Effects of antibiotic prophylaxis during labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes in women planning vaginal birth.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Daichi Suzuki, Noyuri Yamaji, Etsuko Nishimura, Hitomi Suzuki, Kazuhiro Ishikawa, Md Obaidur Rahman, Maureen Makama, Joshua P Vogel, Erika Ota
{"title":"Effects of antibiotic prophylaxis during labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes in women planning vaginal birth.","authors":"Daichi Suzuki, Noyuri Yamaji, Etsuko Nishimura, Hitomi Suzuki, Kazuhiro Ishikawa, Md Obaidur Rahman, Maureen Makama, Joshua P Vogel, Erika Ota","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Maternal sepsis is the third leading cause of maternal mortality globally. However, the risk of maternal sepsis can be reduced by administering antibiotics prophylactically before infection occurs. Previous research has assessed the effects of azithromycin prophylaxis during pregnancy, but evidence is lacking on the effects of other types of antibiotics, and the potential for antimicrobial resistance.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis in women in labour after 28 weeks' gestation on the prevention of maternal and neonatal infections and mortality.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and two trial registries, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify eligible studies. We did not restrict the search by publication type or language. The latest search date was 30 July 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials involving pregnant women in labour after 28 gestational weeks, comparing any antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no treatment. We included trials of women anticipating a vaginal delivery, irrespective of baseline risk factors (unselected, lower-risk, or higher-risk), and without an indication for antibiotic prophylaxis in any care setting. We excluded trials that enroled only women with a planned caesarean section or a known bacterial infection (such as group B Streptococcus), and trials evaluating antibiotics for treatment rather than prevention.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our key outcomes of interest, as presented in the summary of findings table, were: incidence of maternal sepsis, maternal mortality, neonatal sepsis, neonatal mortality, wound infection (perineal), adverse effects of antibiotics, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) to assess the risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We synthesised results for each outcome using random-effects meta-analysis in Review Manager. Meta-analyses were conducted using the inverse-variance method for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. We used a narrative synthesis following the SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) reporting guideline for outcomes that could not be pooled statistically due to heterogeneity or limited data. We summarised key findings from individual studies descriptively and structured by outcome domain. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included four trials with 42,846 participants (21,501 in the intervention groups versus 21,345 in the control groups). All were individually randomised trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Three trials used a single oral dose of azithromycin in the intervention group, while the fourth used a combination of azithromycin and amoxicillin. All four trials used a placebo control.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>We judged three trials to have an overall low risk of bias, and the remaining trial to be at 'some concerns', due to reporting bias. Below, we report on the key outcomes of interest, as presented in the summary of findings table. Compared to placebo, any antibiotic use: • probably reduces maternal sepsis (1.8% in the placebo group versus 1.2% in the antibiotic group; risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.77; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 4 studies, 42,430 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). • likely results in little to no difference in maternal mortality (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.33; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 42,371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). • results in little to no difference in neonatal sepsis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 42,862 participants; high-certainty evidence). • results in little to no difference in neonatal mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 42,678 participants; high-certainty evidence). • results in little to no difference in perineal wound infection (1.5% in the placebo group versus 1.0% in the antibiotic group; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; 1 study, 25,114 participants; high-certainty evidence). • results in little to no difference in NICU admission (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; I² not applicable; 1 study, 29,084 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of antibiotic use on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). One trial showed higher short-term detection of azithromycin-resistant bacteria in some maternal samples, but no persisting differences at 11 to 13 months, while in neonates, AMR was rare (very low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Offering a single oral dose of prophylactic antibiotics to pregnant women in labour after 28 gestational weeks or more probably reduces maternal sepsis. It likely results in little to no difference in maternal mortality, and results in little to no difference in neonatal sepsis, neonatal mortality, perineal wound infection, and NICU admission. Evidence on antimicrobial resistance is very uncertain: short-term increases in resistant organisms were observed in some maternal samples, but no persisting between-group differences were found at 11 to 13 months' follow-up. Implementation should be cautious and accompanied by antimicrobial stewardship and AMR surveillance, and future research should better quantify AMR effects and identify optimal antibiotic strategies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This work was partially funded by UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a co-sponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and partially supported by JST Grant Number JPMJPF2108.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Registration: PROSPERO (2024) CRD42024582129.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"8 ","pages":"CD016211"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12378836/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016211","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Maternal sepsis is the third leading cause of maternal mortality globally. However, the risk of maternal sepsis can be reduced by administering antibiotics prophylactically before infection occurs. Previous research has assessed the effects of azithromycin prophylaxis during pregnancy, but evidence is lacking on the effects of other types of antibiotics, and the potential for antimicrobial resistance.

Objectives: To assess the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis in women in labour after 28 weeks' gestation on the prevention of maternal and neonatal infections and mortality.

Search methods: We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and two trial registries, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify eligible studies. We did not restrict the search by publication type or language. The latest search date was 30 July 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials involving pregnant women in labour after 28 gestational weeks, comparing any antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no treatment. We included trials of women anticipating a vaginal delivery, irrespective of baseline risk factors (unselected, lower-risk, or higher-risk), and without an indication for antibiotic prophylaxis in any care setting. We excluded trials that enroled only women with a planned caesarean section or a known bacterial infection (such as group B Streptococcus), and trials evaluating antibiotics for treatment rather than prevention.

Outcomes: Our key outcomes of interest, as presented in the summary of findings table, were: incidence of maternal sepsis, maternal mortality, neonatal sepsis, neonatal mortality, wound infection (perineal), adverse effects of antibiotics, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission.

Risk of bias: We used the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) to assess the risk of bias.

Synthesis methods: We synthesised results for each outcome using random-effects meta-analysis in Review Manager. Meta-analyses were conducted using the inverse-variance method for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. We used a narrative synthesis following the SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) reporting guideline for outcomes that could not be pooled statistically due to heterogeneity or limited data. We summarised key findings from individual studies descriptively and structured by outcome domain. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

Included studies: We included four trials with 42,846 participants (21,501 in the intervention groups versus 21,345 in the control groups). All were individually randomised trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Three trials used a single oral dose of azithromycin in the intervention group, while the fourth used a combination of azithromycin and amoxicillin. All four trials used a placebo control.

Synthesis of results: We judged three trials to have an overall low risk of bias, and the remaining trial to be at 'some concerns', due to reporting bias. Below, we report on the key outcomes of interest, as presented in the summary of findings table. Compared to placebo, any antibiotic use: • probably reduces maternal sepsis (1.8% in the placebo group versus 1.2% in the antibiotic group; risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.77; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 42,430 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). • likely results in little to no difference in maternal mortality (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.33; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 42,371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). • results in little to no difference in neonatal sepsis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 42,862 participants; high-certainty evidence). • results in little to no difference in neonatal mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 42,678 participants; high-certainty evidence). • results in little to no difference in perineal wound infection (1.5% in the placebo group versus 1.0% in the antibiotic group; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; 1 study, 25,114 participants; high-certainty evidence). • results in little to no difference in NICU admission (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; I² not applicable; 1 study, 29,084 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of antibiotic use on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). One trial showed higher short-term detection of azithromycin-resistant bacteria in some maternal samples, but no persisting differences at 11 to 13 months, while in neonates, AMR was rare (very low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Offering a single oral dose of prophylactic antibiotics to pregnant women in labour after 28 gestational weeks or more probably reduces maternal sepsis. It likely results in little to no difference in maternal mortality, and results in little to no difference in neonatal sepsis, neonatal mortality, perineal wound infection, and NICU admission. Evidence on antimicrobial resistance is very uncertain: short-term increases in resistant organisms were observed in some maternal samples, but no persisting between-group differences were found at 11 to 13 months' follow-up. Implementation should be cautious and accompanied by antimicrobial stewardship and AMR surveillance, and future research should better quantify AMR effects and identify optimal antibiotic strategies.

Funding: This work was partially funded by UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a co-sponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and partially supported by JST Grant Number JPMJPF2108.

Registration: Registration: PROSPERO (2024) CRD42024582129.

分娩期间抗生素预防对计划阴道分娩的妇女产妇和新生儿结局的影响。
关于抗菌素耐药性的证据非常不确定:在一些母体样本中观察到耐药生物的短期增加,但在11至13个月的随访中没有发现持续的组间差异。实施应谨慎,并辅以抗菌药物管理和抗菌素耐药性监测,未来的研究应更好地量化抗菌素耐药性的影响并确定最佳的抗生素策略。经费:这项工作的部分经费由开发计划署/人口基金/儿童基金会/卫生组织/世界银行人类生殖研究、发展和研究培训特别方案提供,这是一个由世界卫生组织(卫生组织)执行的共同赞助方案,部分经费由JST赠款号JPMJPF2108提供。注册号:PROSPERO (2024) CRD42024582129。
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
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信