Skip to main content
Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America logoLink to Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
. 2022 Mar 11;75(7):1255–1264. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac206

Clinical Risk Factors Associated With Late-Onset Invasive Group B Streptococcal Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses 

Konstantinos Karampatsas 1,, Hannah Davies 2, Maren Mynarek 3, Nick Andrews 4, Paul T Heath 5, Kirsty Le Doare 6,7,8
PMCID: PMC9525091  PMID: 35275986

Abstract

Background

Group B streptococcal (GBS) infection remains one of the most significant causes of late-onset sepsis and meningitis (LOGBS) among young infants. However, transmission routes and risk factors for LOGBS are not yet fully understood.

Methods

We conducted systematic reviews on clinical risk factors previously reported in the literature (prematurity, low birth weight [<2500 g], antenatal colonization, multiple-gestation pregnancy, maternal age <20 years, male infant sex, intrapartum fever, prolonged rupture of membranes) and meta-analyses to determine pooled estimates of risk.

Results

We included 27 articles, reporting 5315 cases. Prematurity (odds ratio [OR] 5.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.43–7.22), low birth weight (OR 6.73; 95% CI: 4.68–9.67), maternal colonization (2.67; [2.07–3.45]), and multiple-gestation pregnancies (OR 8.01; 95% CI: 5.19–12.38) were associated with an increased risk of LOGBS.

Conclusions

Prematurity/low birth weight and maternal colonization are major risk factors for LOGBS. Future GBS vaccine studies should try to establish the optimal time for vaccination during pregnancy to protect preterm infants.

Keywords: Group B Streptococcus, Streptococcus agalactiae, risk, neonatal sepsis


We conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses on clinical risk factors for late-onset invasive Group B streptococcal disease and found that prematurity/low birth weight and antenatal maternal colonization are major risk factors.


Group B streptococcus (GBS) is the leading cause of sepsis and meningitis in neonates and young infants in most countries [1].In 2015, it was estimated that there were at least 319 000 infants <90 days of age with invasive GBS disease (iGBS disease) worldwide, of whom 205 000 infants had early-onset Group B streptococcal disease (EOGBS, occurring in infants aged <7 days) and 114 000 late-onset Group B streptococcal disease (LOGBS, occurring in infants aged 7–89 days) [1]. A high proportion of LOGBS cases presents with meningitis that often results in neurodevelopmental impairment, further increasing the burden of iGBS disease [2, 3]. Despite intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) the incidence of LOGBS has not been reduced [2, 4] and is even rising in some countries [5–8]. Maternal GBS vaccination could be an effective method to prevent EOGBS and LOGBS [1]. However, compared to EOGBS, risk factors for LOGBS are less well understood and have not been systematically reviewed. Addressing this gap could help identify vaccine targetable risk factors and recognize the most vulnerable infants to inform GBS vaccine research priorities and policy decisions.

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive and systematic literature review and meta-analyses to assess the association between LOGBS and previously reported clinical and epidemiological risk factors.

METHODS

Search Strategy

The review protocol was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration number CRD42021253749). We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until 1 December 2020 with no language restrictions (full search available in Supplementary Table 1). We identified additional studies by searching the reference lists of included studies and reviews.

Study Selection and Data Collection

We included observational studies that reported risk factors for iGBS disease (case-control studies, retrospective and prospective cohort studies). The cohort studies were surveillance studies conducted to estimate the national or regional incidence of iGBS disease. Case reports, case series, and reviews were excluded. We included all previously reported clinical risk factors for LOGBS and EOGBS [9]. We included studies that reported LOGBS cases (7–89 days of age at the onset of infection episode) and excluded studies with a non-representative sample (eg, studies containing only very high-risk groups like preterm infants) or a non-appropriate comparison group (no denominator data for risk factors). We included only cases with GBS isolated from a normally sterile site (blood, cerebrospinal fluid [CSF], joint fluid, peritoneal fluid). The most comprehensive report was included if more than 1 study was published on the same patients.

Two review authors (K. K., H. D.) independently scanned the abstract, title, or both, of every record retrieved to determine which studies should be assessed further. We investigated all potentially relevant articles as full text and resolved any discrepancies through consensus. For studies that fulfilled eligibility criteria, 2 review authors (K. K., H. D.) independently abstracted key data on maternal colonization in pregnancy (defined as a positive vaginal, rectal, or rectovaginal swab by culture or polymerase chain reaction [PCR] on at least 1 occasion from 35 weeks of gestation until birth), maternal colonization at the time of LOGBS diagnosis, preterm birth (delivery at <37 weeks of gestation), low birth weight (LBW <2500 g), multiple-gestation pregnancy, maternal age <20 years, infant sex, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) exposure, GBS detected in mother’s breast milk at the time of LOGBS diagnosis, maternal intrapartum fever (temperature ≥38°C during labor), and prolonged rupture of membranes (PROM ≥18 hours before delivery). We used published aggregate data, not individual participant data. When the existing published data included cases isolated from non-sterile sites or with an age of onset ≥90 days, we contacted the original researchers to ask for a summary of cases that met our inclusion criteria. We collected data on the number of preterm births, LBW, multiple births, and sex ratio in the study population, either from the reports included in the articles or from the publicly available national statistics services and previously published systematic reviews that used these data sets [10–13]. For national surveillance studies, the number of live births for the whole population for that period was used as the denominator. For studies reporting cases from multi-site surveillance programs, regional data were used as the denominator. When population data were not available for the entire duration of the study, a midpoint year was used. Due to a lack of population-wide studies on maternal GBS colonization, we used the pooled estimates of GBS colonization prevalence by country from a systematic review conducted in 2015 [14].

Quality Assessment

Two review authors (K. K., M. M.) assessed the risk of bias of each included study independently by using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) (Supplementary Table 2). We resolved any disagreements by consensus.

Statistical Analyses

We performed a meta-analysis to calculate weighted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across studies and pooled risk of LOGBS for the following parameters: (i) preterm birth, (ii) GBS colonization in pregnancy, (iii) LBW, (iv) multiple-gestation pregnancy, (v) maternal age <20 years, (vi) intrapartum fever, (vii) PROM, and (viii) infant sex. Data on HIV exposure were collected, but the synthesis of these data has recently been done [15]. Data about the other clinical risk factors (maternal colonization and isolation of GBS in breast milk at the time of LOGBS diagnosis) were disparate and could not be pooled. We summarized data with a random-effects model, using the Mantel-Haenszel method and the DerSimonian-Laird approach to estimate the variance of the distribution of true effect sizes (τ2). We assessed between-study heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic. Heterogeneity was further explored with subgroup analyses and meta-regression for variables where an association with a higher risk of LOGBS was found. We compared studies based on the study design, World Health Organization (WHO) regions, high-income countries (HIC) versus low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), presence versus absence of IAP policy, length of study, and year of publication. The subgroup pooled estimates were calculated with a mixed-effect model, without a common estimate of τ2 across subgroups [16]. Meta-regression was performed using a mixed-effect model with continuous and categorical moderators [16]. The R2 index was used to quantify the percentage of variation explained by the model [16]. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the influence of excluding studies that used a different definition of LOGBS (7–179 days of age) or studies that only reported sepsis or meningitis cases. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots for analyses with more than 9 included studies and tested for funnel plot asymmetry using Egger’s test. We considered Egger test P-value less than .05 to implicate publication bias [17]. Statistical analyses were done with R studio (version 3.6.3) using the packages “meta,” “metafor,” and “dmetar” [16].

RESULTS

Study Selection

From a total of 14 468 articles identified through the literature search, we assessed 104 full manuscripts and identified 27 articles that met the inclusion criteria [2, 3, 5, 6, 18–40] (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Data search and included studies for risk factor for LOGBS. Abbreviation: LOGBS, late-onset group B streptococcal disease.

Study Characteristics

We included 27 studies with a total of 5315 cases of LOGBS among 30 487 773 live births. The median incidence of LOGBS was 0.21 cases/1000 live births (range 0.06–1.18). Of the included studies, 13 (48%) were prospective cohort studies, 9 (33%) retrospective cohort studies, and 5 (19%) case-control studies (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 3). Thirteen (48%) articles were from Europe, 6 (22%) from the Western Pacific region, 5 (19%) from North America, and 3 (11%) from Sub-Saharan Africa. Quality was moderate to high (defined as NOS score >5) for all the included studies (Supplementary Table 4).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Reference Country Start of Data
Collection
End of Data
Collection
Income Region Design Setting IAP Policy Definition LOGBS LOGBS clinical entity Capture of Cases
Berardi et al 2013 [18] Italy 2003.01 2010.12 HIC Europe Prospective cohort Multi-centre Both >6 days <90 days Both CRC
Dangor et al 2015 [3] South
Africa
2012.11 2014.02 LMIC Africa Case
control
Multi-centre Risk based >6 days <90 days Both NA
Dangor et al 2016 [19] South
Africa
2005 2014 LMIC Africa Prospective cohort Single centre Risk based >6 days <90 days Both CRC
Fluegge 2006 [20] Germany 2001.04 2003.03 HIC Europe Prospective cohort National s­urveillance Both >6 days <90 days Both CRC
Frigati et al 2015 [21] South
Africa
2010.01 2011.12 LMIC Africa Retrospective cohort Multi-centre Risk based >6 days <90 days Both LS
Giannoni et al 2016 [22] Switzerland 2011.09 2015.02 HIC Europe Prospective cohort Multi-centre Universal screening >6 days <90 days Only LOS LS
Guan et al 2018 [23] China 2011.01 2014.12 HIC Western Pacific Retrospective cohort Multi-centre No >6 days <90 days Both LS
Heath et al 2004 [24] UK 2000.02 2001.02 HIC Europe Prospective cohort National s­urveillance No >6 days <90 days Both CRC
Ireland et al 2014 [25] Australia 2002.01 2011.12 HIC Western Pacific Case
control
Multi-centre Policy changed during study >2 days <90 days Both NA
Jordan et al 2008 [26] USA 2003 2005 HIC Americas Prospective cohort Multi-centre Universal screening >6 days <90 days Both LS
Joubrel et al 2015 [27] France 2007.01 2012.12 HIC Europe Prospective cohort National s­urveillance Both >6 days <90 days Both LS
Juncosa-Morros et al 2014 [28] Spain 1996 2010 HIC Europe Retrospective cohort Multi-centre Policy changed during study >6 days <90 days Both LS
Ko et al 2015 [29] Australia 2005.07 2008.06 HIC Western Pacific Prospective cohort National s­urveillance Risk based >6 days <90 days Both CRC
Lin et al 2003 [30] USA 1995.07 2000.06 HIC Americas Case
control
Multi-centre Risk based >6 days <180 days Both NA
Matsubara et al 2013 [31] Japan 2004.01 2010.12 HIC Western Pacific Retrospective cohort Multi-centre Policy changed during study >6 days <90 days Both CS
Matsubara et al 2017 [32] Japan 2011.01 2015.12 HIC Western Pacific Retrospective cohort Multi-centre Policy changed during study >6 days <90 days Both CS
Mynarek et al 2021 [33] Norway 1996 2012 HIC Europe Retrospective cohort National s­urveillance Risk based >6 days <90 days Both CRC
Nanduri et al 2019 [2] USA 2006 2015 HIC Americas Prospective
cohort
Multi-centre Universal screening >6 days <90 days Both LS
Neto 2007 [34] Portugal 2001.04 2005.03 HIC Europe Prospective
cohort
National ­surveillance Policy changed during study >6 days <90 days Both CS
O’Sullivan et al 2019 [5] UKROI 2014.04 2015.04 HIC Europe Prospective cohort National s­urveillance Risk based >6 days <90 days Both CRC
Óladóttir et al 2011 [35] Iceland 1975 2006 HIC Europe Retrospective cohort National ­surveillance Policy changed during study >6 days <90 days Both LS
Pintye et al 2016 [36] USA 1992.00 2011.00 HIC Americas Case
control
Multi-centre Policy changed during study >6 days <90 days Both NA
Romain et al 2018 [6] France 2001.01 2014.12 HIC Europe Prospective cohort National ­surveillance Both >6 days <90 days Only Meningitis CRC
Schuchat et al 1990 [37] USA 1982.01 1983.12 HIC Americas Retrospective cohort Multi-centre No >6 days <180 days Both LS
Trijbels-Smeulders et al 2007 [38] Netherlands 1997 2001. HIC Europe Prospective cohort National ­surveillance Policy changed during study >6 days <90 days Both CRC
Vergadi et al 2018 [39] Greece 1995.01 2016.12 HIC Europe Retrospective cohort Multi-centre No >6 days <90 days Both LS
Ying et al 2019 [40] China 2011.01 2016.12 HIC Western Pacific Case
control
Single centre No >6 days <90 days Both NA

Abbreviations: CS, clinical surveillance; CRC, Capture-Recapture; HIC, high income country; IAP, intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis; LMIC, low-middle income country; LOGBS, late-onset group B streptococcal disease; LOS, late-onset sepsis; LS, laboratory surveillance; NA, not applicable; USA, United States of America; UK, United Kingdom; UKROI, United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.

Outputs From Meta-analyses

The OR of LOGBS in preterm infants compared to those born ≥ 37 weeks was 5.66 (95% CI: 4.43–7.22), with considerable heterogeneity among the 22 studies included (I2: 92%) (Figure 2). An additional analysis was performed using birth <34 weeks as a cutoff when data were available. The OR of LOGBS for infants born <34 weeks compared to those born ≥ 34 weeks was 19.70 (95% CI: 15.25–25.45) among 3 studies included (I2: 0%) (Supplementary Figure 1). The OR of LOGBS in all infants with LBW compared to birth weight >2500g was 6.73 (95% CI: 4.68–9.67) with considerable heterogeneity among fourteen studies included (I2: 95%) (Figure 3). The OR of LOGBS in all infants born to mothers colonized with GBS antenatally compared to those born to mothers not colonized with GBS was 2.67 (95% CI: 2.07–3.45), with substantial heterogeneity among 12 studies included (I2: 66%) (Figure 4). The OR of LOGBS in multiple births compared to singletons was 8.01 (95% CI: 5.19–12.38), with considerable heterogeneity among ten studies included (I2: 72%) (Figure 5).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Forest plot of meta-analysis of risk of LOGBS for prematurity. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LOGBS, late-onset group B streptococcal disease.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Forest plot of meta-analysis of risk of LOGBS for LBW. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LBW, low birth weight; LOGBS, late-onset Group B streptococcal disease.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Forest plot of meta-analysis of risk of LOGBS for antenatal GBS colonization. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; GBS, Group B Streptococcus; LOGBS, late-onset group B streptococcal disease.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Forest plot of meta-analysis of risk of LOGBS for multiple gestation pregnancies. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LOGBS, late-onset group B streptococcal disease.

PROM and intrapartum fever were not associated with an increased risk of LOGBS. The OR was 1.49 (95% CI: .94–2.36) and 1.06 (95% CI: .14–8.18), respectively (Supplementary Figures 2 and 3). There was no difference in risk of LOGBS between male and female infants (OR: 1.02 [95% CI: .92–1.13]; I2: 20%) (Supplementary Figure 4). Similarly, maternal age <20 years was not associated with an increased risk of LOGBS (OR: 1.86 [95% CI: .74–4.68]; I2: 78%) (Supplementary Figure 5).

Subgroup Analyses and Meta-regression

For prematurity and LBW, studies from Africa/LMIC had lower pooled estimates than the other geographic areas and HIC (Supplementary Table 5). Also, single-center studies had lower pooled estimates than multi-center or national studies, whereas comparison according to study design and IAP policy showed no significant difference (Supplementary Table 5). A meta-regression analysis showed that WHO region, classification of countries based on economic resources and classification of the studies based on the number of participating sites, accounted for a small to moderate proportion of heterogeneity for prematurity (R2: 46%, 59%, 52%, respectively); and LBW (R2: 35%, 30%, 64%), but none for colonization (R2: 0%, 4%, 0%) and multiple gestations (R2: 0%). A meta-regression analysis with publication year, duration of the study and NOS score as continuous predictors showed that these factors did not influence the studies’ effect size for any risk factor (R2: 0%).

Sensitivity Analyses

When we excluded studies that reported cases up to 6 months of age (very-late-onset GBS disease), the OR was similar to the primary analysis for prematurity (OR: 5.90 [95% CI: 4.58–7.60]), LBW (OR: 7.07 [95% CI: 4.88–10.24]), antenatal colonization (OR: 2.65 [95% CI: 2.02–3.48]), multiple gestation pregnancies (OR: 8.12 [95% CI: 5.07–12.99]), PROM (OR: 1.32 [95% CI: .82–2.12]), intrapartum fever (OR: 1.77 [95% CI: .09–34.65]), infant sex (OR: 1.01 [95% CI: .91–1.12]), and maternal age (OR: 1.29 [95% CI: .33–4.98]). Similarly, when we excluded studies that only reported sepsis or meningitis cases, the pooled estimate did not differ from the primary analysis for prematurity (OR: 5.74 [95% CI: 4.42–7.45]), maternal colonization (OR: 2.60 [95% CI: 1.94–3.49]), and infant sex (OR: 1.05 [95% CI: .94–1.17]). For the rest, primary analyses did not include studies only reporting sepsis or meningitis; therefore, sensitivity analyses were not needed.

Assessment of Reporting Biases

Eggers’ test did not indicate the presence of funnel plot asymmetry for prematurity, LBW, colonization, multiple-gestation pregnancies, and infant sex (Supplementary Figure 6).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and meta-analyses show that the risk of LOGBS is higher in preterm and LBW infants, infants born to mothers colonized with GBS in pregnancy, and multiple gestation pregnancies. Our findings are consistent with previous reviews that identified prematurity and maternal GBS colonization as risk factors for EOGBS [41]. In contrast, we did not demonstrate any association between LOGBS and other intrapartum risk factors, such as maternal fever and PROM [41], confirming that intra-amniotic infection does not have any connection to LOGBS.

Premature and LBW infants are known to have increased susceptibility to infections due to immature immune responses, low placental antibody transfer, increased gut permeability, and the risk of nosocomial transmission during their prolonged hospitalization. Prematurity is also characterized by disturbances of microbiome development associated with frequent use of antibiotics, formula feeding and reduced contact with the maternal microbiome that might disturb the adaptation of GBS to its neonatal host environment [42]. Our sub-analysis of LOGBS risk in infants <34 weeks showed that very preterm infants are at higher risk. This is in keeping with the previous finding of increasing risk for each week of decreasing gestation [30].

In addition, our results suggest a strong association between LOGBS and maternal colonization during pregnancy. Because GBS screening results were only recorded in mothers who reached 35 weeks of pregnancy, prematurity is unlikely to have accounted for the effect of maternal GBS colonization on LOGBS risk. The transmission routes underpinning this observation, however, are not fully understood. The time infants get colonized with GBS is highly variable. Longitudinal colonization studies of mother-infant pairs showed that approximately 20–25% of infants born to mothers colonized with GBS became colonized with the same strain by 2 months of age, despite adequate IAP, and negative GBS screening at birth [43]. It seems that GBS can persist at mucosal surfaces even after adequate therapy and cause delayed infant acquisition through nursing (eg, via contaminated hands) and possibly breastfeeding, although the latter remains controversial [44]. It is important to note that only a small proportion of colonized infants will develop iGBS disease. There are likely other virulence factors (eg, adhesins) and host defenses (eg, anti-capsular polysaccharide-specific antibodies) that may modify the risk of LOGBS in the presence of maternal GBS colonization [45].

In contrast, the association of multiple-gestation pregnancies with increased risk of LOGBS is likely confounded by prematurity and LBW, although we could not adequately test this due to the use of aggregate data for this review. However, a previous review of the clinical risk factors of EOGBS showed that multiple-gestation pregnancies are not an independent risk factor, with LBW accounting for the excess risk in twins [41]. It is important to note that we compared rates of LOGBS in multiple-gestation pregnancies and singletons. Due to the use of aggregate data, we did not assess the risk of LOGBS for an infant with a twin sibling with iGBS disease (EOGBS or LOGBS), which is known to be significantly raised, since the multiples have the same mother, thus the same potential exposure to GBS colonization either vertically or horizontally [46].

Our findings might have important implications for designing GBS vaccine trials. A vaccine administered during pregnancy could substantially reduce the LOGBS disease burden through passively transferred antibodies [1]. However, to do so would require the persistence of protective concentrations of antibodies in infants until at least 3 months of age. Given that three-quarters of LOGBS cases occur within the first 8 weeks (median 34 days, interquartile range: 20–49 days) [2], it is plausible that vaccine-induced antibodies with a half-life between 39 and 46 days [47] would protect most infants. However, optimal transfer (and persistence) of antibodies may be a particular challenge for protecting preterm/LBW infants who are at high risk of both EOGBS and LOGBS. This is because the placental transfer of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody is optimal in the third trimester of pregnancy so that infants born prematurely may not have had a chance to receive protective concentrations. This will, however, be strongly influenced by the timing of vaccination during pregnancy. Several recent studies on maternal vaccination against pertussis support the efficacy of early vaccination in protecting preterm infants. Kent et al showed that preterm infants whose mothers were immunized from 28 weeks had higher antibody concentrations compared to preterm infants born to unvaccinated mothers [48]. Eberhardt et al reported higher antibody concentrations in both term and preterm infants when mothers were vaccinated in the second compared to third trimester [49]. Also, vaccine effectiveness data from the United Kingdom suggested that extending the vaccination window down to 16 weeks gestation reduced hospitalized pertussis cases in preterm infants [50]. Therefore, studies seeking to define the optimal window for GBS vaccination to protect preterm and term infants should be prioritized.

This study has some limitations. First, under-ascertainment of cases is a common problem with invasive infant disease incidence studies [1]. However, many of the included surveillance studies mitigated the problem of under-reporting by using Capture-Recapture methods to ascertain cases, where both reference laboratories and clinical surveillance data were used (Table 1). Second, most studies were from HIC; therefore, the estimated risks might not be generalizable. Subgroup analyses suggested that the OR for prematurity and LBW were lower in LMIC. This difference was driven by higher rates of LOGBS among term infants compared to HIC, whereas the incidence of disease among preterm/LBW infants was similar in LMIC and HIC. This might be explained by comorbidities such as exposure to HIV, or other clinical risk factors in early life that have not been captured in this review (eg, malnutrition). Third, we could not adjust for multiple risk factors since we used aggregate data. Although 3 case-control studies reported adjusted OR for different sets of covariates [30, 36, 37], we used the unadjusted OR from these studies to compare the effect sizes across all studies. Therefore, the pooled estimates are subject to possible confounding due to other factors influencing LOGBS risk. For the same reasons, it was not possible to assess the relationship between the risk of LOGBS and gestation or birth weight as continuous variables. Instead, we did a sub-analysis using a cutoff of 34 weeks that showed a higher risk in more preterm infants. We chose this threshold because it was the most common subgroup of preterm infants reported in the included studies. Limited availability of national or regional data on the prevalence of very preterm (28–32 weeks) or extremely preterm (<28 weeks) infants did not allow for further comparisons. Similarly, there were insufficient data available to perform a sub-analysis for very low birth weight (VLBW <1500g) or extremely low birth weight (ELBW <1000g) infants. Fourth, subgroup analyses and meta-regression did not provide a convincing explanation for the observed variation between the results of the studies. Finally, we did not identify enough eligible studies to estimate the risk of horizontal transmission through breast milk or non-maternal caregivers. Aside from vertical transmission risks, evidence regarding horizontal transmission risk factors to inform preventive strategies is currently limited.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our study shows that prematurity/low birth weight and maternal colonization with GBS are major risk factors for LOGBS. To fully understand and ultimately prevent LOGBS, we need (i) well-conducted colonization studies that use genome sequencing and include breast milk samples and specimens from other family members (not restricted to mothers), (ii) mechanistic studies of the role of virulent strains in driving LOGBS, and (iii) globally collaborative sero-epidemiological studies of the role of maternally derived antibodies in protecting infants from GBS acquisition and LOGBS. Answering these questions would be key to developing novel strategies to control LOGBS.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary materials are available at Clinical Infectious Diseases online. Consisting of data provided by the authors to benefit the reader, the posted materials are not copyedited and are the sole responsibility of the authors, so questions or comments should be addressed to the corresponding author.

ciac206_suppl_Supplementary_Material

Notes

Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Prof Eric Giannoni for providing a summary of cases with age of onset <90 days from his previously published data on Incidence and Outcome of Group B Streptococcal Sepsis in Infants in Switzerland. They would also like to thank Dr Lisa Frigati for providing data on the incidence of low birth weight at Tygerberg Hospital in Metro East area of the Western Cape province.

Financial sources. This work was supported by the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 program supported by the European Union (grant number RIA2018V-2304-PREPARE).

Contributor Information

Konstantinos Karampatsas, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, Institute of Infection and Immunity, St. George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Hannah Davies, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, Institute of Infection and Immunity, St. George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Maren Mynarek, Center for Early Brain Development, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.

Nick Andrews, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.

Paul T Heath, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, Institute of Infection and Immunity, St. George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Kirsty Le Doare, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, Institute of Infection and Immunity, St. George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom; MRC/UVRI @LHSTM Uganda Research Unit, Entebbe, Uganda; Pathogen Immunity Group, Public Health England, Porton Down, United Kingdom.

References

  • 1. Seale AC, Bianchi-Jassir F, Russell NJ, et al. Estimates of the burden of group B streptococcal disease worldwide for pregnant women, stillbirths, and children. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65:S200–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Nanduri SA, Petit S, Smelser C, et al. Epidemiology of invasive early-onset and late-onset group B streptococcal disease in the United States, 2006 to 2015: multistate laboratory and population-based surveillance. JAMA Pediatr 2019; 173:224–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Dangor Z, Lala SG, Cutland CL, et al. Burden of invasive group B streptococcus disease and early neurological sequelae in South African infants. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0123014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Ohlsson A, Shah VS.. Intrapartum antibiotics for known maternal group B streptococcal colonization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2014:CD007467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. O’Sullivan CP, Lamagni T, Patel D, et al. Group B streptococcal disease in UK and Irish infants younger than 90 days, 2014–15: a prospective surveillance study. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 19:83–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Romain AS, Cohen R, Plainvert C, et al. Clinical and laboratory features of group B streptococcus meningitis in infants and newborns: study of 848 cases in France, 2001–2014. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 66:857–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Baeringsdottir B, Erlendsdottir H, Bjornsdottir ES, et al. Group B streptococcal infections in infants in Iceland: clinical and microbiological factors. J Med Microbiol 2021; 70:001426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Alhhazmi A, Hurteau D, Tyrrell GJ.. Epidemiology of invasive group B streptococcal disease in Alberta, Canada, from 2003 to 2013. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 55:342–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Puopolo KM, Lynfield R, Cummings JJ, et al. Management of infants at risk for group B streptococcal disease. Pediatrics 2019; 144:e20191881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller A-B, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Heal 2019; 7:e37–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Monden C, Pison G, Smits J.. Twin Peaks: more twinning in humans than ever before. Hum Reprod 2021; 36:1666–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Blencowe H, Krasevec J, de Onis M, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of low birthweight in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Heal 2019; 7:e849–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Chao F, Gerland P, Cook AR, Alkema L.. Systematic assessment of the sex ratio at birth for all countries and estimation of national imbalances and regional reference levels. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2019; 116:9303–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Russell NJ, Seale AC, O’Driscoll M, et al. Maternal colonization with group B Streptococcus and serotype distribution worldwide: systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65:S100–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Dauby N, Chamekh M, Melin P, Slogrove AL, Goetghebuer T.. Increased risk of group B Streptococcus invasive infection in HIV-exposed but uninfected infants: a review of the evidence and possible mechanisms. Front Immunol 2016; 7:505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa TA, Ebert DD.. Doing Meta-Analysis With R: A Hands-On Guide. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL and London: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane 2021. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook#how-to-cite [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Berardi A, Rossi C, Lugli L, et al. Group B Streptococcus late-onset disease: 2003–2010. Pediatrics 2013; 131:e3612003–e368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Dangor Z, Cutland CL, Izu A, et al. Temporal changes in invasive group B Streptococcus serotypes: implications for vaccine development. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0169101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Fluegge K. Incidence and clinical presentation of invasive neonatal group B streptococcal infections in Germany. Pediatrics 2006; 117:e1139–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Frigati L, van der Merwe J, Rabie H, Theron G, Cotton MA.. Retrospective review of group B streptococcal infection in the Metro East area of the Western Cape province: 2010 to 2011. South African J Infect Dis 2015; 29:33–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Giannoni E, Berger C, Stocker M, et al. Incidence and outcome of group B streptococcal sepsis in infants in Switzerland. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2016; 35:222–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Guan X, Mu X, Ji W, et al. Epidemiology of invasive group B streptococcal disease in infants from urban area of South China, 2011–2014. BMC Infect Dis 2018; 18:14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Heath PT, Balfour G, Weisner AM, et al. Group B streptococcal disease in UK and Irish infants younger than 90 days. Lancet 2004; 363:292–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Ireland S, Larkins S, Kandasamy Y.. Group B streptococcal infection in the first 90 days of life in North Queensland. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 54:146–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Jordan HT, Farley MM, Craig A, et al. Revisiting the need for vaccine prevention of late-onset neonatal group B streptococcal disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2008; 27:1057–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Joubrel C, Tazi A, Six A, et al. Group B Streptococcus neonatal invasive infections, France 2007–2012. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21:910–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Juncosa-Morros T, Guardià-Llobet C, Bosch-Mestres J, et al. La infección neonatal tardía por Streptococcus agalactiae en el área de Barcelona (1996–2010). Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2014; 32:574–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Ko DW, Zurynski Y, Gilbert GL.. Group B streptococcal disease and genotypes in Australian infants. J Paediatr Child Health 2015; 51:808–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Lin FYC, Weisman LE, Troendle J, Adams K.. Prematurity is the major risk factor for late-onset group B Streptococcus disease. J Infect Dis 2003; 188:267–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Matsubara K, Hoshina K, Suzuki Y.. Early-onset and late-onset group B streptococcal disease in Japan: a nationwide surveillance study, 2004–2010. Int J Infect Dis 2013; 17:e379–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Matsubara K, Hoshina K, Kondo M, et al. Group B streptococcal disease in infants in the first year of life: a nationwide surveillance study in Japan, 2011–2015. Infection 2017; 45:449–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Mynarek M, Bjellmo S, Lydersen S, Afset JE, Andersen GL, Vik T.. Incidence of invasive group B streptococcal infection and the risk of infant death and cerebral palsy: a Norwegian Cohort Study. Pediatr Res 2021; 89:1541–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Neto MT. Group B streptococcal disease in Portuguese infants younger than 90 days. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007; 93:F90–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Óladóttir GL, Erlendsdóttir H, Pálsson G, et al. Increasing incidence of late-onset neonatal invasive group B streptococcal infections in Iceland. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30:661–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Pintye J, Saltzman B, Wolf E, Crowell CS.. Risk factors for late-onset group B streptococcal disease before and after implementation of universal screening and intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2016; 5:431–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Schuchat A, Oxtoby M, Cochi S, et al. Population-based risk factors for neonatal group B streptococcal disease: results of a cohort study in Metropolitan Atlanta. J Infect Dis 1990; 162:672–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Trijbels-Smeulders M, de Jonge GA, Pasker-de Jong PCM, et al. Epidemiology of neonatal group B streptococcal disease in the Netherlands before and after introduction of guidelines for prevention. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007; 92:F271–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Vergadi E, Manoura A, Chatzakis E, et al. Changes in the incidence and epidemiology of neonatal group B streptococcal disease over the last two decades in Crete, Greece. Infect Dis Rep 2018; 10:56–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Ying Q, Wang S, Lou X, et al. Burden and risk factors of invasive group B Streptococcus disease among neonates in a Chinese maternity hospital. BMC Infect Dis 2019; 19:123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Benitz WE, Gould JB, Druzin ML.. Risk factors for early-onset group B streptococcal sepsis: estimation of odds ratios by critical literature review. Pediatrics 1999; 103:1275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Kolter J, Henneke P.. Codevelopment of microbiota and innate immunity and the risk for group B streptococcal disease. Front Immunol 2017; 8:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Berardi A, Rossi C, Creti R, et al. Group B streptococcal colonization in 160 mother-baby Pairs: a prospective cohort study. J Pediatr 2013; 163:1099–1104.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Zimmermann P, Gwee A, Curtis N.. The controversial role of breast milk in GBS late-onset disease. J Infect 2017; 74:S34–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Armistead B, Oler E, Adams Waldorf K, Rajagopal L.. The double life of group B Streptococcus: asymptomatic colonizer and potent pathogen. J Mol Biol 2019; 431:2914–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Freudenhammer M, Karampatsas K, Le Doare K, et al. Invasive group B Streptococcus disease with recurrence and in multiples: towards a better understanding of GBS late-onset sepsis. Front Immunol 2021; 12:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Madhi SA, Koen A, Cutland CL, et al. Antibody kinetics and response to routine vaccinations in infants born to women who received an investigational trivalent group B Streptococcus polysaccharide CRM197-conjugate vaccine during pregnancy. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65:1897–904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Kent A, Ladhani SN, Andrews NJ, et al. Pertussis antibody concentrations in infants born prematurely to mothers vaccinated in pregnancy. Pediatrics 2016; 138:1–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Eberhardt CS, Blanchard-Rohner G, Lemaître B, et al. Pertussis antibody transfer to preterm neonates after second- versus third-trimester maternal immunization. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 64:1129–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Tessier E, Campbell H, Ribeiro S, et al. Impact of extending the timing of maternal pertussis vaccination on hospitalized infant pertussis in England, 2014-2018. Clin Infect Dis 2021; 73:E2502–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ciac206_suppl_Supplementary_Material

Articles from Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES