I'm thinking about trying for a baby with a Thai partner who is living with HIV. She has been on ART for about 3 years. Her viral load is undetectable and her CD4 count is in the normal range.

 

From what I can see online, the risk of mother to child transmission depends on the hospital as well as the viral load. If you look at Thailand as a whole, it rates quite well (risk under 2%) but I'm not sure all hospitals are equal. We are near Chiang Mai. I'm not sure if it's worth considering a hospital somewhere else - I guess it'd be Bangkok - to keep the risk as low as possible. Maybe that's an unanswerable question, but if anyone has any input I'd be glad to hear it.

 

 

I think it is unfair to expose the newborn to such a risk. 

The hospital has nothing to do with it. They all follow the same very clear protocols -- or at least all government hospitals do. To be absolutely sure I would avoid private ones though most of these will as well.

 

Any difference in transmission rates would be due not to the hospital but to patient factors e.g. compliance and also whether the woman was already on ART or just started shortly before delivery (sometimes the HIV is first discovered only during routine antenatal check).

 

Rates of transmission of HIV from mother to child are so low in Thailand that the country has been accorded "elimination" status by WHO, i.e. it is no longer a significant public health problem and less than 5% of HIV positive woman pass the virus to their child.

 

The likelihood of infection to the baby for a woman on ART with non-detectible viral load is almost nil. In addition, as a precaution the baby will be given 6 weeks of ARV treatment (single drug) immediately after delivery.

 

What you need to do is just support/reinforce her in being scrupulous about complying with her ART throughout pregnancy and with the 6 week ARV for the baby afterwards. And help insure proper use of formula if she opts not to breastfeed (as she may be advised to do) i.e. correct mixing and sterilization to avoud the problems that sometimes come with formula feeding.

 

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is unfair to expose the newborn to such a risk. 

Very uninformed post. There isn't "such a risk" for a woman with undetectable VL adhering to ART.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

OP,

You're a good guy. I wish everything works out and you're blessed with a beautiful kid. All parents are proud of their children but you'll have a special reason. Good luck.

Why risk?

Sheryl is spot on.

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 7:32 PM, Sheryl said:

Very uninformed post. There isn't "such a risk" for a woman with undetectable VL adhering to ART.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

There is no risk to the mother.  The risk is to the newborn.  And I am very well informed. 

10 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

There is no risk to the mother.  The risk is to the newborn.  And I am very well informed. 

The risk is way lower than being on or near a road but people subject children to such risks all to often. 

16 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

There is no risk to the mother.  The risk is to the newborn.  And I am very well informed. 

 

Not if you think there is a risk to the newborn from a mother with non-detectable viral load.

44 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

There is no risk to the mother.  The risk is to the newborn.  And I am very well informed. 

Giving birth is not risk free for the mother you should know this by now.

4 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Giving birth is not risk free for the mother you should know this by now.

Stupid comment from you.  I meant risk of HIV to the mother, obviously since she already is infected. Come on, stop being argumentative

4 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

Not if you think there is a risk to the newborn from a mother with non-detectable viral load.

Of course there is a risk to the newborn.  "non-detectable" is not absolute. 

4 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

The risk is way lower than being on or near a road but people subject children to such risks all to often. 

Yes, but in this case it is done with much advance planning and selfish purpose