Intrapartum Antibiotic Chemoprophylaxis Policies for the Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Disease Worldwide: Systematic Review.


Le Doare, K; O'Driscoll, M; Turner, K; Seedat, F; Russell, NJ; Seale, AC; Heath, PT; Lawn, JE; Baker, CJ; Bartlett, L; Cutland, C; Gravett, MG; Ip, M; Madhi, SA; Rubens, CE; Saha, SK; Schrag, S; Sobanjo-Ter Meulen, A; Vekemans, J; Kampmann, B; GBS Intrapartum Antibiotic Investigator Group, ; , COLLABORATORS; Ramoni, A; Helmig, RB; Makikallio, K; Asatiani, T; Fisher, M; Feinstein, M; Oz, Y; Suzin, ME; Eisenberg, V; Berardi, A; Trehan, I; Macad, GL; Lucovnik, M; Oluwalana, CN; Letchworth, P; Jagoutz-Herzlinger, M; Muriithi, FG; Yassen, KI; Visser, G; Cooper, S; (2017) Intrapartum Antibiotic Chemoprophylaxis Policies for the Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Disease Worldwide: Systematic Review. Clinical infectious diseases, 65 (suppl_2). S143-S151. ISSN 1058-4838 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix654

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Intrapartum antibiotic chemoprophylaxis (IAP) prevents most early-onset group B streptococcal (GBS) disease. However, there is no description of how IAP is used around the world. This article is the sixth in a series estimating the burden of GBS disease. Here we aimed to review GBS screening policies and IAP implementation worldwide. We identified data through (1) systematic literature reviews (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Literature in the Health Sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean [LILACS], World Health Organization library database [WHOLIS], and Scopus) and unpublished data from professional societies and (2) an online survey and searches of policies from medical societies and professionals. We included data on whether an IAP policy was in use, and if so whether it was based on microbiological or clinical risk factors and how these were applied, as well as the estimated coverage (percentage of women receiving IAP where indicated). We received policy information from 95 of 195 (49%) countries. Of these, 60 of 95 (63%) had an IAP policy; 35 of 60 (58%) used microbiological screening, 25 of 60 (42%) used clinical risk factors. Two of 15 (13%) low-income, 4 of 16 (25%) lower-middle-income, 14 of 20 (70%) upper-middle-income, and 40 of 44 (91%) high-income countries had any IAP policy. The remaining 35 of 95 (37%) had no national policy (25/33 from low-income and lower-middle-income countries). Coverage varied considerably; for microbiological screening, median coverage was 80% (range, 20%-95%); for clinical risk factor-based screening, coverage was 29% (range, 10%-50%). Although there were differences in the microbiological screening methods employed, the individual clinical risk factors used were similar. There is considerable heterogeneity in IAP screening policies and coverage worldwide. Alternative global strategies, such as maternal vaccination, are needed to enhance the scope of global prevention of GBS disease.

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health > Dept of Infectious Disease Epidemiology
Research Centre: Antimicrobial Resistance Centre (AMR)
PubMed ID: 29117324
Web of Science ID: 414511400006
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/4645642

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
0Downloads
12Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item