POSTSCRIPT

Group B streptococcus and preventive strategies in Europe

A Berardi^1,2,3,4, L Lugli^1,2,3,4, C Rossi^1,2,3,4, M S Morini^1,2,3,4, F Vagnarelli^1,2,3,4, F Ferrari^1,2,3,4

¹ Unitè Operativa di Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico di Modena, Italy
² Unitè Operativa di Pediatria, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico di Modena, Italy
³ Unitè Operativa di Pediatria, Ospedale Pierantoni, Forlì, Italy
⁴ Unitè Operativa di Neonatologia, Azienda Ospedaliera S Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy

Correspondence to:
A Berardi, Unitè Operativa di Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico di Modena, Italy; berardi.alberto@policlinico.mo.it

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

We found Trijbels-Smeulders and coworkers epidemiology report very interesting.¹ They studied early and late onset neonatal group B streptococcal (GBS) disease in the Netherlands before and after the introduction of guidelines for prevention. The best strategy in European countries is still a matter of debate and we need data which will allow reliable comparisons to be made between countries. In the USA the rate of early onset disease (EOD) has decreased markedly from 1.7/1000 to 0.34/1000 livebirths (70% reduction) after the adoption of guidelines and use of antibiotic prophylaxis.² In contrast, the incidence of EOD is lower in the UK (0.48/1000 live births), despite prophylaxis being rarely used.³

After the introduction of a risk-based strategy, women who received prophylaxis in the Netherlands increased from 1.0% to 5.9% of all deliveries, but the authors found only a limited decrease of proven early infections (from 0.54/1000 to 0.36/1000 live births) and no . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?