Alarming regional differences in prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of group B streptococci in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Group B streptococcus colonisation and associated risk factors among pregnant women: A hospital‐based study and implications for primary care

“…In this study, the prevalence of GBS colonisation was 4.9%, which is similar to that reported as 3.5%‐7.1% in China, 4.7% in India, 6.5% in Turkey, and 8.3% in Korea, but lower than in Tanzania (23.0%) and Sweden (25.4%) . In addition, the latest systematic review revealed that the pooled prevalence of GBS carriage in pregnant women was 10%, being significantly lower in Asia (7%) than in non‐Asian countries (19%) . These variations between countries could be due to differences in culture methods, populations investigated and sampling sites.…”

“…First, only the vagina was used as a sampling site, which may underestimate the true prevalence of GBS. However, the latest system review on pregnant women revealed that there was no significant difference in GBS colonisation according to sample sites (11% for both vaginal and rectal samples, 11% for vaginal samples, and 8% for other samples, P for difference = 0.070) . Second, the study design is cross‐sectional, in which both cause and effect are measured at the same time; therefore, we can only describe associations between influencing factors and GBS colonisation, not a causal conclusion.…”

“…9,[13][14][15][16] In addition, the latest systematic review revealed that the pooled prevalence of GBS carriage in pregnant women was 10%, being significantly lower in Asia (7%) than in non-Asian countries (19%). 6 These variations between countries could be due to differences in culture methods, populations investigated and sampling sites. For example, the prevalence of GBS sampled from both abdominal skin and ear canal was high in Italy (62.7%) and in Gambian (33.7%), 20,21 but the prevalence of GBS sampled only from skin/mucosal surface was low in Pakistan (8.5%) and in Greece (6.6%), 22,23 indicating potential differences in GBS colonisation according to sample sites.…”

“…However, the latest system review on pregnant women revealed that there was no significant difference in GBS colonisation according to sample sites (11% for both vaginal and rectal samples, 11% for vaginal samples, and 8% for other samples, P for difference = 0.070). 6 Second, the study design is cross-sectional, in which both cause and effect are measured at the same time; therefore, we can only describe associations between influencing factors and GBS colonisation, not a causal conclusion. The pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the observed associations are unknown, so results from this study need to be confirmed in future longitudinal studies.…”

Universal antenatal screening for group B streptococcus may cause more harm than good

“…Globally, the overwhelming majority of GBS isolates are susceptible to penicillin,65 but in the US in 2005, 0.2% of GBS isolates were reaching the upper level of susceptibility for one or more β lactams 66. Widespread prophylaxis may go against the Department of Health and Social Care for England’s antimicrobial resistance strategy to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics 67.…”