34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adverse events in women and children who have received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis treatment: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) are poorly documented yet essential to inform clinical practice for neonatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease prevention. In this systematic review, we appraised and synthesised the evidence on the adverse events of IAP in the mother and/or her child.

          Methods

          We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Science Citation Index from date of inception until October 16th 2016. Reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched. We included primary studies in English that reported any adverse events from intrapartum antibiotics for any prophylactic purpose compared to controls. The search was not restricted to prophylaxis for GBS but excluded women with symptoms of infection or undergoing caesarean section. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of studies, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomised Studies. Results were synthesised narratively and displayed in text and tables.

          Results

          From 2364 unique records, 30 studies were included. Despite a wide range of adverse events reported in 17 observational studies and 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence was inconsistent and at high risk of bias. Only one RCT investigated the long-term effects of IAP reporting potentially serious outcomes such as cerebral palsy; however, it had limited applicability and unclear biological plausibility. Seven observational studies showed that IAP for maternal GBS colonisation alters the infant microbiome. However, study populations were not followed through to clinical outcomes, therefore clinical significance is unknown. There was also observational evidence for increased antimicrobial resistance, however studies were at high or unclear risk of bias.

          Conclusions

          The evidence base to determine the frequency of adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for neonatal GBS disease prevention is limited. As RCTs may not be possible, large, better quality, and longitudinal observational studies across countries with widespread IAP could fill this gap.

          Trial registration

          CRD42016037195.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1432-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity.

          To develop and validate a new risk-of-bias tool for nonrandomized studies (NRSs). We developed the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS). A validation process with 39 NRSs examined the reliability (interrater agreement), validity (the degree of correlation between the overall assessments of RoBANS and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies [MINORS], obtained by plotting the overall risk of bias relative to effect size and funding source), face validity with eight experts, and completion time for the RoBANS approach. RoBANS contains six domains: the selection of participants, confounding variables, the measurement of exposure, the blinding of the outcome assessments, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. The interrater agreement of the RoBANS tool except the measurement of exposure and selective outcome reporting domains ranged from fair to substantial. There was a moderate correlation between the overall risks of bias determined using RoBANS and MINORS. The observed differences in effect sizes and funding sources among the assessed studies were not correlated with the overall risk of bias in these studies. The mean time required to complete RoBANS was approximately 10 min. The external experts who were interviewed evaluated RoBANS as a "fair" assessment tool. RoBANS shows moderate reliability, promising feasibility, and validity. The further refinement of this tool and larger validation studies are required. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intestinal microbiota development in preterm neonates and effect of perinatal antibiotics.

            To assess the establishment of the intestinal microbiota in very low birthweight preterm infants and to evaluate the impact of perinatal factors, such as delivery mode and perinatal antibiotics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An overview of global GBS epidemiology.

              Streptococcus agalactiae (group B streptococcus (GBS)), remains the leading cause of neonatal sepsis and meningitis in many countries and an important cause of disease in pregnant women, immunocompromised adults and the elderly. Intrapartum antibiotic strategies have reduced the incidence of early-onset neonatal GBS where applied, but have had no impact on late onset GBS infection and only a limited impact on disease in pregnant women. In low/middle income settings, the disease burden remains uncertain although in several countries of Southern Africa appears comparable to that of high-income countries. Disease may be rapidly fulminating and cases therefore missed before appropriate samples are obtained. This may lead to significant underestimation of the true burden and be a particular issue in many African and Asian countries; comprehensive epidemiological data from such countries are urgently required. The available data suggest that the serotype distribution of GBS isolates is similar in Africa, Western Pacific, Europe, the Americas and the Eastern Mediterranean regions and has not changed over the past 30 years. Five serotypes (Ia, Ib, II, III, V) account for the majority of disease; conjugate vaccines including some or all of these serotypes therefore hold great promise for preventing this important disease. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                f.seedat@warwick.ac.uk
                C.Stinton@warwick.ac.uk
                jacobyvpatterson@gmail.com
                J.Geppert@warwick.ac.uk
                B.K.Tan@warwick.ac.uk
                esther.robinson@phe.gov.uk
                N.D.McCarthy@warwick.ac.uk
                olalekan.uthman@warwick.ac.uk
                K.Freeman@warwick.ac.uk
                Samantha.A.Johnson@warwick.ac.uk
                H.Fraser@warwick.ac.uk
                Colin.Brown@phe.gov.uk
                Aileen.Clarke@warwick.ac.uk
                +44(0) 2476 575882 , S.Taylor-Phillips@warwick.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
                BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
                BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2393
                26 July 2017
                26 July 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 247
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8809 1613, GRID grid.7372.1, Division of Health Sciences, , University of Warwick Medical School, ; Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry, CV4 7AL UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0376 5981, GRID grid.415924.f, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, , Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, ; Birmingham, B9 5SS UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0399 7344, GRID grid.413964.d, Birmingham Public Health Laboratory (PHE), , Heartlands Hospital, ; Birmingham, B9 5SS UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2196 8713, GRID grid.9004.d, Bacteria Reference Department, National Infection Service, , Public Health England, ; 61 Colindale Ave, London, NW95EQ UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1841-4346
                Article
                1432
                10.1186/s12884-017-1432-3
                5530570
                28747160
                f0be19d5-a370-48c4-9a52-a4512840ac45
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 28 February 2017
                : 18 July 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: UK National Screening Committee
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                streptococcus agalactiae,group b streptococcus,intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis,adverse events,harms,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article