Gates Open Res Gates Open Research 2572-4754 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/gatesopenres.12820.1 Research Article Articles The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS): Cohort characteristics at enrollment

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

 Castillo Marcela C. Data Curation Investigation Project Administration Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 1 Fuseini Nurain M. Data Curation Investigation Project Administration Writing – Review & Editing 1 2 Rittenhouse Katelyn Data Curation Investigation Project Administration Writing – Review & Editing 1 2 Price Joan T. Conceptualization Investigation Methodology Project Administration Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4178-0405 1 2 Freeman Bethany L. Investigation Project Administration Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5419-6000 1 Mwape Humphrey Investigation Writing – Review & Editing 2 Winston Jennifer Data Curation Formal Analysis Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 1 Sindano Ntazana Data Curation Formal Analysis Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8494-4735 2 Baruch-Gravett Courtney Conceptualization Methodology Project Administration Resources Writing – Review & Editing 3 Chi Benjamin H. Methodology Supervision Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1435-8455 1 Kasaro Margaret P. Investigation Project Administration Supervision Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7285-998X 1 2 Litch James A. Funding Acquisition Project Administration Writing – Review & Editing 3 Stringer Jeffrey S. A. Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9590-7216 a 1 Vwalika Bellington Conceptualization Data Curation Funding Acquisition Investigation Project Administration Supervision Writing – Review & Editing 1 4 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA UNC Global Projects Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Global Alliance for the Prevention of Prematurity and Stillbirth, Seattle, WA, USA University of Zambia School of Medicine, Lusaka, Zambia jeffrey_stringer@med.unc.edu

No competing interests were disclosed.

 2 5 2018 2018 2 25 25 4 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Castillo MC et al. 2018 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background: Sub-Saharan Africa bears a disproportionate burden of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes. Not only is the background rate of preterm birth higher than in North America and Europe, but many facilities lack essential equipment and personnel resources to care for preterm neonates. A better understanding of the demographic, clinical, and biologic underpinnings of preterm birth is urgently needed to plan interventions and inform new discovery.

Methods: The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS) is a prospective antenatal cohort established at the Women and Newborn Hospital of the University Teaching Hospital (UTH) in Lusaka, Zambia. We recruit pregnant women from the antenatal clinics of district health centers and the UTH for study participation. Women undergo ultrasound examination to determine eligibility by gestational age criteria. Enrolled participants receive routine antenatal and postnatal care, lab testing, midtrimester cervical length measurement, serial fetal growth monitoring and careful assessment of birth outcomes.

Results: Between August 2015 and September 2017, we screened 1784 women, of whom 1450 (81.2%) met inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The median age at enrollment of study participants is 27 years (IQR 23–32). Participants are enrolled at a median gestational age of 16 weeks (IQR 13–18). Among all parous participants (N=866; 64%), 21% (N=182) reported a prior miscarriage, 49% (N=424) reported a prior preterm birth, and 13% (N=116) reported a prior stillbirth. The HIV seroprevalence in our cohort is 24%.

Discussion: We have established a large antenatal cohort to characterize the epidemiological and biological determinants of adverse birth outcomes in Lusaka, Zambia. Findings from this cohort will help guide future studies, clinical care, and policy in the prevention and treatment of adverse birth outcomes.

 Preterm Birth Africa Cohort Gates Foundation OPP1033514 National Institutes of Health P30AI50410 K24AI120796 D43TW009340 T32HD075731 K01TW010857 Gates Foundation grant to the Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth (Seattle Children’s Hospital/GAPPS 13008/OPP1033514). 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 (MCC, NMF, JTP), K01 TW010857 (JTP), D43 TW009340 (KR), and K24 AI120796 (BHC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Introduction

Preterm birth is a global challenge impacting both developed and developing countries 1, 2 . It contributes to approximately 35% of neonatal and 75% of perinatal mortality each year 3, 4 . Further, preterm infants who survive are at an elevated risk of long-term respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and neurodevelopmental morbidities. These complications may affect subsequent health, growth, psychosocial functioning, and even economic capacity of these individuals 5– 7 .

The greatest burden of mortality and morbidity from preterm births occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) 8 . Of an estimated 14.9 million preterm births globally each year, 13.6 million (91%) occur in LMICs 1 . Preterm birth rates are as low as 5% in some European countries and as high as 18% in some African countries 1 , precisely where the resources to prevent preterm birth and manage preterm infants are least developed. In Zambia, for example, the preterm birth rate is estimated to be 13% 1 . Each year there are 77,600 preterm births and 6,800 infant deaths due to preterm birth complications 9 .

The burden of maternal HIV infection is also high in many LMIC settings, where it has been associated with a 50% increased risk of preterm birth 10 . Although the increasing availability of maternal antiretroviral therapy has led to dramatic reductions in pediatric HIV incidence 11 , it does not seem to reduce HIV-attributable preterm birth in this population. In fact, antiretroviral drug exposure may in fact increase the risk of preterm birth among some HIV-infected gravidas 12– 14 .

Preterm birth can result from many different etiological entities. Approximately one-third of preterm deliveries are indicated because of pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, abnormal placentation, intra-uterine growth restriction, oligohydramnios, or multi-fetal gestation. Spontaneous preterm labor is implicated in about 40% of preterm births; another 25% are related to preterm premature rupture of the membranes 15– 17 . The underlying causes of spontaneous preterm birth in HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected populations are not well understood. Although several maternal and newborn interventions (e.g. antenatal corticosteroids, neonatal resuscitation, and kangaroo mother care) can reduce the complications of preterm birth, prevention is key. Much remains to be discovered about the risk factors, causes, and pathophysiology of preterm delivery, and how to prevent its occurrence.

 Methods Study design

The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS) aims to establish a well-characterized pregnancy cohort to better understand the risk factors associated with preterm birth and other adverse birth outcomes in a LMIC setting. The cohort was established to be a local resource to the University of Zambia School of Medicine and to contribute to general scientific knowledge around the biology of pregnancy and parturition.

ZAPPS enrolls pregnant women at the Women and Newborn Hospital of the University Teaching Hospital (UTH) in Lusaka, Zambia into a prospective antenatal cohort. The UTH is the province’s only tertiary referral center, serving a primary catchment population of approximately 2 million people. The Women and Newborn Hospital receives referrals for high-risk pregnancies, including those with complex medical histories, history of prior preterm birth, stillbirth, or pregnancy loss, and has a very busy labor ward with approximately 18,000 deliveries per year 18 . Study participants are recruited from the UTH and five nearby high-volume Lusaka district health clinics. We established this cohort with the aim to better characterize demographic determinants, biomedical causes, and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms associated with adverse birth outcomes in Lusaka, Zambia. Through the Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth, we collaborate with a consortium of international scientists, many of whom are also working in LMIC countries, in order to advance our understanding of the causes of preterm delivery. This study was designed in accordance with the Strengthening The Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines 19 .

 Study participants

Pregnant women who meet the following criteria are eligible for enrollment in ZAPPS: (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) viable intrauterine singleton or twin pregnancy; (3) presentation to antenatal care prior to 20 weeks’ 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 followed up at home for birth outcomes if necessary. Initially, all pregnant women with a gestational age ≥ 20 weeks by a standard algorithm 20 were excluded; however, this criterion was extended to ≥24 weeks for HIV-infected women following a protocol amendment in July 2016 to align this group with related, ongoing clinical trials at this site ( NCT03297216, NCT02970552).

 Primary objective

Our primary objective in this study is to establish a well-characterized cohort of pregnant women and their infants – and an accompanying specimen biorepository – with follow-up through delivery and the postpartum period.

 Study procedures

Potential participants are identified at an early antenatal visit. Community educators approach participants who may be preliminarily eligible by gestational age criteria based on reported last menstrual period and fundal height. Potentially eligible women are escorted to the UTH study clinic. After an information session, a sonographer performs an ultrasound examination to determine fetal viability and gestational age estimation either by crown rump length (if <14 weeks) 21 or fetal biometry (if ≥14 weeks) measurements 22 . Women deemed eligible for study participation and choosing to participate are administered an informed consent in the language of their choice: English, Nyanja, or Bemba. While screening and enrollment procedures may occur on the same day, women could return on a subsequent day for enrollment to allow time to consider the risks and benefits of study participation and to discuss the study with their family.

 Clinical care and follow-up

Study participants receive routine antenatal care at the ZAPPS study clinic at the UTH, with visits scheduled at enrollment, 24 weeks, 32 weeks, and 36 weeks of gestation, according to standard of care in Zambia. Additionally, women are asked to return to the clinic for a postpartum visit, typically 6 weeks after delivery ( Table 1).

Schedule of events, demographic and clinical data collected among all participants in ZAPPS cohort.
Gestational age (weeks) <20 ^ 20-22 24 28 † 32 34 † 36 Delivery 42 days
ADMINISTRATIVE/REGULATORY PROCEDURES
Informed consent •
Collection/review of locator info • • • • • • • • •
COLLECTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Age, education, socioeconomic status •
Substance use • • • •
Marital status •
Pregnancy intention •
Sexual health •
Vaginal practices •
Intimate partner violence screening •
Nutritional assessment •
Maternal depression screen • •
OBSTETRICAL ULTRASOUND PROCEDURES
Dating biometry ultrasound •
Fetal biometry ultrasound •
Cervical length ultrasound • • •
MATERNAL CLINICAL HISTORY AND PHYSICAL EXAM
Obstetrical history •
Medical history • • • • • •
Maternal height & weight • • • • • •
Maternal mid-upper arm circumference • • • • • •
Maternal vital signs • • • • • •
Maternal physical exam • • • • • •
Fetal heart rate • • • • •
Fundal height • • • •
Fetal lie • • • • •
INFANT CLINICAL HISTORY AND PHYSICAL EXAM
Neonatal physical exam •
Neonatal vital status / APGAR •
Newborn assessment •
Infant physical exam •
Infant feeding status assessment •
Infant HIV diagnostic assessment (if exposed) • •
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
Maternal HIV (rapid EIA) • •
Maternal syphilis (RPR) • •
Maternal malaria •
Maternal hemoglobin (hemocue) • •
Maternal urinalysis (& culture if +) • • • • • • •
SPECIMEN COLLECTION FOR STORAGE
Vaginal ± rectal swab storage • • • •
Blood storage • • • •
Urine storage • • • •
Placenta, membranes, cord histopathology, and storage •
Infant blood sample via heel prick •

^ Extended to <24 weeks for HIV-infected in July 2016

† Additional visits for participants with short cervix

* Birth weight, birth length, head circumference, foot length, physical and neuromuscular maturity

After enrollment, participants return for cervical length evaluation between 20 and 24 weeks’ gestation. Women with a short cervix by transvaginal ultrasound, defined as <2.5 cm 23 , attend additional visits scheduled at 28 and 32 weeks’ gestation for repeat cervical length ultrasounds and are referred to a study physician at the UTH for further counseling and follow-up. All participants undergo an additional fetal biometry ultrasound, performed at 32 weeks’ gestation. Each study sonographer is trained using curricula adapted from the INTERGROWTH-21 21, 24 and Cervical Length Education and Review ( CLEaR) program for cervical length measurements. All biometry parameters are measured twice and then averaged. Cervical length – measured three times over a period of 3 to 5 minutes – is first measured by transabdominal ultrasound; those whose transabdominal cervical length is <3.5cm or not measurable then undergo transvaginal measurement 25, 26 .

At each antenatal care visit, study nurses perform a vital sign assessment and a physical exam. We use point-of-care tests for HIV, anemia, malaria, syphilis, and urinary tract infection, and provide tetanus toxoid injection(s), iron, folate, malaria intermittent preventive treatment, and de-worming treatment in accordance with local standards of care. Participants with pre-existing or new HIV diagnoses are counseled and referred to appropriate antiretroviral therapy and prevention of mother-to-child transmission services. At the postpartum visit, study nurses assess maternal and infant interval complications, perform maternal and infant physical exams, assess infant feeding and general well-being, and provide health education counselling.

Throughout the study, study nurses assess participants’ past medical and obstetrical history and current pregnancy signs and symptoms. Study staff carefully screen participants at each study visit for the presence of adverse or serious adverse events. Participants are referred to the appropriate higher level care provider at the UTH for any adverse events identified that require medical care beyond the scope of the study nurses’ practice.

To maximize retention, locator information on all participants is collected at screening and reviewed at each subsequent encounter. All participants are informed during the consent process that their locator sources will be used to contact them if they do not attend their scheduled study visits. Missed visits are identified by an electronic database that tracks expected and actual visits. If a participant misses a scheduled visit, study staff follow standardized procedures to attempt to contact the participant through the following mechanisms: (1) phone contact with the participant directly, (2) phone contact with other contacts provided on the participant’s locator information, and (3) home visits.

 Data collection and management

Clinical data: After enrollment, study staff collect medical, antenatal, and HIV history data (as applicable) through interviewer-administered questionnaires and review of participants’ medical records. At the time of delivery, or at first contact postpartum, detailed information is collected about the clinical course of the participant’s delivery and delivery outcomes for both the mother and infant(s). This allows clinical phenotyping of all adverse birth outcomes. Shortly after delivery and prior to hospital discharge, the study team documents assessment of size, growth, and physical and neuromuscular maturity. If the infant requires admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, the newborn assessment is done after the infant is deemed stable by the pediatrician.

Biological specimen collection: Trained study staff collect maternal specimens at enrollment, 24-week, and 32-week visits, as well as at delivery ( Table 1) following approved standard operating procedures. All specimens are stored and transferred in temperature-controlled containers to the on-site lab by clinic staff within two hours of collection. Study lab staff process all specimens according to assay manufacturers’ instructions, analyzing some specimens immediately per standard antenatal care guidelines and storing others for later study-related analyses. HIV-1 plasma viral loads are performed for participants identified as HIV-infected at enrollment. Lab staff follow strict quality protocols for maternal blood processing to produce aliquots of whole blood, serum, plasma, and buffy coat for storage in barcoded cryotubes. Trained study nurses collect maternal specimens pre-delivery as well as placenta and cord blood specimens immediately following delivery. The UTH serves as the primary biorepository for stored specimens, with redundancy at a central project repository in Seattle, Washington and at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in Chapel Hill, NC.

 Ethical considerations

The ZAPPS protocol was developed in consultation with a local community advisory board to ensure study procedures are acceptable in the communities from which participants would be recruited. The study and its protocol revisions undergo continuing ethical review by the relevant research ethics authorities at the University of Zambia School of Medicine (Reference number: 016-04-14) and the University of North Carolina School of Medicine (Study number: 14-2113). Participation in all study activities is voluntary, and each participant provides written, informed consent prior to enrollment.

To address the minimal risks associated with participation in this non-interventional study, all study personnel have been trained on standard operating procedures to protect participant privacy and confidentiality. Staff receive protection of human research participants training prior to conducting any study activities and every two years thereafter. Key research staff members complete Good Clinical Practice or Good Clinical Laboratory Practice training, as applicable. All study-related and unrelated adverse events and social harms are graded using the National Institute of Health’s Division of AIDS Table for Grading the Severity of Adult and Pediatric Adverse Events. All adverse events are reported to regulatory authorities, according to their individual guidelines.

All participants in this study may benefit from enhanced health education and close clinical monitoring. The knowledge generated from this observational study regarding maternal risk factors and neonatal outcomes of preterm birth are expected to outweigh the risks of participation. Conclusions drawn from this knowledge may inform future clinical trials on the prevention of adverse birth outcomes in low-resource settings, which may in turn enable policymakers worldwide to make informed decisions regarding effective interventions for the improvement of maternal-neonatal health.

 Results Characteristics of cohort at enrollment

Between August 2015 and September 2017, 1784 women were recruited and screened from local antenatal clinics by ZAPPS study staff. Among them, 1450 (81.3%) met inclusion criteria and were enrolled. Of the 334 not enrolled, 274 (82%) were at advanced gestational age on ultrasound, 7 (2%) were less than 18 years old, 12 (4%) were unwilling to provide informed consent, 5 (1%) were unwilling to remain in the study area, and 36 (11%) were not enrolled for other reasons.

The median age of participants in the cohort is 27 years (IQR 23–32) ( Table 2). Most women (n=1201 of 1435; 84%) are married or cohabiting with their partner, and have been pregnant at least once in the past (n=866 of 1352, 64%). Among parous participants, 21% (n=182) reported a prior miscarriage, 49% (n=424) reported a prior preterm birth, and 13% (N=116) reported a prior stillbirth. Participants are enrolled at a median gestational age of 16 weeks (IQR 13–18); 421 of 1428 (29%) enrolled prior to 14 weeks’ gestational age.

Baseline characteristics of ZAPPS cohort, N=1450.
Characteristic N Value * % or Median (IQR)
Age, years 1406 27 (23,32)
   <20 111 7.9
   20–34 1113 79.2
   ≥35 182 12.9
   Missing 44 -
Marital status
   Not married and not cohabiting 234 16.3
   Married or cohabiting 1201 83.7
   Missing 15 -
Education
   None 26 1.8
   <8 years 243 17.0
   8-9 years 328 22.9
   10-12 years 653 45.5
   ≥12 years 184 12.8
   Missing 16
Source of drinking water
   Piped 1339 93.3
   Other 96 6.7
   Missing 15 -
Toilet facilities in household
   Flush or Pour 762 53.1
   Pit or Latrine 672 46.8
   Other 2 0.1
   Missing 14 -
Floor material in home
   Natural/rudimentary 138 9.6
   Finished 1298 90.4
   Missing 14 -
BMI, kg/m2 1371 23.6 (21.2,27.2)
   <18.5 72 5.3
   18-5–30.0 1104 80.5
   >30.0 195 14.2
   Missing 79 -
GA at enrollment, weeks 1428 16 (13,18)
   <14 421 29
   ≥14 1007 69.5
   Missing 22
Parity 1352 1 (0,2)
   Nulliparous 486 36.0
   Parous 866 64.1
   Missing 98 -
Prior miscarriage
   Nulliparous 486 -
   Parous, no prior miscarriage 681 78.9
   Parous, ≥1 prior miscarriage 182 21.1
   Missing 101 -
Prior PTB
   Nulliparous 486 -
   Parous, no prior PTB 442 51.0
   Parous, ≥1 prior PTB 424 49.0
   Missing 98 -
Blood pressure at enrollment ^
   Normotensive 1372 96.4
   Hypertensive 52 3.7
   Missing 26 -
HIV serostatus at enrollment
   Negative 1097 75.8
   Positive 350 24.1
   Missing 3 -
Syphilis at enrollment
   Reactive 70 5.2
   Non-reactive 1273 94.8
   Missing 107 -
Hemoglobin at enrollment, mg/dL 1026 12 (11,13)
   <10.5 141 13.7
   ≥10.5 885 86.3
   Missing 424 -
Malaria at enrollment
   Negative 1143 99.6
   Positive 5 0.4
   Missing 302 -
Urinalysis at enrollment
   Normal 1303 95.0
   Abnormal † 69 5.0
   Missing 78 -

IQR, interquartile range; BMI, body mass index; GA, gestational age; PTB, preterm birth

* 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

The baseline HIV seroprevalence in our cohort is 24% (n=350 of 1447), of whom 60% (n=205 of 340) had undetectable viral load. Nearly 4% (n=52 of 1424) of participants had elevated blood pressure (≥140/90) at enrollment; 5% (n=69 of 1372) had a urinalysis consistent with bacteriuria or urinary tract infection (1+ leukocyte esterase and/or nitrites). Syphilis was prevalent in 5% (n=70 of 1343) of our cohort at baseline. Malaria is uncommon in our cohort: 5 of 1148 participants (0.4%) tested positive for malaria by rapid test. 14% (n=141 of 1026) were anemic (Hgb <10.5mg/dL) at baseline.

 Discussion

The underlying pathological processes responsible for activation of the common parturition pathway in preterm labor, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, and preterm delivery are incompletely understood. A comprehensive investigation of these processes could help define clinical signs and biological markers of high-risk pregnancies and allow the development and application of early preventive interventions targeted to those women at highest risk. Our cohort study will describe incidence, predictors, and potential confounders to the parturition pathway in HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected term and preterm deliveries, in accordance with the International Preterm Birth Collaborative Pathways and Systems Biology Working Group 27 .

Analyses of the ZAPPS cohort data will investigate determinants of the following adverse birth outcomes, both individually and in composite: preterm birth (delivery <37 weeks), very preterm birth (delivery <34 weeks), stillbirth, low birthweight (<2500g), very low birthweight (<1500g), small for gestational age (<10%ile), and very small for gestational age (<3%ile). We will define birthweight-for-age according to INTERGROWTH-21 st standards 24 . We will distinguish spontaneous preterm deliveries from provider-indicated preterm deliveries and investigate the prevalence and distribution of preterm phenotypes 28 , both within our cohort and relative to other studies 29 . Specimens stored at our UTH laboratory will be used for study-related analyses to identify inflammatory markers (e.g., chemokines, cytokines), microbiome community states, metabolic analytes, proteins, hormones, transcripts, and various infectious factors that may be predict adverse birth outcomes. As nearly one-fourth of our cohort was HIV-infected at enrollment, we will conduct specific analyses within this population to better understand the effect of both HIV and antiretroviral therapy on adverse birth outcomes.

Gestational age can be estimated by patient report of the last normal menstrual period (LMP), ultrasound biometry 24, 30 , or a combination of the two 20 . Our experience in Zambia is that the LMP is an imprecise measure that artificially inflates the actual rate of preterm birth in the population 31 , and that it may in fact introduce bias (J. Price, personal communication). We chose to establish gestational age by ultrasound alone in this cohort.

The strength of ZAPPS is found in its size (nearly 1500 participants enrolled to date) and its design (a prospective antenatal cohort enrolling in early pregnancy). We note that our cohort is at risk of attrition, a well-known challenge of antenatal cohorts, as well as biases of selective participation contributing to a cohort not fully representative of the general population. We enroll pregnant women in the nation’s capital of Lusaka, and we have specifically prioritized the enrollment of HIV-infected women, relaxing the eligibility criteria for gestational age at enrollment for this population. This over-representation of HIV-infected participants in our cohort will enhance our ability to investigate epidemiologic and mechanistic associations of HIV and preterm birth.

In summary, we have established a well-characterized antenatal cohort in Lusaka, Zambia that benefits from ultrasound gestational age dating, longitudinal clinical assessments, biological specimen collection and storage, and careful classification of birth and neonatal outcomes (including phenotyping of all preterm births and stillbirths). The knowledge gained from this study has the potential to drive future research in preterm birth and other adverse birth outcomes, to inform the development of novel preventive therapies and treatments, and to influence clinical care and health policy worldwide.

Collaboration

The ZAPPS study is part of the Preventing Preterm Birth Initiative of the Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth ( GAPPS). The Zambia cohort is co-led by the University of Zambia and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Study findings will be made available through appropriate local channels, including academic and public health research symposia. Our primary purpose is as a shared resource and we invite collaborators with high-impact ideas to apply for access to data and stored specimens from the ZAPPS study as well as other sites in the GAPPS biorepository network. Potential collaborators are invited to contact GAPPS directly ( info@gapps.org) or the ZAPPS principal investigators: Jeffrey Stringer ( jeffrey_stringer@med.unc.edu) and Bellington Vwalika ( bvwalika@unza.zm).

 Data availability

De-identified individual patient data underlying Table 2 are available on Open Science Framework: http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UNE9Y 32

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

 Acknowledgments

The study protocol is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02738892.

 Blencowe H Cousens S Oestergaard MZ : 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):2162–2172. 22682464 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4 McCormick MC : The contribution of low birth weight to infant mortality and childhood morbidity. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(2):82–90. 3880598 10.1056/NEJM198501103120204 Liu L Oza S Hogan D : Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2000-13, with projections to inform post-2015 priorities: an updated systematic analysis. Lancet. 2015;385(9966):430–440. 25280870 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61698-6 Kinney MV Lawn JE Howson CP : 15 Million preterm births annually: what has changed this year? Reprod Health. 2012;9:28. 23148557 10.1186/1742-4755-9-28 3546852 Wang ML Dorer DJ Fleming MP : Clinical outcomes of near-term infants. Pediatrics. 2004;114(2):372–376. 15286219 10.1542/peds.114.2.372 Woythaler MA McCormick MC Smith VC : Late preterm infants have worse 24-month neurodevelopmental outcomes than term infants. Pediatrics. 2011;127(3):e622–629. 21321024 10.1542/peds.2009-3598 Mwaniki MK Atieno M Lawn JE : Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes after intrauterine and neonatal insults: a systematic review. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):445–452. 22244654 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61577-8 3273721 Lawn JE Davidge R Paul VK : Born too soon: care for the preterm baby. Reprod Health. 2013;10(Suppl 1):S5. 24625233 10.1186/1742-4755-10-S1-S5 3828583 March of Dimes P StC, WHO: Born Too Soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth.Geneva: World Health Organization.2012. Reference Source Wedi CO Kirtley S Hopewell S : Perinatal outcomes associated with maternal HIV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet HIV. 2016;3(1):e33–48. 26762992 10.1016/S2352-3018(15)00207-6 HIV/AIDS JUNPo: 2015 Progress Report on the Global Plan Towards the Elimination of New HIV Infections Among Children and Keeping Their Mothers Alive. Reference Source Kourtis AP Schmid CH Jamieson DJ : Use of antiretroviral therapy in pregnant HIV-infected women and the risk of premature delivery: a meta-analysis. AIDS. 2007;21(5):607–615. 17314523 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32802ef2f6 Chen JY Ribaudo HJ Souda S : Highly active antiretroviral therapy and adverse birth outcomes among HIV-infected women in Botswana. J Infect Dis. 2012;206(11):1695–1705. 23066160 10.1093/infdis/jis553 3488194 Townsend CL Cortina-Borja M Peckham CS : Antiretroviral therapy and premature delivery in diagnosed HIV-infected women in the United Kingdom and Ireland. AIDS. 2007;21(8):1019–1026. 17457096 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328133884b Goldenberg RL Culhane JF Iams JD : Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):75–84. 18177778 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60074-4 Oliver RS Lamont RF : Infection and antibiotics in the aetiology, prediction and prevention of preterm birth. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33(8):768–775. 24219711 10.3109/01443615.2013.842963 Gotsch F Gotsch F Romero R : The preterm parturition syndrome and its implications for understanding the biology, risk assessment, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of preterm birth. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22 Suppl 2:5–23. 19951079 10.1080/14767050902860690 Vwalika B Stoner MC Mwanahamuntu M : Maternal and newborn outcomes at a tertiary care hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, 2008-2012. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;136(2):180–187. 28099725 10.1002/ijgo.12036 5245182 von Elm E Altman DG Egger M : The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–349. 18313558 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 Committee opinion no 611: method for estimating due date. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(4):863–866. 25244460 10.1097/01.AOG.0000454932.15177.be Papageorghiou AT Kennedy SH Salomon LJ : 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):641–648. 25044000 10.1002/uog.13448 4286014 Papageorghiou AT Kemp B Stones W : Ultrasound-based gestational-age estimation in late pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(6):719–726. 26924421 10.1002/uog.15894 Iams JD Goldenberg RL Meis PJ : The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(9):567–572. 8569824 10.1056/NEJM199602293340904 Papageorghiou AT Sarris I Ioannou C : Ultrasound methodology used to construct the fetal growth standards in the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project. BJOG. 2013;120 Suppl 2:27–32, v. 23841904 10.1111/1471-0528.12313 Friedman AM Srinivas SK Parry S : Can transabdominal ultrasound be used as a screening test for short cervical length? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(3):190. e191–197. 23246815 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.12.021 Rhoades JS Park JM Stout MJ : Can Transabdominal Cervical Length Measurement Exclude Short Cervix? Am J Perinatol. 2016;33(5):473–479. 26523740 10.1055/s-0035-1566308 Myatt L Eschenbach DA Lye SJ : A standardized template for clinical studies in preterm birth. Reprod Sci. 2012;19(5):474–482. 22344727 10.1177/1933719111426602 Villar J Papageorghiou AT Knight HE : The preterm birth syndrome: a prototype phenotypic classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(2):119–123. 22177191 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.866 Barros FC Papageorghiou AT Victora CG : The distribution of clinical phenotypes of preterm birth syndrome: implications for prevention. JAMA Pediatr. in press.2015;169(3):220–9. 25561016 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3040 Ioannou C Sarris I Hoch L : Standardisation of crown-rump length measurement. BJOG. 2013;120 Suppl 2:38–41, v. 23678951 10.1111/1471-0528.12056 Chi BH Vwalika B Killam WP : Implementation of the Zambia electronic perinatal record system for comprehensive prenatal and delivery care. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113(2):131–136. 21315347 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.013 3071887 Stringer JSA : Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS). Open Science Framework. 2018. Data Source 10.21956/gatesopenres.13888.r26413 Reviewer response for version 1 Jehan Fyezah 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5874-4358 Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan

Competing interests: I am the PI of the AMANHI-ACT Cohort and Biorepository in Pakistan

 24 5 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Jehan F 2018 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

Overall an important report of a biorepository cohort in LMIC, in a high prematurity setting defining baseline characteristics of the cohort at enrollment. Some recommendations for improvement :-

Abstract: Needs to be realigned with the article text. Methods incomplete, all salient points need to be mentioned eg. GA at eligibility, samples being stored in biorepository. Similarly, what outcome information is being collected. Conclusion mentions adverse birth outcomes although focus in the introduction has been on preterm.

Article:

Introduction: Focus of discussion has been on prematurity its risk factors and causes, while the title, methods, objectives are related to establishment of a bio repository. It isn't entirely clear if this is a description of the biro repository or a description of cohort characteristics of the women in the biorepository or both. A clearer enunciation of the objective needs to be made. Adverse outcomes to be studied are detailed in the discussion session so I would suggest to either bring that detail into the methods, in order to describe the biorepository completely.

Methods:

Clinical care and followup/ Data collection and management: Overall lacks specificity in discussion for e.g. what particular medical history and exam is done? How is size, neuromuscular maturity assessed? Is there a window of collection? Who does it? What's the training? What is the quality control? How are the specimens stored? What particular tests are anticipated? What is meant by temperature-controlled? 'analyzing some specimens immediately per standard antenatal care guidelines and storing others for later study-related analyses"can be unpacked.

Results: 

There is some redundancy in the results text when looking at the table and vice versa. Not sure how the authors can handle this. In conformity with data and specimen collection as described in methods, advised to also detail the specimens collected so far?

Table 2: 

Education- too many categories. Can collapse.

GA missing on 22 women- how were they included?

BMI-Typo, should be 13.5 not 13-5

Discussion: Again can be realigned with the results presentation.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Maternal newborn health, community, biorepository, cohort studies, clinical trials, infectious diseases

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Stringer Jeffrey S. A. University of North Carolina, USA

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 12 11 2018

Fyezah Jehan, Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan 

Approved with Reservations

Overall an important report of a biorepository cohort in LMIC, in a high prematurity setting defining baseline characteristics of the cohort at enrollment. Some recommendations for improvement :-

Abstract:Needs to be realigned with the article text. Methods incomplete, all salient points need to be mentioned eg. GA at eligibility, samples being stored in biorepository. Similarly, what outcome information is being collected. Conclusion mentions adverse birth outcomes although focus in the introduction has been on preterm.

Thank you for noting these inconsistencies. We have expanded our description of assessment of birth outcomes to include not only gestational age at delivery, but also “neonatal birthweight, vital status, and sex” (Abstract, lines 17-18). We have added the gestational age criteria for enrollment (lines 14-15), as well as a description of sample collection to the methods section of the abstract (lines 18-20). Finally, we now refer to “other adverse outcomes” to the final sentence of the background of the abstract (line 7).

Article:

Introduction:Focus of discussion has been on prematurity its risk factors and causes, while the title, methods, objectives are related to establishment of a bio repository. It isn't entirely clear if this is a description of the biro repository or a description of cohort characteristics of the women in the biorepository or both. A clearer enunciation of the objective needs to be made. Adverse outcomes to be studied are detailed in the discussion session so I would suggest to either bring that detail into the methods, in order to describe the biorepository completely.

The purpose of this cohort description is to outline baseline characteristics of the ZAPPS Phase 1 cohort. We mention the biorepository, but that is not the primary aim of this paper. We have clarified the role of the biorepository throughout the abstract and manuscript, but note that the purpose of this paper is primarily to describe the clinical characteristics of our population. 

The second paragraph in the discussion section (lines 268-280) details the outcomes to be studied in future analyses. We think it would be confusing to bring that detail into the methods of this paper as these analyses have not yet been conducted and we have not included any outcomes in this baseline cohort description. We have attempted to clarify this in said paragraph.

Methods:

Clinical care and followup/ Data collection and management: Overall lacks specificity in discussion for e.g. what particular medical history and exam is done? How is size, neuromuscular maturity assessed? Is there a window of collection? Who does it? What's the training? What is the quality control? How are the specimens stored? What particular tests are anticipated? What is meant by temperature-controlled? 'analyzing some specimens immediately per standard antenatal care guidelines and storing others for later study-related analyses"can be unpacked.

We have added / clarified the following:

Lines 146-149: “At each antenatal care visit, study nurses perform a vital sign assessment and a physical exam, which includes maternal height and weight; mid-upper arm circumference measurement; fundal height measurement; assessment for pallor, edema, and abdominal tenderness; fetal heart rate assessment; and cervical exam as clinically indicated.” 

Lines 161-163: “Participants are asked specifically if they have ever been diagnosed with high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or any other chronic illness.”

Lines 180-183: “Shortly after delivery and prior to hospital discharge, the study team documents assessment of infant vital signs, weight, length, head circumference, complete physical exam, and of neuromuscular maturity via the New Ballard Score.”

Lines 187-189: “While the 24- and 32-week study visits are scheduled according to gestational age, in the event that a participant misses her appointment, specimens may be collected as soon as possible once she returns to clinic.”

Lines 185-187: “Trained study nurses collect maternal specimens…”

Lines 186-187: “following approved standard operating procedures to ensure quality and uniformity.”

Lines 275-280: Possible protocol-related tests anticipated are described in the discussion section: ”Specimens stored at our UTH laboratory will be used for study-related analyses to identify inflammatory markers (e.g., chemokines, cytokines), microbiome community states, metabolic analytes, proteins, hormones, transcripts, and various infectious factors that may be predict adverse birth outcomes.”

Lines 191-204: “All specimens are transferred in insulated containers with continuous temperature monitoring to the on-site lab” … “All specimens are stored at -80ᵒ C in temperature-controlled freezer systems equipped with continuous temperature monitoring and text message notification of temperature deviations.”

Line 199: We have added a reference to Table 1, which delineates exactly which tests are performed immediately and we discuss which types of study-related testing may be performed in the future in the Discussion as outlined above.

 

Results: 

There is some redundancy in the results text when looking at the table and vice versa. Not sure how the authors can handle this. 

We prefer to retain some redundancy between Table 1 and the Results section. Many journals require this (e.g., JAMA). The description of key baseline characteristics of our cohort in the Results section is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to highlight key data that appear in Table 1.

In conformity with data and specimen collection as described in methods, advised to also detail the specimens collected so far?

While specimens have been collected, given this is a baseline paper of cohort characteristics at enrollment, we have not presented data on the total numbers of specimens that have been collected to date. This will be addressed in a future publication.

Table 2: 

Education- too many categories. Can collapse.

We have collapsed this to: “None”, “0-12 years”, and “≥12 years”

GA missing on 22 women- how were they included?

Thank you for noting this. After additional data cleaning since our first submission of this manuscript, we have now been able to assign entry gestational age for each cohort participant.

BMI-Typo, should be 13.5 not 13-5

We have corrected this to “18.5” from “18-5”

Discussion:Again can be realigned with the results presentation.

Thank you. We feel that as a result of these suggested revisions, the discussion and results section are now more closely aligned.

10.21956/gatesopenres.13888.r26410 Reviewer response for version 1 Qureshi Zahida 1 Referee Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 24 5 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Qureshi Z 2018 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the research article entitled “The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS: Cohort characteristics at enrollment)”

Overall the study is important to understand the dynamics of preterm birth in a sub-saharan developing country, with intent to plan interventions.

I have the following comments: -

Abstract:

Methods – should read as ‘the Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention study (ZAPPS) is an observational study, of a prospective antenatal cohort ……….’

Results- this cohort is 1450 participants and is not clear is this the entire cohort or a subset as the protocol mentions the enrollment to be estimated at 4000, so is recruitment still ongoing? This needs to be clarified. 

Discussion – also add the primary objective of the ZAPPS study, as stated below

Page 3 

Primary objective – should also include the primary objective of the study as stated in the protocol  

Primary outcome measure – Rate of preterm births per 100 person years, incidence rate of preterm birth (delivery <37 weeks’ gestation)

Page 4 Clinical care and follow up

It is stated that after enrollment women return for cervical length evaluation between 20 and 24 weeks and those with a short cervix have additional visits at 28 and 32- in table 1 the ultrasound is at 34 and not 32 weeks. It is important to mention if this is standard of care for all patients at this site or only for those with previous preterm birth. Page 6 mentions that this is a non-interventional study.

No mention is made of the maternal depression screen at 24 and 42 weeks.

Page 4 Biological specimen collection 

Study nurses collected maternal specimens at enrollment –and these were point of care tests for HIV, anemia, syphilis and UTI.

The results section has a reasonably large number of missing information on some of the parameters. 

Page 5 table 1 

What were the vaginal and rectal swab tests for?

Page 6 

Results section 

Table 2-  the missing numbers of participates with data on Syphilis is 107, Haemoglobin at enrollment 424 and malaria is 302, this needs to be explained by the authors. Patients with malaria, low haemoglobin and syphilis are at risk for preterm birth, so missing data will influence results for the ZAPPS study. 

This should be discussed by the authors as a study limitation if these figures are correct.

This comment does not influence this paper as it for those recruited up to Sept 2017.

Of note is that the protocol for ZAPPS has been amended in Feb 2018 to exclude women with HIV. So eventually will there be separate analysis for the women who are included in this manuscript vs those recruited later?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Obstetrician/ gynaecologist with interest in Maternal fetal medicine

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Stringer Jeffrey S. A. University of North Carolina, USA

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 12 11 2018

Zahida Qureshi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya 

Approved

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the research article entitled “The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study (ZAPPS: Cohort characteristics at enrollment)”

Overall the study is important to understand the dynamics of preterm birth in a sub-saharan developing country, with intent to plan interventions.

I have the following comments: -

Abstract:

Methods – should read as ‘the Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention study (ZAPPS) is an observational study, of a prospective antenatal cohort ……….’

This suggested edit has been made (line 10).

Results-this cohort is 1450 participants and is not clear is this the entire cohort or a subset as the protocol mentions the enrollment to be estimated at 4000, so is recruitment still ongoing? This needs to be clarified. 

Recruitment is indeed ongoing, but under a slightly revised protocol. This is a description of the cohort established under the original protocol only. The original estimated enrollment of 4000 has been amended to 2000 on the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Discussion– also add the primary objective of the ZAPPS study, as stated below

Our primary objective in the protocol reads as follows: “to establish a cohort of 2,000 pregnant women and their infants, following them through delivery and up to 42 days postpartum.” We have revised the language in the Discussion of the abstract to reflect that original wording (lines 31-32). 

Page 3 

Primary objective – should also include the primary objective of the study as stated in the protocol  

Our primary objective in the protocol reads as follows: “to establish a cohort of 2,000 pregnant women and their infants, following them through delivery and up to 42 days postpartum. We will recruit and enroll 2,000 women and their newborn infants in Zambia.” We have revised the language in our “Primary objective” section to reflect this wording (lines 106-110). 

Primary outcome measure – Rate of preterm births per 100 person years, incidence rate of preterm birth (delivery <37 weeks’ gestation)

Thank you for noting this inconsistency. The primary outcome as stated in the most recent protocol is as follows: 

“The primary outcome is preterm birth, defined as birth prior to 37 weeks completed gestation. The secondary outcomes are (1) delivery prior to 34 weeks completed gestation and (2) low birth weight, defined as less than 2500 grams.”

We have added an “Outcomes” section to the Methods of this paper to address this omission (lines 111-118).

Page 4 Clinical care and follow up

It is stated that after enrollment women return for cervical length evaluation between 20 and 24 weeks and those with a short cervix have additional visits at 28 and 32- in table 1 the ultrasound is at 34 and not 32 weeks. It is important to mention if this is standard of care for all patients at this site or only for those with previous preterm birth. Page 6 mentions that this is a non-interventional study.

We have revised the text to the following: “After enrollment, all participants return for universal cervical length evaluation between 20 and 24 weeks’ gestation. Those with a short cervix by transvaginal ultrasound, defined as <2.5 cm, then attend additional visits scheduled at 28 and 32 weeks’ gestation for repeat cervical length ultrasounds and are referred to a study physician at the UTH for further counseling and follow-up” (lines 135-139). The additional visits at 28 and 34 weeks’ for cervical length ultrasound are only for those women with short cervix. This is explained also in the footnote to Table 1. Biometry ultrasound at 32 weeks is performed for all participants. 

No mention is made of the maternal depression screen at 24 and 42 weeks.

Thank you for pointing this out. The following sentence has been added to the section on Clinical care & follow-up:

“The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Screen is self-administered by participants at 24 weeks and again at the postpartum visit. Participants who screen positive are referred to outpatient psychiatric care” (lines 157-159). In addition, “Maternal depression screen” appears in Table 1 at 24 weeks and 42 days postpartum.

Page 4 Biological specimen collection 

Study nurses collected maternal specimens at enrollment –and these were point of care tests for HIV, anemia, syphilis and UTI.

The results section has a reasonably large number of missing information on some of the parameters. 

Since our study is integrated with routine care at the clinical sites, for several cases—particularly in the early conduct of the study—we did not repeat routine tests previously performed at government clinics and failed to document these results on our study forms. This is a limitation of the study that we have described in our Discussion (lines 295-299). We also note that it has been rectified in Phase 2 of the cohort (line 299).

                   

Page 5 table 1 

What were the vaginal and rectal swab tests for?

Vaginal and rectal swabs are collected for specimen storage for future protocol-related testing. No real-time tests are currently being performed on these swabs. We have clarified this in Table 1.

Page 6 

Results section 

Table 2-  the missing numbers of participates with data on Syphilis is 107, Haemoglobin at enrollment 424 and malaria is 302, this needs to be explained by the authors. Patients with malaria, low haemoglobin and syphilis are at risk for preterm birth, so missing data will influence results for the ZAPPS study. 

This should be discussed by the authors as a study limitation if these figures are correct.

These figures are correct. As we note above, since our study is integrated with routine care at the clinical sites, for several cases—particularly in the early conduct of the study—we did not repeat routine tests previously performed at government clinics and failed to document these results on our study forms. This is a limitation of the study that we have described in our Discussion (lines 295-299). We also note that it has been rectified in Phase 2 of the cohort (line 299).

This comment does not influence this paper as it for those recruited up to Sept 2017. Of note is that the protocol for ZAPPS has been amended in Feb 2018 to exclude women with HIV. So eventually will there be separate analysis for the women who are included in this manuscript vs those recruited later?

That is correct. Given the amended protocol has revised key inclusion / exclusion criteria, the next phase of the ZAPPS cohort has not been described in this baseline manuscript. We have added an explicit description of the two phases of the ZAPPS cohort in the Methods section (lines 102-104).