Summary Background Babies with low birthweight (<2500 g) are at increased risk of early mortality. However, low birthweight includes babies born preterm and with fetal growth restriction, and not all these infants have a birthweight less than 2500 g. We estimated the neonatal and infant mortality associated with these two characteristics in low-income and middle-income countries. Methods For this pooled analysis, we searched all available studies and identified 20 cohorts (providing data for 2 015 019 livebirths) from Asia, Africa, and Latin America that recorded data for birthweight, gestational age, and vital statistics through 28 days of life. Study dates ranged from 1982 through to 2010. We calculated relative risks (RR) and risk differences (RD) for mortality associated with preterm birth (<32 weeks, 32 weeks to <34 weeks, 34 weeks to <37 weeks), small-for-gestational-age (SGA; babies with birthweight in the lowest third percentile and between the third and tenth percentile of a US reference population), and preterm and SGA combinations. Findings Pooled overall RRs for preterm were 6·82 (95% CI 3·56–13·07) for neonatal mortality and 2·50 (1·48–4·22) for post-neonatal mortality. Pooled RRs for babies who were SGA (with birthweight in the lowest tenth percentile of the reference population) were 1·83 (95% CI 1·34–2·50) for neonatal mortality and 1·90 (1·32–2·73) for post-neonatal mortality. The neonatal mortality risk of babies who were both preterm and SGA was higher than that of babies with either characteristic alone (15·42; 9·11–26·12). Interpretation Many babies in low-income and middle-income countries are SGA. Preterm birth affects a smaller number of neonates than does SGA, but is associated with a higher mortality risk. The mortality risks associated with both characteristics extend beyond the neonatal period. Differentiation of the burden and risk of babies born preterm and SGA rather than with low birthweight could guide prevention and management strategies to speed progress towards Millennium Development Goal 4—the reduction of child mortality. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

SummaryBackgroundNational estimates for the numbers of babies born small for gestational age and the comorbidity with preterm birth are unavailable. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age (term-SGA and preterm-SGA), and the relation to low birthweight (<2500 g), in 138 countries of low and middle income in 2010.MethodsSmall for gestational age was defined as lower than the 10th centile for fetal growth from the 1991 US national reference population. Data from 22 birth cohort studies (14 low-income and middle-income countries) and from the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health (23 countries) were used to model the prevalence of term-SGA births. Prevalence of preterm-SGA infants was calculated from meta-analyses.FindingsIn 2010, an estimated 32·4 million infants were born small for gestational age in low-income and middle-income countries (27% of livebirths), of whom 10·6 million infants were born at term and low birthweight. The prevalence of term-SGA babies ranged from 5·3% of livebirths in east Asia to 41·5% in south Asia, and the prevalence of preterm-SGA infants ranged from 1·2% in north Africa to 3·0% in southeast Asia. Of 18 million low-birthweight babies, 59% were term-SGA and 41% were preterm. Two-thirds of small-for-gestational-age infants were born in Asia (17·4 million in south Asia). Preterm-SGA babies totalled 2·8 million births in low-income and middle-income countries. Most small-for-gestational-age infants were born in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh.InterpretationThe burden of small-for-gestational-age births is very high in countries of low and middle income and is concentrated in south Asia. Implementation of effective interventions for babies born too small or too soon is an urgent priority to increase survival and reduce disability, stunting, and non-communicable diseases.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation by a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF to support the activities of the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG).

BackgroundHome-based HIV testing and counselling (HTC) achieves high uptake, but is difficult and expensive to implement and sustain. We investigated a novel alternative based on HIV self-testing (HIVST). The aim was to evaluate the uptake of testing, accuracy, linkage into care, and health outcomes when highly convenient and flexible but supported access to HIVST kits was provided to a well-defined and closely monitored population.Methods and FindingsFollowing enumeration of 14 neighbourhoods in urban Blantyre, Malawi, trained resident volunteer-counsellors offered oral HIVST kits (OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test) to adult (≥16 y old) residents (n = 16,660) and reported community events, with all deaths investigated by verbal autopsy. Written and demonstrated instructions, pre- and post-test counselling, and facilitated HIV care assessment were provided, with a request to return kits and a self-completed questionnaire. Accuracy, residency, and a study-imposed requirement to limit HIVST to one test per year were monitored by home visits in a systematic quality assurance (QA) sample.Overall, 14,004 (crude uptake 83.8%, revised to 76.5% to account for population turnover) residents self-tested during months 1–12, with adolescents (16–19 y) most likely to test. 10,614/14,004 (75.8%) participants shared results with volunteer-counsellors. Of 1,257 (11.8%) HIV-positive participants, 26.0% were already on antiretroviral therapy, and 524 (linkage 56.3%) newly accessed care with a median CD4 count of 250 cells/μl (interquartile range 159–426). HIVST uptake in months 13–24 was more rapid (70.9% uptake by 6 mo), with fewer (7.3%, 95% CI 6.8%–7.8%) positive participants. Being “forced to test”, usually by a main partner, was reported by 2.9% (95% CI 2.6%–3.2%) of 10,017 questionnaire respondents in months 1–12, but satisfaction with HIVST (94.4%) remained high. No HIVST-related partner violence or suicides were reported. HIVST and repeat HTC results agreed in 1,639/1,649 systematically selected (1 in 20) QA participants (99.4%), giving a sensitivity of 93.6% (95% CI 88.2%–97.0%) and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.6%–100%). Key limitations included use of aggregate data to report uptake of HIVST and being unable to adjust for population turnover.ConclusionsCommunity-based HIVST achieved high coverage in two successive years and was safe, accurate, and acceptable. Proactive HIVST strategies, supported and monitored by communities, could substantially complement existing approaches to providing early HIV diagnosis and periodic repeat testing to adolescents and adults in high-HIV settings.

BackgroundThe global malaria burden has fallen since 2000, sometimes before large-scale vector control programmes were initiated. While long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying are highly effective interventions, this study tests the hypothesis that improved housing can reduce malaria by decreasing house entry by malaria mosquitoes.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether modern housing is associated with a lower risk of malaria than traditional housing, across all age groups and malaria-endemic settings. Six electronic databases were searched to identify intervention and observational studies published from 1 January, 1900 to 13 December, 2013, measuring the association between house design and malaria. The primary outcome measures were parasite prevalence and incidence of clinical malaria. Crude and adjusted effects were combined in fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses, with sub-group analyses for: overall house type (traditional versus modern housing); screening; main wall, roof and floor materials; eave type; ceilings and elevation.ResultsOf 15,526 studies screened, 90 were included in a qualitative synthesis and 53 reported epidemiological outcomes, included in a meta-analysis. Of these, 39 (74 %) showed trends towards a lower risk of epidemiological outcomes associated with improved house features. Of studies assessing the relationship between modern housing and malaria infection (n = 11) and clinical malaria (n = 5), all were observational, with very low to low quality evidence. Residents of modern houses had 47 % lower odds of malaria infection compared to traditional houses (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0°53, 95 % confidence intervals (CI) 0°42–0°67, p < 0°001, five studies) and a 45–65 % lower odds of clinical malaria (case–control studies: adjusted OR 0°35, 95 % CI 0°20–0°62, p <0°001, one study; cohort studies: adjusted rate ratio 0°55, 95 % CI 0°36–0°84, p = 0°005, three studies). Evidence of a high risk of bias was found within studies.ConclusionsDespite low quality evidence, the direction and consistency of effects indicate that housing is an important risk factor for malaria. Future research should evaluate the protective effect of specific house features and incremental housing improvements associated with socio-economic development.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-015-0724-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives To estimate small for gestational age birth prevalence and attributable neonatal mortality in low and middle income countries with the INTERGROWTH-21st birth weight standard. Design Secondary analysis of data from the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG), including 14 birth cohorts with gestational age, birth weight, and neonatal follow-up. Small for gestational age was defined as infants weighing less than the 10th centile birth weight for gestational age and sex with the multiethnic, INTERGROWTH-21st birth weight standard. Prevalence of small for gestational age and neonatal mortality risk ratios were calculated and pooled among these datasets at the regional level. With available national level data, prevalence of small for gestational age and population attributable fractions of neonatal mortality attributable to small for gestational age were estimated. Setting CHERG birth cohorts from 14 population based sites in low and middle income countries. Main outcome measures In low and middle income countries in the year 2012, the number and proportion of infants born small for gestational age; number and proportion of neonatal deaths attributable to small for gestational age; the number and proportion of neonatal deaths that could be prevented by reducing the prevalence of small for gestational age to 10%. Results In 2012, an estimated 23.3 million infants (uncertainty range 17.6 to 31.9; 19.3% of live births) were born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries. Among these, 11.2 million (0.8 to 15.8) were term and not low birth weight (≥2500 g), 10.7 million (7.6 to 15.0) were term and low birth weight (<2500 g) and 1.5 million (0.9 to 2.6) were preterm. In low and middle income countries, an estimated 606 500 (495 000 to 773 000) neonatal deaths were attributable to infants born small for gestational age, 21.9% of all neonatal deaths. The largest burden was in South Asia, where the prevalence was the highest (34%); about 26% of neonatal deaths were attributable to infants born small for gestational age. Reduction of the prevalence of small for gestational age from 19.3% to 10.0% in these countries could reduce neonatal deaths by 9.2% (254 600 neonatal deaths; 164 800 to 449 700). Conclusions In low and middle income countries, about one in five infants are born small for gestational age, and one in four neonatal deaths are among such infants. Increased efforts are required to improve the quality of care for and survival of these high risk infants in low and middle income countries