Journals Library

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue:{{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://dx.doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of prenatal strategies for preventing group B streptococci (GBS) and other serious bacterial infections in early infancy and to establish the expected value of further information.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to March 2006. Expert opinion was also sought.

REVIEW METHODS

Twelve mutually exclusive maternal risk groups were defined at presentation in labour and the consequences considered of early-onset GBS and non-GBS bacterial infections and late onset GBS infection, measured in terms of lifetime NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). These were for preterm delivery (<37 weeks): (1) planned Caesarean section, (2) previous baby with GBS disease, (3) positive urine or vaginal swab for GBS in current pregnancy, (4) fever >or=38 degrees C during labour, (5) membrane rupture >or=2 hours before labour onset, (6) membrane rupture <2 hours before labour onset. For term delivery (>or=37 weeks): (7) planned Caesarean section, (8) previous baby with GBS disease, (9) positive urine or vaginal swab for GBS in current pregnancy, (10) fever >or=38 degrees C during labour, (11) membrane rupture >or=18 hours, and (12) none of the above risk factors. Fourteen intervention strategies were applied to each maternal risk group. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews, primary data and expert opinion. The model parameters were simultaneously estimated from the data inputs using Bayesian evidence synthesis. The expected net benefit was calculated relative to no intervention for each intervention within each risk group for two scenarios, with and without vaccination. Interventions with more than a 1% probability of being cost-effective (i.e. maximising net benefit at a threshold of 25,000 pounds per QALY gained) in a specific risk group were combined to form strategies. To limit antibiotic exposure, women who were low risk at presentation could not be treated without a positive culture or polymerase chain reaction result.

RESULTS

Current best practice, comprising intravenous treatment for pyrexia, previous GBS baby and previous GBS swab or urine culture, and oral treatment for preterm pre-labour membrane rupture (groups 2-5 and 8-10) was not cost-effective. All cost-effective options involved treatment of all preterm groups and high-risk term groups (groups 8-10). Testing high-risk women for maternal GBS colonisation would not be cost-effective, as even those with negative results would be better off treated to reduce the risk of early-onset non-GBS infection. In the absence of vaccination, culture-based testing of women in groups 11 and 12, combined with treatment for the rest, would be the most cost-effective strategy. If vaccination was available, vaccination for all and treatment for groups 1-10 would be marginally more cost-effective than treatment for groups 1-10 and culture for groups 11 and 12, but this is uncertain and is based on expert opinion on vaccine efficacy. The expected value of perfect information results suggest that moderate investment in research would be worthwhile.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, immediate extension of current practice to treat all preterm and high-risk term groups would be beneficial. Further research aimed at the realisation of a GBS vaccine should be prioritized.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of prenatal strategies for preventing group B streptococci (GBS) and other serious bacterial infections in early infancy and to establish the expected value of further information.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to March 2006. Expert opinion was also sought.

REVIEW METHODS

Twelve mutually exclusive maternal risk groups were defined at presentation in labour and the consequences considered of early-onset GBS and non-GBS bacterial infections and late onset GBS infection, measured in terms of lifetime NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). These were for preterm delivery (<37 weeks): (1) planned Caesarean section, (2) previous baby with GBS disease, (3) positive urine or vaginal swab for GBS in current pregnancy, (4) fever >or=38 degrees C during labour, (5) membrane rupture >or=2 hours before labour onset, (6) membrane rupture <2 hours before labour onset. For term delivery (>or=37 weeks): (7) planned Caesarean section, (8) previous baby with GBS disease, (9) positive urine or vaginal swab for GBS in current pregnancy, (10) fever >or=38 degrees C during labour, (11) membrane rupture >or=18 hours, and (12) none of the above risk factors. Fourteen intervention strategies were applied to each maternal risk group. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews, primary data and expert opinion. The model parameters were simultaneously estimated from the data inputs using Bayesian evidence synthesis. The expected net benefit was calculated relative to no intervention for each intervention within each risk group for two scenarios, with and without vaccination. Interventions with more than a 1% probability of being cost-effective (i.e. maximising net benefit at a threshold of 25,000 pounds per QALY gained) in a specific risk group were combined to form strategies. To limit antibiotic exposure, women who were low risk at presentation could not be treated without a positive culture or polymerase chain reaction result.

RESULTS

Current best practice, comprising intravenous treatment for pyrexia, previous GBS baby and previous GBS swab or urine culture, and oral treatment for preterm pre-labour membrane rupture (groups 2-5 and 8-10) was not cost-effective. All cost-effective options involved treatment of all preterm groups and high-risk term groups (groups 8-10). Testing high-risk women for maternal GBS colonisation would not be cost-effective, as even those with negative results would be better off treated to reduce the risk of early-onset non-GBS infection. In the absence of vaccination, culture-based testing of women in groups 11 and 12, combined with treatment for the rest, would be the most cost-effective strategy. If vaccination was available, vaccination for all and treatment for groups 1-10 would be marginally more cost-effective than treatment for groups 1-10 and culture for groups 11 and 12, but this is uncertain and is based on expert opinion on vaccine efficacy. The expected value of perfect information results suggest that moderate investment in research would be worthwhile.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, immediate extension of current practice to treat all preterm and high-risk term groups would be beneficial. Further research aimed at the realisation of a GBS vaccine should be prioritized.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

 

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions