Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in
  • Log out
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
At the Bedside

Prevention of group B streptococcal infection in newborns: Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
CMAJ April 02, 2002 166 (7) 928-930;
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Recommendations
  • There is fair evidence (level II-1 and II-2) that universal screening for group B streptococcal (GBS) colonization at 35–37 weeks' gestation followed by selective intrapartum chemoprophylaxis (IPC) given to colonized women who have risk factors reduces the incidence of colonization and early-onset infection in neonates. This appears to be the most efficient strategy (grade B recommendation).

  • There is fair evidence (level II-2) that universal screening for GBS colonization at 35–37 weeks' gestation followed by IPC of all colonized women reduces the incidence of colonization in neonates and prevents early-onset neonatal infection, but this strategy is associated with a much larger proportion of women being treated (grade B recommendation).

  • There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of IPC given on the basis of risk factors alone (grade C recommendation).

Two forms of group B streptococcal (GBS) infection — early onset and late onset — in infants are well recognized, and the distinctions between them are described in Table 1. Risk factors for GBS infection in general include (a) preterm labour (< 37 weeks' gestation), (b) prolonged rupture of membranes (≥ 18 hours), (c) maternal fever (temperature ≥ 38.0°C), (d) GBS bacteriuria during pregnancy and (e) previous delivery of a newborn with GBS infection regardless of current maternal GBS colonization status. In the absence of intrapartum chemoprophylaxis (IPC), colonization will occur in about 40%–50% of infants of mothers who are GBS positive on screening. IPC is effective in reducing the incidence of colonization by 80%–90%. In the absence of treatment, early-onset infection will develop in a small but important proportion of infants of colonized mothers.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 1.

Preventive strategies

• Universal screening of pregnant women for GBS colonization followed by selective IPC given to colonized women with risk factors

• Universal screening of pregnant women for GBS colonization followed by IPC given to all colonized women

• IPC given on the basis of risk factors only

Potential benefits

• Prevention of GBS colonization and early-onset infection in neonates

Potential harms

• Increased incidence of GBS strains resistant to erythromycin (reported rates ranging from 3.2% to 16.0%) and clindamycin (reported rates ranging from 2.5% to 15%)9,10,11

• Increased incidence of neonatal sepsis due to ampicillin-resistant organisms other than GBS (possibly related to widespread use of antepartum and intrapartum antibiotics)12,13

Recommendations by others

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada,14 the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)15 and the American Academy of Pediatrics16 have published guidelines regarding the prevention of perinatal GBS infection. They recommend either of 2 strategies: universal screening at 35–37 weeks' gestation and offer of IPC to colonized women, or offer of IPC on the basis of maternal risk factors. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists17 and the CDC recommend that individual obstetricians choose one of these 2 strategies to establish consistent management of patients. No intervention will be able to prevent all cases of early-onset GBS infection in neonates.

Evidence and clinical summary
  • There is no direct evidence regarding the effectiveness of screening for GBS colonization in pregnant women as no study to date has compared the outcomes of screened and unscreened women.

  • None of the randomized clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of universal screening for GBS colonization followed by selective IPC given to colonized women with risk factors18 or of universal screening for GBS colonization followed by IPC given to all colonized women19,20 has shown a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of early-onset neonatal infection. Although they show a trend toward reduction, none of these studies had enough power to show a significant difference in incidence of early-onset neonatal infection between the treatment and control groups (possible type II error). There is evidence that both strategies reduce neonatal colonization.

  • There is cumulative evidence from cohort studies that either universal screening followed by selective IPC given to colonized women with risk factors21,22,23 or universal screening followed by IPC given to all colonized women24,25 is effective in preventing early-onset GBS infection in neonates. The efficacy of IPC given on the basis of risk factors alone has not been tested.

  • Two to 3 women need to be treated with IPC to prevent 1 case of neonatal colonization with either the universal or selective IPC strategies. To prevent 1 case of early-onset neonatal infection, 6 colonized women with risk factors (95% confidence interval [CI] 4–10) need to be treated with selective IPC. In comparison, evidence from 2 studies indicates that 16 colonized women (95% CI 9–84)24 and 2059 colonized women (95% CI 1062–32 968)25 need to be treated to prevent 1 case of early-onset infection if IPC is administered to all colonized women (the rates of early-onset infection in the control groups were 7% and 0.1% respectively). (In view of statistically significant heterogeneity [p = 0.0062], the results of the 2 studies were not combined.) Thus, a much larger proportion of pregnant women will receive antibiotics if universal screening for GBS colonization and IPC is adopted as a preventive strategy than if universal screening and selective IPC given on the basis of risk factors is adopted. The point estimates for effectiveness for the different strategies have likely been overestimated because of poor study quality, including heterogeneity.

  • Collection by swab of antenatal specimens (from lower vagina and rectum) for culture should occur at 35–37 weeks' gestation. Specimens should be inoculated into selective broth medium, followed by overnight incubation, and then subcultured onto solid blood agar medium.

  • Adequate IPC consists of at least 1 dose of penicillin (5 million units) given intravenously at least 4 hours before birth. If labour continues beyond 4hours, penicillin (2.5 million units) should be administered every 4 hours until delivery. Intravenous administration of clindamycin (900 mg every 8 hours) or erythromycin (500 mg every 6 hours) until delivery is recommended for women allergic to penicillin.

  • With the emerging resistance to erythromycin and clindamycin among GBS strains, the currently recommended antibiotic therapy in cases of penicillin allergy may need modification. The increased use of antibiotics in the perinatal period may lead to an increased incidence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics that are currently used as initial therapy for suspected perinatal infections.

Footnotes

  • The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is an independent panel funded through a partnership of the federal and provincial/territorial governments of Canada.

    This statement is based on the technical report: “Prevention of early-onset group B streptococcal (GBS) infection in the newborn: systematic review and recommendations,” by V. Shah and A. Ohlsson, with the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. The full technical report is available online (www.ctfphc.org) or from the task force office (ctf{at}ctfphc.org).

    Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

References

  1. 1.
    Baker CJ, Edwards MS. Group B streptococcal infections. In: Remington J, Klein JO, editors. Infectious disease of the fetus and newborn infant. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders. 1995. p. 980-1054.
  2. 2.
    Davies HD, Raj S, Adair C, Robinson J, McGeer A, Group TA. Population-based active surveillance for neoantal group B streptococcal infections in Alberta: implications for vaccine formulation. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001;20:879-84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    Regan JA, Klebanoff MA, Nugent RP, Eschenbach DA, Blackwelder WC, Lou Y, et al. Colonization with group B streptococci in pregnancy and adverse outcome. VIP Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1354-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    Zangwill KM, Schuchat A, Wenger JD. Group B streptococcal disease in the United States, 1990: report from a multistate active surveillance system. Mor Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ 1992;41:25-32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.
    Goldenberg E, Davies HD, Landry L, the Toronto GBS study group. Hospital prevention policies and the incidence of early onset neonatal group B streptococcal disease [abstract no 1879]. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1998 Sept 24-28; San Diego.
  6. 6.
    Scharg SJ, Zywicki S, Farley MM, Reingold AL, Harrison LH, Lefkowitz LB, et al. Group B streptococcal disease in the era of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. N Engl J Med 2000;342:15-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    Dillon HC Jr, Khare S, Gray BM. Group B streptococcal carriage and disease: a 6-year prospective study. J Pediatr 1987;110:31-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    Noya FJ, Rench MA, Metzger TG, Colman G, Naidoo J, Baker CJ. Unusual occurrence of an epidemic of type Ib/c group B streptococcal sepsis in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Infect Dis 1987;155:1135-44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Berkowitz K, Regan JA, Greenberg E. Antibioitic resistance patterns of group B streptococci in pregnant women. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:5-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Fernandez M, Hickman ME, Baker CJ. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of group B streptococci isolated between 1992 and 1996 from patients with bacteremia or meningitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998;42:1517-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Pearlman MD, Pierson CL, Faix RG. Frequent resistance of clinical group B streptococci isolates to clindamycin and erythromycin. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:258-61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Towers CV, Carr MH, Padilla G, Asrat T. Potential consequences of widespread antepartal use of ampicillin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:879-83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Mercer BM, Carr TL, Beazley DD, Crouse DT, Sibai BM. Antibiotic use in pregnancy and drug-resistant infant sepsis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 816-21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Statement on the prevention of early-onset group B streptococcal infections in the newborn. J Soc Obstet Gynaecol 1997;19:751-8.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease: a public health perspective. MMWR Recomm Rep 1996;45(RR-7):1-24.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Infectious Diseases and Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Revised guidelines for prevention of early-onset group B streptococcal (GBS) infection. Pediatrics 1997;99:489-96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Group B streptococcal infections in pregnancy: ACOG's recommendations. ACOG Newsl 1993;37:1.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Boyer KM, Gotoff SP. Prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcus disease with selective intrapartum chemoprophylaxis. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1665-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Tuppurainen N, Hallman M. Prevention of neonatal group B streptococcal disease: intrapartum detection and chemoprophylaxis of heavily colonized parturients. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:583-7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Matorras R, Garcia-Perea A, Omenaca F, Diez-Enciso M, Madero R, Usandizaga JA. Intrapartum chemoprophylaxis of early-onset group B streptococcal disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991;40:57-62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Morales WJ, Lim D. Reduction of group B streptococcal maternal and neonatal infections in preterm pregnancies with premature rupture of membranes through a rapid identification test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:13-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Pylipow M, Gaddis M, Kinney JS. Selective intrapartum prophylaxis for group B streptococcus colonization: management and outcomes of newborns. Pediatrics 1994;93:631-5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Gibbs RS, McDuffie RS Jr, McNabb F, Fryer GE, Miyoshi T, Merenstein G. Neonatal group B streptococcal sepsis during 2 years of a universal screening program. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:496-500.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Allardice JG, Baskett TF, Seshia MM, Bowman N, Malazdrewicz R. Perinatal group B streptococcal colonization and infection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;142:617-20.
  25. 25.↵
    Garland SM, Fliegner JR. Group B streptococcus (GBS) and neonatal infections: the case for intrapartum chemoprophylaxis. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol 1991;31:119-22.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 166, Issue 7
2 Apr 2002
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prevention of group B streptococcal infection in newborns: Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
Citation Tools
Prevention of group B streptococcal infection in newborns: Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
CMAJ Apr 2002, 166 (7) 928-930;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Prevention of group B streptococcal infection in newborns: Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
CMAJ Apr 2002, 166 (7) 928-930;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Preventive strategies
    • Potential benefits
    • Potential harms
    • Recommendations by others
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Universal antenatal screening for group B streptococcus may cause more harm than good
  • Rapid Tests for Group B Streptococcus Colonization in Laboring Women: A Systematic Review
  • New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
  • Group B streptococcal infection risk factors
  • Group B streptococcal infection risk factors
  • Debate over group B streptococcal recommendations
  • Debate over group B streptococcal recommendations
  • Scopus (18)
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Serotonin syndrome: a brief review
  • “Palm reading”: 2. Handheld software for physicians
  • Out of the cold: management of hypothermia and frostbite
Show more At the Bedside

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Sections
    • Guidelines
  • Topics
    • Maternal-fetal medicine
    • Infectious diseases

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • CMA Members
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact

Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire