---

Dept of Health

Answer

Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make an assessment of the protocols put in place for dealing with Group B Streptococcus in pregnant women in (a) Belgium and (b) the United States. [201014] Dr. Ladyman: Protocols are in place for dealing with Group B Streptococcus (GBS) in pregnant women. Testing for carriage of GBS, although not obligatory, is almost always performed in Belgium. A doctor who did not screen a pregnant woman for this problem would be badly viewed by his or her colleagues. There are no uniform federal protocols in the United States of America for screening pregnant women for Group B Streptococcus. However, there are numerous guidelines on awareness. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommend universal screening of pregnant women for GBS during the 35 to 37 weeks of pregnancy. This, however, is a recommendation only, and although the CDC makes every effort to bring these good routines to the attention of the States, there is no federal mandate that enforces compliance. A number of state officials have each confirmed that these issues are not regulated, but every effort is made to ensure that state healthcare providers are aware of these CDC recommendations. It has been estimated from studies in the USA that the current policy of antenatal screening and intravenous antibiotics during labour has reduced the number of cases of early onset GBS to rates comparable to those in the United Kingdom in the absence of screening, despite a similar rate of maternal carriage of the organism. Routine antenatal screening for GBS is not recommended in the UK at present because evidence of its effectiveness remains uncertain. The emphasis is on reducing the rates of infection through improved management of women most at risk and the UK National Screening Committee is currently taking forward a programme of work with this aim. Furthermore screening and the use of prophylactic antibodies carries significant risks of its own, including maternal death due to adverse reaction and increased antibiotic resistance. Given that the UK rate of infection without screening is of a comparable order to the US rate, with screening, introduction of screening cannot be justified in the UK until we have evidence that it would further reduce the UK rate of infection and also do more good than harm.

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

201014; 428 c1073-4W;428 c1074W

Session

2004-05

Subjects

Disease control Pregnancy Screening USA Belgium Streptococcus

Link

View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk