Adherence to universal screening for group B Streptococcus in pregnancy and prevalence of colonised pregnancies in Caserta province, Italy.

Le infezioni in medicina Pub Date : 2024-06-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.53854/liim-3202-9
Salvatore Porzio, Maurizio Bianchi
{"title":"Adherence to universal screening for group B Streptococcus in pregnancy and prevalence of colonised pregnancies in Caserta province, Italy.","authors":"Salvatore Porzio, Maurizio Bianchi","doi":"10.53854/liim-3202-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Group B Streptococcus (<i>Streptococcus agalactiae</i>; GBS) infection is a significant contributor to neonatal morbidity and mortality. In the early 1970s, the neonatal mortality rate for infants with invasive GBS disease was 55%. With the adoption of the first medical community guidelines to prevent GBS infection in the 1990s, the mortality rate decreased to approximately 5%. The main obstetric procedure for preventing vertical transmission of GBS infection involves universal screening of pregnant women using a vaginal-rectal swab (VRS) to identify those eligible for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP). The study analyzes the adherence of screening and the trend of GBS infection in pregnancy in the province of Caserta, Italy. Data were obtained from pregnant women who gave birth in a first level birthing center in 2022 from birth assistance certificate (CEDAP), obstetric and neonatal record. Postnatal evaluation collected through computer-assisted telephone interviews. 567 women delivered at our center during the study period. The average coverage of GBS testing in pregnancy was 99.2% (562), and the proportion of GBS colonised women was 12.6% (71) according with the national average, which is about 10-20%. The spread of positive cases appears to fluctuate among the various groups of pregnant women studied, indicating no significant statistical variance among presence of a partner, among women who have given birth multiple times, among Italian nationals, or across different ages, but a significant statistical excess is evident among mothers with less education. In 93% (66) of GBS carrier mothers, intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) was administered correctly, regardless of the type of delivery performed. Despite the successful integration of GBS screening, a significant gap remains between the ideal scenario and the actual implementation of IAP. At the three-month assessment, no child required hospitalization, consistent with the relatively low incidence of invasive GBS infection. Nevertheless, for those who are not eligible to VRS screening, such as preterm birth, or IAP, as in precipitous birth, the identification of biomarkers enabling early recognition of invasive GBS disease remains essential. Additionally, the emergence of vaccines administered during gestation, conferring passive immunity to newborns represents a promising possible new direction. Therefore, to ensure the practical application of GBS screening and actual IAP by healthcare providers, periodic audits and regular monitoring should be encouraged.</p>","PeriodicalId":502111,"journal":{"name":"Le infezioni in medicina","volume":"32 2","pages":"213-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11142412/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Le infezioni in medicina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53854/liim-3202-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Group B Streptococcus (Streptococcus agalactiae; GBS) infection is a significant contributor to neonatal morbidity and mortality. In the early 1970s, the neonatal mortality rate for infants with invasive GBS disease was 55%. With the adoption of the first medical community guidelines to prevent GBS infection in the 1990s, the mortality rate decreased to approximately 5%. The main obstetric procedure for preventing vertical transmission of GBS infection involves universal screening of pregnant women using a vaginal-rectal swab (VRS) to identify those eligible for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP). The study analyzes the adherence of screening and the trend of GBS infection in pregnancy in the province of Caserta, Italy. Data were obtained from pregnant women who gave birth in a first level birthing center in 2022 from birth assistance certificate (CEDAP), obstetric and neonatal record. Postnatal evaluation collected through computer-assisted telephone interviews. 567 women delivered at our center during the study period. The average coverage of GBS testing in pregnancy was 99.2% (562), and the proportion of GBS colonised women was 12.6% (71) according with the national average, which is about 10-20%. The spread of positive cases appears to fluctuate among the various groups of pregnant women studied, indicating no significant statistical variance among presence of a partner, among women who have given birth multiple times, among Italian nationals, or across different ages, but a significant statistical excess is evident among mothers with less education. In 93% (66) of GBS carrier mothers, intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) was administered correctly, regardless of the type of delivery performed. Despite the successful integration of GBS screening, a significant gap remains between the ideal scenario and the actual implementation of IAP. At the three-month assessment, no child required hospitalization, consistent with the relatively low incidence of invasive GBS infection. Nevertheless, for those who are not eligible to VRS screening, such as preterm birth, or IAP, as in precipitous birth, the identification of biomarkers enabling early recognition of invasive GBS disease remains essential. Additionally, the emergence of vaccines administered during gestation, conferring passive immunity to newborns represents a promising possible new direction. Therefore, to ensure the practical application of GBS screening and actual IAP by healthcare providers, periodic audits and regular monitoring should be encouraged.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
意大利卡塞塔省妊娠期 B 群链球菌普遍筛查的坚持率和菌落感染妊娠的流行率。
B 组链球菌(无乳链球菌;GBS)感染是导致新生儿发病和死亡的一个重要因素。20 世纪 70 年代初,患有侵袭性 GBS 疾病的新生儿死亡率高达 55%。随着 20 世纪 90 年代医学界首次采用预防 GBS 感染的指导方针,死亡率下降到约 5%。预防 GBS 垂直传播的主要产科程序包括使用阴道直肠拭子(VRS)对孕妇进行普遍筛查,以确定符合产前抗生素预防(IAP)条件的孕妇。该研究分析了意大利卡塞塔省孕妇筛查的坚持率和妊娠期 GBS 感染的趋势。数据来自 2022 年在一级分娩中心分娩的孕妇,数据来自助产证明(CEDAP)、产科和新生儿记录。产后评估通过计算机辅助电话采访收集。研究期间有 567 名产妇在本中心分娩。妊娠期 GBS 检测的平均覆盖率为 99.2%(562 例),GBS 定植妇女的比例为 12.6%(71 例),而全国平均水平约为 10-20%。阳性病例的分布似乎在所研究的不同孕妇群体中波动,表明在有无伴侣、多次分娩的妇女、意大利国民或不同年龄之间,没有明显的统计差异,但在受教育程度较低的母亲中,则明显有明显的统计差异。在 93% (66 位)的 GBS 携带者母亲中,无论采用哪种分娩方式,产前抗生素预防(IAP)都得到了正确使用。尽管成功纳入了 GBS 筛查,但理想情况与实际实施 IAP 之间仍存在很大差距。在为期三个月的评估中,没有儿童需要住院治疗,这与侵入性 GBS 感染发生率相对较低是一致的。然而,对于那些不符合 VRS 筛查条件的新生儿(如早产儿)或 IAP(如猝死新生儿)来说,识别生物标记物以便早期识别侵袭性 GBS 疾病仍然至关重要。此外,在妊娠期间接种疫苗,使新生儿获得被动免疫,也是一个很有希望的新方向。因此,为确保医疗服务提供者实际应用 GBS 筛查和实际 IAP,应鼓励进行定期审核和定期监测。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical and epidemiological aspects of spondylodiscitis in a tertiary care hospital in South India. Evaluation of a training program on hand hygiene for healthcare workers in a second-level hospital in southern Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF): present and future therapeutic armamentarium. Infectious disease outbreaks in the wake of natural flood disasters: global patterns and local implications. Leprosy with subsequent type 2 reaction masquerading as cutaneous tuberculosis: a case report and diagnostic pitfalls in a non-endemic area.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1