Better care for babies: the added value of a modified reverse syphilis testing algorithm for the treatment of congenital syphilis in a maternity Hospital in Central African Republic.
Algorithms
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ therapeutic use
Central African Republic
Cohort Studies
Female
Hospitals, Maternity
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Male
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Complications, Infectious
/ diagnosis
Retrospective Studies
Syphilis
/ diagnosis
Syphilis Serodiagnosis
/ methods
Syphilis, Congenital
/ diagnosis
Central African Republic
Congenital
Low resource
Non-treponemal
Operational research
Syphilis
Journal
BMC pediatrics
ISSN: 1471-2431
Titre abrégé: BMC Pediatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967804
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 08 2019
15 08 2019
Historique:
received:
17
12
2018
accepted:
11
07
2019
entrez:
17
8
2019
pubmed:
17
8
2019
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In high syphilis prevalence settings, the syphilis testing and treatment strategy for mothers and newborns must be tailored to balance the risk of over treatment against the risk of missing infants at high-risk for congenital syphilis. Adding a non-treponemal test (Rapid Plasma Reagin - RPR) to a routine rapid treponemal test (SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0) for women giving birth can help distinguish between neonates at high and low-risk for congenital syphilis to tailor their treatment. Treatment for neonates born to RPR-reactive mothers (high-risk) is 10 days of intravenous penicillin, while one dose of intramuscular penicillin is sufficient for those born to RPR non-reactive mothers (low-risk). This strategy was adopted in March 2017 in a Médecins Sans Frontières supported hospital in Bangui, Central African Republic. This study examined the operational consequences of this algorithm on the treatment of newborns. The study was a retrospective cohort study. Routine programmatic data were analysed. Descriptive statistical analysis was done. Total antibiotic days, hospitalization days and estimated costs were compared to scenarios without RPR testing and another where syphilis treatment was the sole reason for hospitalization. Of 202 babies born to SD Bioline positive mothers 89 (44%) and 111(55%) were RPR-reactive and non-reactive respectively (2 were unrecorded) of whom 80% and 88% of the neonates received appropriate antibiotic treatment respectively. Neonates born to RPR non-reactive mothers were 80% less likely to have sepsis [Relative risk (RR) = 0.20; 95% Confidence interval (CI) = 0.04-0.92] and 9% more likely to be discharged [RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.00-1.18] compared to those of RPR-reactive mothers. There was a 52%, and 49% reduction in antibiotic and hospitalization days respectively compared to a scenario with SD-Bioline testing only. Total hospitalization costs were also 52% lower compared to a scenario without RPR testing. This testing strategy can help identify infants at high and low risk for congenital syphilis and treat them accordingly at substantial cost savings. It is especially appropriate for settings with high syphilis endemicity, limited resources and overcrowded maternities. The babies additionally benefit from lower risks of exposure to unnecessary antibiotics and nosocomial infections.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In high syphilis prevalence settings, the syphilis testing and treatment strategy for mothers and newborns must be tailored to balance the risk of over treatment against the risk of missing infants at high-risk for congenital syphilis. Adding a non-treponemal test (Rapid Plasma Reagin - RPR) to a routine rapid treponemal test (SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0) for women giving birth can help distinguish between neonates at high and low-risk for congenital syphilis to tailor their treatment. Treatment for neonates born to RPR-reactive mothers (high-risk) is 10 days of intravenous penicillin, while one dose of intramuscular penicillin is sufficient for those born to RPR non-reactive mothers (low-risk). This strategy was adopted in March 2017 in a Médecins Sans Frontières supported hospital in Bangui, Central African Republic. This study examined the operational consequences of this algorithm on the treatment of newborns.
METHODS
The study was a retrospective cohort study. Routine programmatic data were analysed. Descriptive statistical analysis was done. Total antibiotic days, hospitalization days and estimated costs were compared to scenarios without RPR testing and another where syphilis treatment was the sole reason for hospitalization.
RESULTS
Of 202 babies born to SD Bioline positive mothers 89 (44%) and 111(55%) were RPR-reactive and non-reactive respectively (2 were unrecorded) of whom 80% and 88% of the neonates received appropriate antibiotic treatment respectively. Neonates born to RPR non-reactive mothers were 80% less likely to have sepsis [Relative risk (RR) = 0.20; 95% Confidence interval (CI) = 0.04-0.92] and 9% more likely to be discharged [RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.00-1.18] compared to those of RPR-reactive mothers. There was a 52%, and 49% reduction in antibiotic and hospitalization days respectively compared to a scenario with SD-Bioline testing only. Total hospitalization costs were also 52% lower compared to a scenario without RPR testing.
CONCLUSIONS
This testing strategy can help identify infants at high and low risk for congenital syphilis and treat them accordingly at substantial cost savings. It is especially appropriate for settings with high syphilis endemicity, limited resources and overcrowded maternities. The babies additionally benefit from lower risks of exposure to unnecessary antibiotics and nosocomial infections.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31416437
doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1622-4
pii: 10.1186/s12887-019-1622-4
pmc: PMC6694671
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
284Références
Am J Public Health. 2001 May;91(5):705-7
pubmed: 11344874
Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Oct;79(5):375-81
pubmed: 14573832
Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Dec;82 Suppl 5:v17-21
pubmed: 17121762
Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Nov;38(11):997-1003
pubmed: 21992974
Bull World Health Organ. 2013 Mar 1;91(3):217-26
pubmed: 23476094
Med Sante Trop. 2013 Oct-Dec;23(4):421-6
pubmed: 24334440
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Jun;130 Suppl 1:S10-4
pubmed: 25963909
Sex Transm Dis. 2015 Jul;42(7):369-75
pubmed: 26222749
Cureus. 2016 Mar 09;8(3):e525
pubmed: 27081586
Med Sante Trop. 2016 May 1;26(2):192-8
pubmed: 27412978
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Nov;5(11):e1066-e1068
pubmed: 29025624
Cureus. 2018 Jan 16;10(1):e2078
pubmed: 29560291
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 27;14(2):e0211720
pubmed: 30811406