4.7 Article

Re-evaluating Perinatal Group B Streptococcal screening in Israel - Is it time for a change in policy?

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 153, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106716

Keywords

Group B streptococcus; Group B streptococcal early-onset disease; GBS screening test; GBS colonization; Pregnancy; Universal screening; Prevalence rates

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Universal culture-based screening for Group B Streptococcus (GBS) was found to be more cost-effective and preventive compared to the current risk-based policy in Israel. Due to clinical and economic benefits, a change in policy should be considered.
Group B streptococcal early-onset disease (EOGBSD) is a significant cause of morbidity and fatality in newborns. Current policy in Israel is risk-based management. Our aim was to re-evaluate the current screening policy for Group B Streptococcus (GBS), considering colonization and prevalence rates and costs estimates. This was a retrospective cohort study including term pregnancies between 2015 and 2016 insured by Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS). A costs estimation model was performed comparing three approaches: universal culture-based screening, current policy in Israel and the current clinical scenario. Out of 54,759 pregnancies, 46.3% women undergo GBS culture-based screening. Overall GBS colonization rates in screened women were 21%. Six EOGBSD cases were identified, all offspring of mothers who were not screened. EOGBSD prevalence rate was 11 per 100,000. Universal culture-based screening was found to be 50% less costly than the current risk-based policy, and would have prevented 20.29 per 100,000 cases. Universal GBS culture-based screening was found to be more cost-effective, compared to the current policy and screening behaviors. Due to the clinical and economic benefits, we recommend that a change in policy should be considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available