Group B Streptococci Screening Before Repeat Cesarean Delivery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation

Background

Health economic assessments are used to determine whether the resources needed to generate net benefit from an antenatal or newborn screening programme, driven by multiple benefits and harms, are justifiable. It is not known what benefits and harms have been adopted by economic evaluations assessing these programmes and whether they omit benefits and harms considered important to relevant stakeholders.

Objectives

(1) To identify the benefits and harms adopted by health economic assessments in this area, and to assess how they have been measured and valued; (2) to identify attributes or relevance to stakeholders that ought to be considered in future economic assessments; and (3) to make recommendations about the benefits and harms that should be considered by these studies.

Design

Mixed methods combining systematic review and qualitative work.

Systematic review methods

We searched the published and grey literature from January 2000 to January 2021 using all major electronic databases. Economic evaluations of an antenatal or newborn screening programme in one or more Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries were considered eligible. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. We identified benefits and harms using an integrative descriptive analysis and constructed a thematic framework.

Qualitative methods

We conducted a meta-ethnography of the existing literature on newborn screening experiences, a secondary analysis of existing individual interviews related to antenatal or newborn screening or living with screened-for conditions, and a thematic analysis of primary data collected with stakeholders about their experiences with screening.

Results

The literature searches identified 52,244 articles and reports, and 336 unique studies were included. Thematic framework resulted in seven themes: (1) diagnosis of screened for condition, (2) life-years and health status adjustments, (3) treatment, (4) long-term costs, (5) overdiagnosis, (6) pregnancy loss and (7) spillover effects on family members. Diagnosis of screened-for condition (115, 47.5%), life-years and health status adjustments (90, 37.2%) and treatment (88, 36.4%) accounted for most of the benefits and harms evaluating antenatal screening. The same themes accounted for most of the benefits and harms included in studies assessing newborn screening. Long-term costs, overdiagnosis and spillover effects tended to be ignored. The wide-reaching family implications of screening were considered important to stakeholders. We observed good overlap between the thematic framework and the qualitative evidence.

Limitations

Dual data extraction within the systematic literature review was not feasible due to the large number of studies included. It was difficult to recruit healthcare professionals in the stakeholder's interviews.

Conclusions

There is no consistency in the selection of benefits and harms used in health economic assessments in this area, suggesting that additional methods guidance is needed. Our proposed thematic framework can be used to guide the development of future health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165236.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127489) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Maternal Group B Streptococcus Prophylaxis Improvement using an Electronic Medical Record Dynamic Order Set

OBJECTIVE

 To develop and implement a Group B Streptococcal (GBS) dynamic order set to improve adherence to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ACOG/CDC) guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

 A team of information technology and clinical experts developed a dynamic order block. The content was patterned after the CDC "Prevent GBS" mobile app. It was then embedded in the labor and delivery/induction order set and piloted at a single high-volume obstetric unit. Following the pilot and incorporation of the 2019 ACOG update of the CDC guidelines, the order set was rolled out in five additional hospitals within a region of a large health system. Information on GBS prophylaxis performance before and after implementation was available for the pilot site and four of the additional hospitals. Information before implementation was obtained electronically from electronic medical record (EMR) laboratory and pharmacy data and supplemented by manual chart review. Postimplementation data were obtained from discrete order set EMR data elements. Adherence to the guidelines before and after were compared using chi-squared test.

RESULTS

 There were 7,114 deliveries before implementation and 4,502 after implementation. Preterm delivery occurred in 6.8 and 6.9%, respectively. There was an increase in appropriate treatment of preterm patients (positive and unknown GBS) delivering after implementation (88.7-99.1%, p < 0.001). More patients were reported to have a penicillin allergy before implementation than after implementation (14.7 vs. 11.1%, respectively, p = 0.01). Associated changes in therapy noted after implementation included a nonsignificant decrease in the proportion reporting a high-risk allergy (50.3 vs. 41.9%, p = 0.18), an increase in the appropriate use of clindamycin and vancomycin (64.4 vs. 92.3%, p < 0.001) and a decrease in clindamycin use in those without sensitivity testing.

CONCLUSION

 Routine universal use of a dynamic admission labor/induction order set was associated with high and improved adherence to GBS prophylaxis guidelines.

KEY POINTS

· Lapses in GBS prophylaxis are associated with early-onset GBS disease.. · Preterm delivery and penicillin allergic patients are commonly associated with lapses in prophylaxis.. · Dynamic EMR order set use can improve adherence to clinical guidelines..

Group B Streptococcus and Pregnancy: Critical Concepts and Management Nuances

Importance

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is a common pathogen with an effective treatment. However, it remains a significant cause of neonatal sepsis, morbidity, and mortality. The screening and management of this infection are some of the first concepts learned during medical training in obstetrics. However, effective screening and evidence-based management of GBS are nuanced with many critical caveats.

Objective

The objectives of this review are to discuss the essential aspects of GBS screening and management and to highlight recent changes to recommendations and guidelines.

Evidence Acquisition

Original research articles, review articles, and guidelines on GBS were reviewed.

Results

The following recommendations are based on review of the evidence and professional society guidelines. Screening for GBS should occur between 36 weeks and the end of the 37th week. The culture swab should go 2 cm into the vagina and 1 cm into the anus. Patients can perform their own swabs as well. Penicillin allergy testing has been shown to be safe in pregnancy. Patients with GBS in the urine should be treated at term with antibiotic prophylaxis, independent of the colony count of the culture. Patients who are GBS-positive with preterm and prelabor rupture of membranes after 34 weeks are not candidates for expectant management, as this population has higher rates of neonatal infectious complications. Patients with a history of GBS colonization in prior pregnancy who are GBS-unknown in this current pregnancy and present with labor should receive intrapartum prophylaxis. Work on the GBS vaccine continues.

Conclusions

Although all of the efforts and focus on neonatal early-onset GBS infection have led to lower rates of disease, GBS still remains a major cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality requiring continued vigilance from obstetric providers.

Prevalence of group B streptococcus colonization in Iranian pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is an important pathogen in newborns and pregnant women.

Objective

The present study was carried out to estimate the prevalence of GBS colonization in pregnant women in Iran.

Materials and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guideline using the national databases including Society for Information Display, Magiran, Irandoc, Iran Medex, and international databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Science-Direct, Cochrane, Embase, Elton Bryson Stephens Company, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Google Scholar, published by 01/30/2017. The I2 index was used to measure heterogeneity between the studies.

Results

In a total of 667 documents, 30 (4.49%) were selected. In this study, the prevalence of GBS colonization in 10090 Iranian pregnant women was calculated as 13.65% [confidence interval (CI): 95%: 10.56–17.45]. Based on geographic region, 24.63% [CI: 95%: 11.52–45.06] in the West and 8.75% [CI: 95%: 6.43–11.8] in the East were the highest and lowest areas in Iran, respectively, and were statistically significant (p = 0.001). Also, with regards to swapping sampling area, Vaginal with 11.96%, Vaginal and Rectal with 13.62%, and Anal and Vaginal with 25.63% were the least to the greatest, respectively, and were statistically significant (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Therefore, based on the recommendation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as reported by the Ministry of Health and Medical education, early diagnosis, and screening of high-risk women should be done at 35–37 weeks of pregnancy.

Assessing the value of screening tools: reviewing the challenges and opportunities of cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Screening is an important part of preventive medicine. Ideally, screening tools identify patients early enough to provide treatment and avoid or reduce symptoms and other consequences, improving health outcomes of the population at a reasonable cost. Cost-effectiveness analyses combine the expected benefits and costs of interventions and can be used to assess the value of screening tools.

Objective

This review seeks to evaluate the latest cost-effectiveness analyses on screening tools to identify the current challenges encountered and potential methods to overcome them.

Methods

A systematic literature search of EMBASE and MEDLINE identified cost-effectiveness analyses of screening tools published in 2017. Data extracted included the population, disease, screening tools, comparators, perspective, time horizon, discounting, and outcomes. Challenges and methodological suggestions were narratively synthesized.

Results

Four key categories were identified: screening pathways, pre-symptomatic disease, treatment outcomes, and non-health benefits. Not all studies included treatment outcomes; 15 studies (22%) did not include treatment following diagnosis. Quality-adjusted life years were used by 35 (51.4%) as the main outcome. Studies that undertook a societal perspective did not report non-health benefits and costs consistently. Two important challenges identified were (i) estimating the sojourn time, i.e., the time between when a patient can be identified by screening tests and when they would have been identified due to symptoms, and (ii) estimating the treatment effect and progression rates of patients identified early.

Conclusions

To capture all important costs and outcomes of a screening tool, screening pathways should be modeled including patient treatment. Also, false positive and false negative patients are likely to have important costs and consequences and should be included in the analysis. As these patients are difficult to identify in regular data sources, common treatment patterns should be used to determine how these patients are likely to be treated. It is important that assumptions are clearly indicated and that the consequences of these assumptions are tested in sensitivity analyses, particularly the assumptions of independence of consecutive tests and the level of patient and provider compliance to guidelines and sojourn times. As data is rarely available regarding the progression of undiagnosed patients, extrapolation from diagnosed patients may be necessary.