Re: Universal screening versus risk‐based protocols for antibiotic prophylaxis during childbirth to prevent early‐onset group B streptococcal disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Authors’ reply re: Universal screening versus risk‐based protocols for antibiotic prophylaxis during childbirth to prevent early‐onset Group B streptococcal disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…We read the letter from Drs Seedat and Marshall, commenting on our article, with great interest 1,2 . Their clarifications on the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) position are very clear.…”

“…Seedat and Marshall state that according to another study, the use of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) would indeed increase if screening were implemented and that the portion of women receiving IAP would be ‘low risk women’ who… ‘would not have a neonate with EOGBS (early‐onset GBS) in the absence of IAP’ 1 . In this statement is embedded the assumption that the currently established risk factors are indeed a good prediction of early‐onset GBS transmission.…”

Authors' reply re: Universal screening versus risk‐based protocols for antibiotic prophylaxis during childbirth to prevent early‐onset group B streptococcal disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the letter by Farah Seedat and John Marshall 1 from the National Screening Committee Evidence Team, in response to our mini commentary 2 . We can confirm that in our GBS3 trial (ISRCTN49639731) for hospitals allocated to the intervention arm (universal group B streptococcus [GBS] testing in late pregnancy or in labour), the protocol recommends that women with certain risk factors for GBS such as a preterm birth or a previous baby with early‐onset GBS (RCOG 2017 guideline 3 ) are offered either intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) or testing for GBS, with the offer of IAP if the test result is positive.…”