Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Group B streptococcal infections in newborn infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing various strategies.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2024-07-28 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102748
Timothy J R Panneflek, Gea F Hasperhoven, Yamikani Chimwaza, Connor Allen, Tina Lavin, Arjan B Te Pas, Vincent Bekker, Thomas van den Akker
{"title":"Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Group B streptococcal infections in newborn infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing various strategies.","authors":"Timothy J R Panneflek, Gea F Hasperhoven, Yamikani Chimwaza, Connor Allen, Tina Lavin, Arjan B Te Pas, Vincent Bekker, Thomas van den Akker","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early-onset Group B Streptococcus (EOGBS) infection leads to substantial morbidity and mortality in newborn infants. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) prevents EOGBS infection, but IAP strategies vary. The approach to the provision of IAP can be risk-based, universal or a combination of the two strategies. Previous systematic reviews reported that universal strategies might be most optimal in lowering EOGBS infection, but there is no consensus. Therefore, we aimed to provide up-to-date evidence on effectiveness of different strategies by comparing perinatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search for EOGBS prevention strategies was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on May 2024. Studies were included if they reported on different strategies and outcomes of interest, including EOGBS infection, IAP administration and antimicrobial resistance regardless of publication date. Summary data was extracted from published reports. Study quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to determine risk ratios (RR) and 95%-confidence intervals. PROSPERO registration CRD42023411806.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 6293 records were identified, of which 72 observational studies were included for synthesis with more than 10 million live births. Meta-analysis demonstrated that implementation of any strategy (n = 34 studies, RR 0.46 (0.36-0.60)), risk-based strategies (n = 11 studies, RR 0.65 (0.48-0.87)), or universal strategies (n = 16 studies, RR 0.37 (0.25-0.55)) was associated with a reduced risk of EOGBS infection compared to no strategy. In direct comparison, universal strategies were associated with a reduced risk of EOGBS compared to a risk-based strategy (n = 17 studies, RR 0.41 (0.30-0.55)), while the proportion of women receiving IAP did not differ between risk-based (16%) and universal (21%) strategies (n = 9 studies, RR 1.29 (0.95-1.75)). There was no antimicrobial resistance of EOGBS isolates to penicillin or ampicillin (n = 11 studies).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Any IAP strategy could reduce the risk of EOGBS infection without evidence of increasing antimicrobial resistance. Universal strategies give the largest reduction in the EOGBS burden, while not exposing a significantly higher proportion of pregnancies to IAP compared to risk-based strategies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"74 ","pages":"102748"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11577566/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102748","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Early-onset Group B Streptococcus (EOGBS) infection leads to substantial morbidity and mortality in newborn infants. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) prevents EOGBS infection, but IAP strategies vary. The approach to the provision of IAP can be risk-based, universal or a combination of the two strategies. Previous systematic reviews reported that universal strategies might be most optimal in lowering EOGBS infection, but there is no consensus. Therefore, we aimed to provide up-to-date evidence on effectiveness of different strategies by comparing perinatal outcomes.

Methods: A systematic search for EOGBS prevention strategies was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on May 2024. Studies were included if they reported on different strategies and outcomes of interest, including EOGBS infection, IAP administration and antimicrobial resistance regardless of publication date. Summary data was extracted from published reports. Study quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to determine risk ratios (RR) and 95%-confidence intervals. PROSPERO registration CRD42023411806.

Findings: A total of 6293 records were identified, of which 72 observational studies were included for synthesis with more than 10 million live births. Meta-analysis demonstrated that implementation of any strategy (n = 34 studies, RR 0.46 (0.36-0.60)), risk-based strategies (n = 11 studies, RR 0.65 (0.48-0.87)), or universal strategies (n = 16 studies, RR 0.37 (0.25-0.55)) was associated with a reduced risk of EOGBS infection compared to no strategy. In direct comparison, universal strategies were associated with a reduced risk of EOGBS compared to a risk-based strategy (n = 17 studies, RR 0.41 (0.30-0.55)), while the proportion of women receiving IAP did not differ between risk-based (16%) and universal (21%) strategies (n = 9 studies, RR 1.29 (0.95-1.75)). There was no antimicrobial resistance of EOGBS isolates to penicillin or ampicillin (n = 11 studies).

Interpretation: Any IAP strategy could reduce the risk of EOGBS infection without evidence of increasing antimicrobial resistance. Universal strategies give the largest reduction in the EOGBS burden, while not exposing a significantly higher proportion of pregnancies to IAP compared to risk-based strategies.

Funding: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization.

产前使用抗生素预防新生儿乙型链球菌感染:比较各种策略的系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:早发 B 组链球菌 (EOGBS) 感染会导致新生儿大量发病和死亡。产前抗生素预防(IAP)可预防 EOGBS 感染,但 IAP 的策略各不相同。提供 IAP 的方法可以是基于风险的、普遍的或两种策略的结合。之前的系统综述报告称,通用策略可能是降低东欧吉布斯犬感染的最佳方法,但目前尚未达成共识。因此,我们旨在通过比较围产期结果,为不同策略的有效性提供最新证据:方法:2024 年 5 月,我们在 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Web of Science 中对 EOGBS 预防策略进行了系统检索。如果研究报告了不同的策略和相关结果,包括EOGBS感染、IAP管理和抗菌药耐药性,则不论发表日期均被纳入。从已发表的报告中提取摘要数据。研究质量采用 ROBINS-I 工具进行评估。随机效应荟萃分析用于确定风险比 (RR) 和 95% 置信区间。PROSPERO注册号为CRD42023411806:共发现了 6293 条记录,其中 72 项观察性研究被纳入了活产超过 1000 万的综合研究中。Meta 分析表明,与不采取任何策略相比,采取任何策略(n = 34 项研究,RR 0.46 (0.36-0.60))、基于风险的策略(n = 11 项研究,RR 0.65 (0.48-0.87))或通用策略(n = 16 项研究,RR 0.37 (0.25-0.55))均可降低 EOGBS 感染风险。在直接比较中,与基于风险的策略相比,通用策略与 EOGBS 感染风险降低相关(n = 17 项研究,RR 0.41 (0.30-0.55)),而基于风险的策略(16%)和通用策略(21%)中接受 IAP 的妇女比例没有差异(n = 9 项研究,RR 1.29 (0.95-1.75))。EOGBS分离株对青霉素或氨苄西林无抗菌耐药性(n = 11项研究):解释:任何 IAP 策略都能降低 EOGBS 感染风险,但没有证据表明抗菌药耐药性会增加。与基于风险的策略相比,通用策略可最大程度地减少 EOGBS 负担,同时不会使更多的孕妇感染 IAP:联合国开发计划署(UNDP)-人口基金(UNFPA)-儿童基金会(UNICEF)-世卫组织(WHO)-世界银行人类生殖研究、发展和研究培训特别计划(一项由世界卫生组织共同赞助执行的计划)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信