Search results
Our search strategy retrieved 11,017 documents. After excluding 1,744 duplicates, 9,273 titles and abstracts were analyzed. Full-text articles for the remaining 87 records were retrieved, of which 68 were excluded (12 were not accessed for retraction or because it has not been located, without a DOI number). Of the 19 studies previously included for extraction, 7 were excluded in the textual reading due to part of the sample having HIV acquired through transfusion (n=2); sample was not exposed to HIV (n=1); case‒control (n=2); and no information on how they acquired HIV (n=2). In total, twelve studies were selected to compose this systematic review: Anderson, Muloiwa and Davies [21], 2019; Bakeera-Kitaka et al., 2015 [22]; Bellavia et al., 2017 [23]; Boettiger et al., 2016 [24]; Bunupuradah et al., 2016 [25]; Bounora et al., 2008 [26]; Crichton et al., 2019 [27]; Desai, Mullen and Mathur, 2008 [28]; Fabiano et al., 2013 [29]; Filteau et al., 2022 [30]; Mwambenu et al., 2022 [31]; Slogrove, Judd and Leroy, 2016 [32]. The PRISMA flowchart of the screening process is illustrated in Figure 1.
Ten studies included only adolescents with prenatally acquired HIV [21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32]; one study evaluated positive and negative HIV adolescents [23]; and one study included only negative HIV adolescents exposed to HIV in utero [30].
Study and patient characteristics
The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. All included studies had cohort designs published between 2008 and 2022. Four studies were conducted in a multicenter fashion involving two or more countries [24, 25, 27, 32]; two in South Africa [21, 31]; two in the United States of America [23, 28]; one in Brazil [26]; one in Uganda [22]; one in Zambia [30]; and one in Italy [29].
In total, 46,936 volunteers were evaluated. Of the eleven studies that provided information by sex, 26,180 were men (or 55.7%). Eight studies evaluated the adolescent population (n=39,776) [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32], while four studies evaluated adolescents and adults (n=7.187) [21, 27, 28, 31].
Of the studies that followed adolescents and adults, only Anderson's study had a total follow-up time equal to 12 years [21], and the others did not fix an average follow-up time [27, 28, 31]. Of the studies that followed only adolescents [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32], the average follow-up time was 10.1 years. During the time evaluated, only the study undertook by Filteau et al. (2022) [30] described adolescents and adults who were exposed but did not become infected with HIV. All the other studies evaluated populations who were exposed in utero and were infected with HIV.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review.
Author, year
|
Country
|
Population
|
Sample
|
Age (years)
|
Follow-ap times
|
HIV+ sample?
|
Antiretroviral use (time of use)
|
Used antiretroviral
|
Age range
|
Average or median
|
Anderson, Muloiwa e Davies, 2019
|
South Africa
|
Adolescents and young adults
|
127 (62 men; 65 women)
|
10-22
|
Median = 15,1 (13 – 17,7)
|
12 years
|
Yes
|
Yes (10 years)
|
Nevirapine; nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor; lopinavir; ritonavir; efavirenz; atazanavir.
|
Bakeera-Kitaka et al., 2015
|
Uganda
|
Adolescents
|
118 (42 men; 76 women)
|
10-19
|
Average = 13,6
|
2 years
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Zidovudina or estavudina, lamivudina combined with nevirapina or efavirenzFour patients were on a protease inhibitor-based regimen with lopinavir/ritonavir, in combination with AZT or D4T, plus 3TC.
|
Bellavia et al., 2017
|
USA
|
Adolescents
|
1.017 (526 men; 491 women)
|
10-12
|
-
|
14 years
|
Yes and No
|
-
|
-
|
Boettiger et al., 20161
|
Multicentric
|
Adolescents
|
534 (234 men; 300 women)
|
10-19
|
Median = 11,8 (10,7 – 13,2)
|
5 years
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Lamivudine, zidovudine, efavirenz, stavudine, nevirapine, tenofovir.
|
Bunupuradah et al., 20162
|
Multicentric
|
Adolescents
|
273 (109 men; 164 women)
|
11-18
|
-
|
7 years
|
Yes
|
Yes (7,3 years)
|
Nevirapine, efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were lamivudine, zidovudine and stavudine.
|
Bounora et al., 2008
|
Brazil
|
Adolescents
|
108 (47 men; 61 women)
|
10,5-19,5
|
Average = 12,7
|
8 years
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
-
|
Crichton et al., 20193
|
Multicentric
|
Adolescents
|
463
|
10-16
|
Average = 1,66 ± 8,7 (men); 1,58 ± 6,9 (women)
|
9,1 years
|
Yes
|
Yes (9,1 years)
|
-
|
Desai, Mullen and Mathur, 2008
|
USA
|
Adolescents
|
35
|
10-15
|
-
|
|
Yes
|
Yes (2,4 years)
|
Protease inhibitors.
|
Fabiano et al., 2013
|
Italy
|
Adolescents
|
24
|
12-20
|
-
|
8 years
|
Yes
|
Yes (8 years)
|
Tenofovir; efavirenz.
|
Filteau et al., 2022
|
Zambia
|
Adolescents
|
88 (35 men; 53 women)
|
-
|
Average = 13.3 (SD=2)
|
4 years
|
No
|
No
|
-
|
Mwambenu et al., 2022
|
South Africa
|
Adolescents
|
288 (149 men; 139 women)
|
13-18
|
Median = 15.8 (14,2 – 17,6)
|
5 years
|
Yes
|
Yes (9 years)
|
Children > 3 years and 10 kg started on a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor.
|
Slogrove, Judd e Leroy, 20164
|
Multicentric
|
Adolescents
|
37.614 (18.591 men; 19.023 women)
|
-
|
Median = 12.4 (11 – 14,4)
|
10 years
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
-
|
1Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam; 2Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand; 3Thailand, United Kingdon/Irland; 4Countries from all continents.
Results of the Studies
Weight-For-Age Z-Score (WAZ)
Five studies evaluated the WAZ mean/median in positive HIV individuals. Boettiger et al. (2016) [24], Mwambenu et al. (2022) [31], Anderson, Muloiwa and Davies (2019) [21] and Bakeera-Kitaka et al. (2015) [22] calculated the median WAZ and found median values of -2.6 (IQR: -3.6; -1.4), -1.5 (IQR: -2.5; - 0.8), -1,97 (IQR: -3,23; -0,66) and -2,61 (IQR: -3,93; -1,67) at baseline, respectively, and Bakeera-Kitaka et al. (2015) [22] also calculated the median WAZ at the follow-up (one year later) and found a value of -1,26 (IQR: -2,5; -0,4). Bounora et al. (2008) [26] identified a mean value of -0,84 (SD: 1,42) at baseline and -1,15 (DP: 1,32) at follow-up. Additionally, Mwambenu et al. (2022) [31] and Bounora et al. (2008) [26] identified a prevalence of WAZ ≤-2 of 36,7% and 17,6%, respectively, at baseline, and Bounora et al. (2008) [26] found a prevalence of 29,2% at follow-up.
Height-For-Age Z-Score (HAZ)
Ten studies evaluated the HAZ mean/median at baseline and in adolescence or young adult life. Eight of them included positive HIV individuals [21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32], one included negative HIV individuals exposed to HIV in intrauterine life [30], and Bellavia et al. (2017) [23] included both negative and positive HIV individuals in their sample.
Studies including positive HIV individuals
The median HAZ identified by Crichton et al. (2019) [27] was -1.2 (IQR: -2.3, -0.2) at baseline, and the median age was 6.4 (IQR: 2.8, 9.0) years. At age 16 years, the mean (standard deviation) heights for boys and girls were 166 (8.7) cm and 158 (6.9) cm, respectively, significantly shorter than the WHO reference mean height of 173 (7.8) cm for boys and 163 (6.8) cm for girls (both P < 0.001). Boettiger et al. (2016) [24], Bunupuradah et al. (2016) [25], Slogrove, Judd & Leroy (2016) [32], Anderson, Muloiwa and Davies (2019) [21], Bakeera-Kitaka et al. (2015) [22], and Mwambenu et al. (2022) [31] estimated a median value of HAZ of -2,3 (IQR: -3,6; -1,4), -2,2 (IQR: -3,2; -1,4), -1,54 (IQR: -2,06; -0,72), -2,92 (IQR: -4,09; -1,95), -2,69 (IQR: -3,57; -1,78), and -2,2 (IQR: -3,1; -1,3), respectively, in the baseline; and -1,6 (IQR not presented), -1,5 (IQR: -2,2; -0,9), -1,60 (IQR: -2,46; -0,73), -1,52 (IQR: -2,22; -0,79), -2,58 (IQR: -3,3; -1,6), and -1,1 (IQR: -1,8; -0,6), respectively, in the follow-up. A mean value of HAZ was calculated by Bounora et al. (2008) [26], who found -0,94 (DP1,23) at baseline and -1,20 (DP1,18) at follow-up.
Study including negative HIV individuals
Filteau et al. (2022) [30] evaluated the relationship between intrauterine exposure and HAZ in young adults using a linear regression model. They found a negative association (β: -, 95% CI %: -2.6; -0.3), but it was not statistically significant.
Study including positive and negative HIV individuals
Bellavia et al. (2017) [23] calculated the median HAZ in their population and found -0,66 (IQR:-1,06; -0,27) (girls) and -0,51 (IQR: -0,91; -0,10) (boys) at baseline and -0,56 (IQR: -0,99; -0,13) (girls) and -0,75 (IQR: -1,15; -0,39) (boys) at follow-up.
BMI
Studies including positive HIV individuals
Nine studies included only positive HIV individuals in their samples. Four of them evaluated the BMI-by-age z score (BAZ) in adolescents, and one evaluated the BMI in adults. Anderson, Muloiwa and Davies (2019) [21] and Mwambenu et al. (2022) [31] calculated prevalences of BAZ<-2 and found 13.3% and 9,1% at baseline and 5.5% and 6,7% at follow-up, respectively. Additionally, Anderson, Muloiwa and Davies (2019) [21], Bakeera-Kitaka et al. (2015) [22], Slogrove, Judd and Leroy (2016) [32], and Mwambenu et al. (2022) [31] calculated the median of the BAZ in their populations and found 0.2 (IQR: -0.78; 1.25), -1.61 (IQR: -2.49; -0.81), -0.54 (IQR: -1.26; 0.13) and -0.2 (IQR: -1.0; 0.6), respectively, at baseline and -0.16 (IQR: -1.04; -0.56), -0.68 (IQR: -1.3; 0.1), -0.68 (IQR: -1.46; 0.09), and -0.6 (-1.4; 0.1), respectively, at follow-up.
Fabiano et al. (2013) [29] identified a BMI mean of 18.9 kg/m2 (CI95% 17.9-19.8) at baseline and 21 kg/m2 (CI95% 19.8-22.3) at follow-up.
Study including negative HIV individuals
One study included only negative HIV individuals exposed or unexposed to HIV in intrauterine life. Filteau et al. (2022) [30] evaluated the relationship between HIV exposure and BAZ using a linear regression model and identified a negative association (ß: -0.26; CI95% -0.57; 0.05), but it was not statistically significant.
Study including positive and negative HIV individuals
One study included HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals. Bellavia et al. (2017) [23] calculated the median BAZ in their population and found -0.12 (IQR:-0.50; 0.27) (girls) and -0.02 (IQR: -0.39; 0.34) (boys) at baseline and -0.13 (IQR: -0.52; 0.26) (girls) and -0.19 (IQR: -0.61; 0.22) (boys) at follow-up.
Waist Circumference
Two studies evaluated waist circumference (WC). Fabiano et al. (2013) [29], including positive HIV individuals in their sample, identified a median value of 68 cm (IQR: 65-70) at baseline and 74 cm (IQR: 67-80) at follow-up. Filteau et al. (2022) [30], including only negative HIV individuals, evaluated the relationship between HIV exposure and WC using a linear regression model and found a negative association (ß: -1,5; CI95% -3.4; 0.5), but it was not statistically significant.
Fat Mass
Studies including positive HIV individuals
Three studies evaluated fat mass. Two of them included positive HIV individuals in their samples [28, 29], and only one included negative HIV individuals [30]. Desai, Mullen and Mathur (2008) [28] assessed total body fat by bioelectrical impedance, and the results reported in body fat percentage (%BF) at baseline were 34% (range 23.9 to 45; SD=7.4) and 38% (range from 31.3 to 47.3; SD=5.1) after 18 months of follow-up. Additionally, among young adults with lipodystrophy, the prevalence of high %BF (≥30%) and low %BF (<30%) was 84.6% and 15.4%, respectively. On the other hand, in those who did not have lipodystrophy, the prevalence of high %BF (≥30%) and low %BF was 27.3% and 72.7%, respectively. Fabiano et al. (2013) [29] found a prevalence of total high %BF of 16.2% (95% CI 13.4 to 19.0) at baseline and a linear increase of 0.6% (0.2 to 1.0)/year (p= 0.005); arm fat at baseline was 8.1% (7.5 to 8.6) and remained stable at follow-up (p=0.5); leg fat was 42.8% (39.6 to 45.8) at baseline and linearly decreased by 1.1% (1.5 to 0.7)/year (p<0.001) at follow-up; trunk fat percentage was 49.1% (46.2 to 52.1) at baseline and increased linearly by 1.2% (0.6 to 1.6)/year (p<0.001).
Studies including negative HIV individuals
Filteau et al. (2022) [30], evaluating negative HIV individuals, identified the association between exposure to HIV and body composition. The results showed that young adults exposed to HIV in intrauterine life had arm circumference (β: –0.8, 95% CI: –1.6; 0.0), hip circumference (β: -2.3, 95% CI %: -4.5; -0.1), triceps skinfold (β: -1.5, 95% CI: -2.9; -0.2), subscapular skinfold (β: -1.4, 95% CI %: -2.6; -0.3), and suprailiac skinfold (β: -1.2, 95% CI: -2.5; 0.2) lower than adults unexposed to HIV in intrauterine life after controlling for age and sex.
Lean Mass
Regarding lean mass, only Filteau et al. (2022) [30] evaluated the relationship between intrauterine exposure to HIV and lean mass composition in young adults and found a nonsignificant negative association (β: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.66; 0.23).
Meta-analysis
The prevalence of low HAZ (z-score<-2) and low BAZ (z-score<-2) were calculated for the combinable studies and are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Combinable studies were considered when they included similar population (positive HIV adolescents) and they presented the precalculated prevalence rate or provided the number of adolescents with low HAZ or BAZ. Thus, four studies were included in the meta-analysis aiming to evaluate the prevalence of HAZ in positive HIV adolescents. We found that 26% (P=0.26; 95% CI 0.23-0.29) of positive HIV adolescents exposed to HIV in utero and antiretroviral therapy had low HAZ (Figure 2). For BAZ, three studies were combined and we identified a global prevalence of 7% (P=0.07; 95% CI 0.05-0.09) underweight in positive HIV adolescents exposed to HIV in utero and antiretroviral therapy (Figure 3). For the other nutritional outcomes, it was not possible to estimate summary prevalence for the population due to the absence of combinable studies.
For the studies that evaluated the mean values of HAZ and BAZ, we also calculated pooled estimation for these anthropometric parameters, considering the combinable studies. The mean value of HAZ for positive HIV adolescents exposed to HIV in utero and in antiretroviral therapy was -1.58 (95% CI -1.90; -1.27) (Figure 4). For BAZ, the pooled mean value for positive HIV adolescents exposed to HIV in utero and in antiretroviral therapy was -0.44 (95% CI -0.67; -0.21) (Figure 5).
We also calculated the changes in the mean values of HAZ and BAZ after the follow-up period by subtracting the final mean from the baseline mean. We identified an increase of 0.55 (MD: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.07;1.03) and 0.12 (MD: 0.12, 95% CI: -0.75; 0.99) in the mean values of the HAZ (Figure 6) and BAZ (Figure 7), respectively, after the follow-up period of individuals exposed to HIV and ART in utero.
Quality assessment
Considering the 12 studies included in this systematic review, 66.66% presented a low risk of bias, and 33.33% presented a moderate risk of bias. The items that contributed to increasing the risk of bias between studies were lack of clarity, nonapplicability or nondeclaration of strategies to address confounding factors in the analyses performed; low clarity regarding follow-up, that is, whether it was fully followed up and, if not, whether the studies presented and explored the reasons for loss of follow-up; or even low clarity with strategies to address incomplete follow-up. More details on the risk of bias are found in Table 2.
Table 2 – Results of the risk of bias analysis for the included studies.
Questões
|
Anderson, Muloiwa e Davies, 2019
|
Bakeera-Kitaka et al., 2015
|
Bellavia et al., 2017
|
Boettiger et al., 2016
|
Bunupuradah et al., 2016
|
Bounora et al., 2008
|
Crichton et al., 2019
|
Desai, Mullen and Mathur, 2008
|
Fabiano et al., 2013
|
Filteau et al., 2022
|
Mwambenu et al., 2022
|
Slogrove, Judd e Leroy 2016
|
Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population?
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
To both exposed and unexposed groups?
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Were confounding factors identified?
|
Y
|
U
|
Y
|
U
|
U
|
NA
|
U
|
NA
|
Y
|
Y
|
NA
|
NA
|
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
|
Y
|
N
|
Y
|
Y
|
U
|
NA
|
U
|
NA
|
Y
|
Y
|
NA
|
NA
|
Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)?
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
U
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Was the follow up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur?
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to follow up described and explored?
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
Y
|
U
|
Y
|
U
|
Y
|
N
|
U
|
N
|
Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized?
|
NA
|
Y
|
U
|
U
|
NA
|
U
|
NA
|
U
|
NA
|
Y
|
U
|
Y
|
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
U
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Classification
|
Low risk of bias
|
Low risk of bias
|
Low risk of bias
|
Moderate risk of bias
|
Low risk of bias
|
Moderate risk of bias
|
Low risk of bias
|
Moderate risk of bias
|
Low risk of bias
|
Low risk of bias
|
Moderate risk of bias
|
Low risk of bias
|
Abbreviations: Y= Yes; N= Not; U= Unclear; NA= Not applicable.