Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2316-8955
Original Article

Screening for Bacterial Vaginosis Prior to Delivery: A Cost–Effectiveness Study

Hope E. Knochenhauer 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecolgy, Staten Island University, Northwell Health, Staten Island, New York
,
Stephanie L. Lim
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
,
Laura J. Havrilesky
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
,
Sarah K. Dotters-Katz
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the cost and effectiveness of three strategies for screening and/or treating bacterial vaginosis (BV) during pregnancy prior to delivery: (1) the current standard of care was neither test nor treat for BV (Treat None); (2) test all patients for BV at 36 weeks' gestation; treat if positive (Test Treat); and (3) treat all patients undergoing cesarean delivery with intravenous metronidazole at time of surgery (Treat All Cesarean). Effectiveness was defined as avoidance of postpartum surgical site infection (SSI).

Study Design A decision analytic cost–effectiveness model was designed from a third-party payer perspective using clinical and cost estimates obtained from the literature, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant use file (2005–2019), 2019 National Vital Statistics, Medicare costs, and wholesale drug costs. Cost estimates were inflated to 2020 U.S. dollars. For this study, effectiveness was defined as avoidance of postpartum SSIs.

Results The base case analysis that is the current standard of care of not routinely testing and treating patients for BV (Treat None) was the most expensive and least effective strategy, with a mean cost of $59.16 and infection rate of 3.71%. Empirically treating all patients for BV without testing (Treat All Cesarean) was the most effective and the least expensive strategy, with a mean cost of $53.50 and an infection rate of 2.75%. Testing all patients for BV and treating those positive for BV (Test Treat) was also relatively inexpensive and effective, with an infection rate of 2.94% and mean cost of $57.05. Compared with Treat None, we would expect the Treat All Cesarean strategy to reduce the infection rate by 26%.

Conclusion These findings suggest that treating pregnant patients with intravenous metronidazole at time of cesarean delivery could be an effective and cost-saving strategy. Testing and treating for BV could also be considered a reasonable strategy, as it has the added benefit of preserving antibiotic stewardship. In no analysis was the standard of care strategy of neither testing nor treating for BV before delivery the preferred strategy.

Key Points

  • BV colonization may increase surgical site infection risk after cesarean section.

  • Treatment of BV before or during delivery may be cost-saving strategies as treatment could prevent costs associated with infection.

  • Further study is needed to best balance the risk of surgical site infection with antibiotic stewardship.

Keywords

cesarean delivery - prevention - prophylaxis - postpartum infection - surgical site infection - vaginal delivery


Publication History

Received: 13 November 2022

Accepted: 26 April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
30 April 2024

Article published online:
31 May 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH. et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnant persons to prevent preterm delivery: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2020; 323 (13) 1286-1292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Muzny CA, Blanchard E, Taylor CM. et al. Identification of key bacteria involved in the induction of incident bacterial vaginosis: a prospective study. J Infect Dis 2018; 218 (06) 966-978
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jung HS, Ehlers MM, Lombaard H, Redelinghuys MJ, Kock MM. Etiology of bacterial vaginosis and polymicrobial biofilm formation. Crit Rev Microbiol 2017; 43 (06) 651-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fredricks DN, Fiedler TL, Marrazzo JM. Molecular identification of bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353 (18) 1899-1911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wenman WM, Tataryn IV, Joffres MR. et al; Edmonton Perinatal Infections Group. Demographic, clinical and microbiological characteristics of maternity patients: a Canadian clinical cohort study. Can J Infect Dis 2002; 13 (05) 311-318
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Culhane JF, Rauh V, McCollum KF, Hogan VK, Agnew K, Wadhwa PD. Maternal stress is associated with bacterial vaginosis in human pregnancy. Matern Child Health J 2001; 5 (02) 127-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Larsson PG, Platz-Christensen JJ, Thejls H, Forsum U, Påhlson C. Incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease after first-trimester legal abortion in women with bacterial vaginosis after treatment with metronidazole: a double-blind, randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166 (1 pt 1): 100-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Larsson PG, Platz-Christensen JJ, Dalaker K. et al. Treatment with 2% clindamycin vaginal cream prior to first trimester surgical abortion to reduce signs of postoperative infection: a prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79 (05) 390-396
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Larsson PG, Carlsson B. Does pre- and postoperative metronidazole treatment lower vaginal cuff infection rate after abdominal hysterectomy among women with bacterial vaginosis?. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2002; 10 (03) 133-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pitt C, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Adjunctive intravaginal metronidazole for the prevention of postcesarean endometritis: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (5 pt 1): 745-750
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Reggiori A, Ravera M, Cocozza E, Andreata M, Mukasa F. Randomized study of antibiotic prophylaxis for general and gynaecological surgery from a single centre in rural Africa. Br J Surg 1996; 83 (03) 356-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rosene K, Eschenbach DA, Tompkins LS, Kenny GE, Watkins H. Polymicrobial early postpartum endometritis with facultative and anaerobic bacteria, genital mycoplasmas, and Chlamydia trachomatis: treatment with piperacillin or cefoxitin. J Infect Dis 1986; 153 (06) 1028-1037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jacobsson B, Pernevi P, Chidekel L, Jörgen Platz-Christensen J. Bacterial vaginosis in early pregnancy may predispose for preterm birth and postpartum endometritis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81 (11) 1006-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Persson E, Bergström M, Larsson PG. et al. Infections after hysterectomy. A prospective nation-wide Swedish study. The Study Group on Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology within the Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996; 75 (08) 757-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Soper DE. Bacterial vaginosis and surgical site infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (03) 219-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Soper DE. Bacterial vaginosis and postoperative infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169 (2 Pt 2): 467-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kankuri E, Kurki T, Carlson P, Hiilesmaa V. Incidence, treatment and outcome of peripartum sepsis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003; 82 (08) 730-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for 2019. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2021; 70 (02) 1-51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 National Center for Health Statistics. Selected health conditions and risk factors, by age: United States, selected years 1988–1994 through 2017–2018. Health
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL, Ph D. Prevalence of obesity and severe obesity among adults: United States, 2017–2018. NCHS Data Brief 2020; (360) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bramham K, Parnell B, Nelson-Piercy C, Seed PT, Poston L, Chappell LC. Chronic hypertension and pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 348: g2301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Poobalan AS, Aucott LS, Gurung T, Smith WCS, Bhattacharya S. Obesity as an independent risk factor for elective and emergency caesarean delivery in nulliparous women–systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Obes Rev 2009; 10 (01) 28-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brookheart RT, Lewis WG, Peipert JF, Lewis AL, Allsworth JE. Association between obesity and bacterial vaginosis as assessed by Nugent score. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (05) 476.e1-476.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Prevention CfDCa. Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In, Maternal Mortality Prevention; 2022. Accessed November 15, 2022 at: https://www.cdc.gov/maternal-mortality/php/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance/index.html
    PubMed
  • 25 Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KCS, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med 1983; 74 (01) 14-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lowe NK, Neal JL, Ryan-Wenger NA. Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of vaginitis compared with a DNA probe laboratory standard. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (01) 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Coleman JS, Gaydos CA. Molecular diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis: an update. J Clin Microbiol 2018; 56 (09) e00342-e18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Workowski KA, Bolan GA. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. MMWR Recomm Rep 2015; 64 (RR-03, RR3): 1-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Joesoef MR, Schmid GP, Hillier SL. Bacterial vaginosis: review of treatment options and potential clinical indications for therapy. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 28 (Suppl. 01) S57-S65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 American College of Surgeons. ACS Surgical Phase of Care Measure 10–ACS25 Surgical Site Infection (SSI);. 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S. et al; CHEERS Task Force. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013; 346: f1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 ACS NSQIP. Participant use data file. Accessed May 10, 2024 at: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip/participant-use
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jensen JC, Gugler R. Single- and multiple-dose metronidazole kinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1983; 34 (04) 481-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, Gross GA, Hamilton BH, Fraser VJ. Attributable costs of surgical site infection and endometritis after low transverse cesarean delivery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31 (03) 276-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 McElligott KA, Havrilesky LJ, Myers ER. Preoperative screening strategies for bacterial vaginosis prior to elective hysterectomy: a cost comparison study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (05) 500.e1-500.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Yudin MH, Money DM. No. 211-screening and management of bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2017; 39 (08) e184-e191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Becton Dickinson and Company. BD MAX Vaginal Panel How can you achieve impact?. Accessed November 15, 2022 at: https://moleculardiagnostics.bd.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/BD-MAX-Vaginal-Panel-2-223854.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cartwright CP, Lembke BD, Ramachandran K. et al. Comparison of nucleic acid amplification assays with BD affirm VPIII for diagnosis of vaginitis in symptomatic women. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51 (11) 3694-3699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bradshaw CS, Morton AN, Hocking J. et al. High recurrence rates of bacterial vaginosis over the course of 12 months after oral metronidazole therapy and factors associated with recurrence. J Infect Dis 2006; 193 (11) 1478-1486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Oduyebo OO, Anorlu RI, Ogunsola FT. The effects of antimicrobial therapy on bacterial vaginosis in non-pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (03) CD006055
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Till SR, Morgan DM, Bazzi AA. et al. Reducing surgical site infections after hysterectomy: metronidazole plus cefazolin compared with cephalosporin alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (02) 187.e1-187.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Urtasun RC, Rabin HR, Partington J. Human pharmacokinetics and toxicity of high-dose metronidazole administered orally and intravenously. Surgery 1983; 93 (1 pt 2): 145-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Which treatments are effective for bacterial vaginosis? InformedHealth.org [Internet]. Cologne, Germany:: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).;
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Dingsdag SA, Hunter N. Metronidazole: an update on metabolism, structure-cytotoxicity and resistance mechanisms. J Antimicrob Chemother 2018; 73 (02) 265-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Alauzet C, Lozniewski A, Marchandin H. Metronidazole resistance and nim genes in anaerobes: a review. Anaerobe 2019; 55: 40-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Arcay RM, Suárez-Bode L, López-Causapé C, Oliver A, Mena A. Emergence of high-level and stable metronidazole resistance in Clostridioides difficile . Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 55 (01) 105830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 McDonald LC, Gerding DN, Johnson S. et al Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clinical Infectious Diseases 2018; 66 (07) e1-e48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar