Effect of Postnatal HIV Treatment on Clinical Mastitis and Breast Inflammation in HIV-Infected Breast-feeding Women

Recurrent Severe Subclinical Mastitis and the Risk of HIV Transmission Through Breastfeeding

Subclinical mastitis (SCM) is an important risk factor of postnatal HIV-1 transmission that is still poorly understood. A longitudinal sub-study of the ANRS12174 trial including 270 breastfeeding mothers in Lusaka, Zambia measured sodium (Na⁺) and potassium (K⁺) in archived paired breast milk samples collected at week 14, 26 and 38 postpartum to determine cumulative incidence of SCM and the effects of recurrent severe SCM on HIV-1 shedding in breast milk. A nested retrospective cohort study including 112 mothers was also done to determine longitudinal effects of SCM on four pro-inflammatory cytokines; IL6, IL8, IP10 and RANTES. The cumulative incidence for any SCM (Na⁺/K⁺ ratio > 0.6) and severe SCM (Na⁺/K⁺ ratio > 1) were 58.6% (95%CI: 52.7 – 64.5) and 27.8% (95%CI: 22.5 – 33.1), respectively. In majority of affected mothers (51.4%) severe SCM was recurrent. Both breasts were involved in 11.1%, 33.3% and 70% of the mothers with a single episode, 2 and 3 episodes respectively. In affected breasts, an episode of severe SCM resulted in steep upregulation of the four cytokines considered (IL8, IP10, RANTES and IL6) compared to: before and after the episode; contralateral unaffected breasts; and SCM negative control mothers. Recurrent severe SCM significantly increased the odds of shedding cell-free HIV-1 in breast milk (OR: 5.2; 95%CI: 1.7 – 15.6) whereas single episode of severe SCM did not (OR: 1.8; 95%CI: 0.8 – 4.2). A Na⁺/K⁺ ratio > 1 indicative of severe SCM is an excellent indicator of breast inflammation characterized by a steep, localized and temporal upregulation of several pro-inflammatory cytokines that favor HIV-1 shedding in mature breast milk and may facilitate postnatal HIV-1 transmission through breastfeeding.

Human immunodeficiency virus-positive women's perspectives on breastfeeding with antiretrovirals: A qualitative evidence synthesis

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive women can breastfeed with minimal risk of mother-to-child transmission if taking antiretrovirals. Guidelines surrounding infant feeding for HIV-positive women have evolved several times over the last two decades. Our review aimed to explore perspectives of breastfeeding with antiretrovirals from HIV-positive women since the World Health Organization (2010) infant feeding and antiretroviral guidelines. HIV-positive pregnant and postnatal women from all countries/settings were eligible. HIV-positive women were either on an antiretroviral regimen at the time of the study, previously on an antiretroviral regimen, not initiated on a regimen yet, or enrolled in prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) care. Quality assessment of all included studies were conducted. Four databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) were searched for studies conducted from January 2010 to October 2020. Nine papers were included in the review, of which two presented findings from the same study. Five analytical themes were developed via thematic synthesis: (1) awareness of breastfeeding with antiretrovirals, (2) turmoil of emotions, (3) coping mechanisms, (4) the intertwining of secret, stigma and support and (5) support needed. Support from family and health care professionals and coping approaches were important to overcome stigma and the emotional challenges of breastfeeding with antiretrovirals. Health care professionals should be familiar with the most updated national and local guidance surrounding infant feeding and antiretrovirals. Further research into interventions to encourage HIV-positive women to adhere and commit to lifelong antiretroviral treatment (Option B+) for breastfeeding is required.

Interventions for preventing mastitis after childbirth

BACKGROUND

Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. Mastitis is an inflammation of the breast, with or without infection. It can be viewed as a continuum of disease, from non-infective inflammation of the breast to infection that may lead to abscess formation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of preventive strategies (for example, breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies) on the occurrence or recurrence of non-infective or infective mastitis in breastfeeding women post-childbirth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. Quasi-randomised controlled trials and trials reported only in abstract form were eligible. We attempted to contact the authors to obtain any unpublished results, wherever possible.  Interventions for preventing mastitis may include: probiotics, specialist breastfeeding advice and holistic approaches.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (3034 women). Nine trials (2395 women) contributed data. Generally, the trials were at low risk of bias in most domains but some were high risk for blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Selection bias (allocation concealment) was generally unclear. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and to imprecision (low numbers of women participating in the trials). Conflicts of interest on the part of trial authors, and the involvement of industry funders may also have had an impact on the certainty of the evidence. Most trials reported our primary outcome of incidence of mastitis but there were almost no data relating to adverse effects, breast pain, duration of breastfeeding, nipple damage, breast abscess or recurrence of mastitis. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may reduce the risk of mastitis more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.75; 2 trials; 399 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if probiotics reduce the risk of breast pain or nipple damage because the certainty of evidence is very low. Results for the biggest of these trials (639 women) are currently unavailable due to a contractual agreement between the probiotics supplier and the trialists. Adverse effects were reported in one trial, where no woman in either group experienced any adverse effects. Antibiotics versus placebo or usual care The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and usual care or placebo (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; 3 trials; 429 women; low-certainty evidence). The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and fusidic acid ointment (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81; 1 trial; 36 women; low-certainty evidence) or mupirocin ointment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.89; 1 trial; 44 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. None of the trials reported adverse effects. Topical treatments versus breastfeeding advice The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.22; 1 trial; 40 women; low-certainty evidence) and mupirocin ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; 1 trial; 48 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. One trial (42 women) compared topical treatments to each other. The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid and mupirocin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.00; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Specialist breastfeeding education versus usual care The risk of mastitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.95; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.37; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Anti-secretory factor-inducing cereal versus standard cereal The risk of mastitis (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72; 1 trial; 29 women; low-certainty evidence) and recurrence of mastitis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.57; 1 trial; 7 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Acupoint massage versus routine care Acupoint massage probably reduces the risk of mastitis compared to routine care (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78;1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; 1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment versus routine care Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may reduce risk of mastitis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 1 trial; 300 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that acupoint massage is probably better than routine care, probiotics may be better than placebo, and breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may be better than routine care for preventing mastitis. However, it is important to note that we are aware of at least one large trial investigating probiotics whose results have not been made public, therefore, the evidence presented here is incomplete. The available evidence regarding other interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, suggests these may be little better than routine care for preventing mastitis but our conclusions are uncertain due to the low certainty of the evidence. Future trials should recruit sufficiently large numbers of women in order to detect clinically important differences between interventions and results of future trials should be made publicly available.

Comparative effects of three methods of promoting breastfeeding among human immunodeficiency virus-infected women in Uganda: a parallel randomized clinical trial

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative effects of three breastfeeding promotion interventions on the duration of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) and any breastfeeding (BF) among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected women in Uganda.

Methods

Between February 2012 and February 2013, 218 HIV-infected pregnant mothers were randomly assigned to (A) standard care (n=73), (B) enhanced family/peer support (n=72) or (C) enhanced nutrition education (n=73).

Results

The prevalence (%) of EBF/BF did not differ between intervention arms at the sixth (A, 85/92; B, 84/91; C, 87/89) and ninth (A, 17/91; B, 18/89; C, 16/87) postpartum month assessments (p>0.05). However, the risk of early BF cessation differed between intervention arms depending on the mother's level of formal education (p=0.04). Among women with no formal education, the risk of early BF cessation was 88% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.12 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.05-0.30]) and 93% (aHR 0.07 [95% CI 0.03-0.18]) lower in arms B and C, respectively, than in arm A (p<0.01). HIV status disclosure to a partner was associated with a higher risk of early EBF (p=0.03) and BF (p=0.04) cessation.

Conclusions

In resource-limited settings, enhanced (vs standard care) EBF promotion interventions may not differentially influence EBF but reduce the risk of early BF cessation among women with no formal education. Targeted enhanced interventions among women with no formal education and a mother's partner may be critical to reducing the risk of early EBF/BF cessation.