Breastfeeding Among People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in North America: A Multisite Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In North American countries, national guidelines have strongly recommended formula over breastmilk for people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) because of concern for HIV transmission. However, data from resource-limited settings suggest the risk is <1% among virally suppressed people. Information regarding breastfeeding experience in high-resource settings is lacking. METHODS: A retrospective multisite study was performed for individuals with HIV who breastfed during 2014-2022 in the United States (8 sites) and Canada (3 sites). Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Among the 72 cases reported, most had been diagnosed with HIV and were on antiretroviral therapy prior to the index pregnancy and had undetectable viral loads at delivery. Most commonly reported reasons for choosing to breastfeed were health benefits, community expectations, and parent-child bonding. Median duration of breastfeeding was 24 weeks (range, 1 day to 72 weeks). Regimens for infant prophylaxis and protocols for testing of infants and birthing parents varied widely among institutions. No neonatal transmissions occurred among the 94% of infants for whom results were available ≥6 weeks after weaning. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the largest cohort to date of people with HIV who breastfed in North America. Findings demonstrate high variability among institutions in policies, infant prophylaxis, and infant and parental testing practices. The study describes challenges in weighing the potential risks of transmission with personal and community factors. Finally, this study highlights the relatively small numbers of patients with HIV who chose to breastfeed at any 1 location, and the need for further multisite studies to identify best care practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".