under a National Institute of Health grant (R01 HD084233). The AHRI demographic and health surveillance platform is supported by the Wellcome Trust (201433/Z/16/Z), and the South African Population Research Infrastructure Network. No competing interests are declared.Trial registration number N/A.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe corresponding author was supported with a postdoctoral fellowship under a National Institute of Health (NIH) grant (R01 HD084233). The Africa Health Research Institute Demographic Surveillance Information System and Population Intervention Programme is funded by the Wellcome Trust (201433/Z/16/Z), and the South African Population Research Infrastructure Network (funded by the South African Department of Science and Technology and hosted by the South African Medical Research Council). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding bodies.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Biomedical Research Ethics Committee at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data underlying this article are available (upon reasonable request) from the Africa Health Research Institutes Data Repository. https://data.ahri.org/index.php/home