Key result
Hygiene promotion reduced poor outcomes of cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy by 25% compared to no screening, whereas serological screening increased poor outcomes.
Why the study?
The French High Council of Public Health was mandated in 2016 to update recommendations regarding the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in pregnant women.
Does systematic serological screening or hygiene promotion reduce cytomegalovirus-related poor outcomes in pregnant women compared to no screening?
Does systematic serological screening or hygiene promotion reduce cytomegalovirus-related poor outcomes in pregnant women compared to no screening?
Prevention of cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy should focus on hygiene promotion rather than serological screening, as screening may increase terminations of pregnancy without reducing severe sequelae.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support hygiene promotion over serological screening for CMV in pregnancy; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus infection is the most frequent viral congenital infection, with possible consequences such as deafness, or psychomotor retardation. In 2016, the French High Council of Public Health was mandated to update recommendations regarding prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in pregnant women. We summarize a critical appraisal of knowledge and deterministic decision analysis comparing the current no-screening situation to serological screening during pregnancy, and to hygiene promotion. METHODS: Screening was defined as systematic serological testing, during the first trimester, with repeated tests as needed, to all pregnant women. Outcomes were: 1) severe sequela: intellectual deficiency with IQ ≤ 50 or hearing impairment < 70 dB or sight impairment (≤ 3/10 at best eye); 2) moderate sequela: any level of intellectual, hearing or sight deficiency; and 3) death or termination of pregnancy. We simulated the one-year course of cytomegalovirus infection in a cohort of 800,000 pregnant women. We developed a deterministic decision model, using best and min-max estimates, extracted from systematic reviews or original studies. RESULTS: Relevant data were scarce or imprecise. We estimated that 4352 maternal primary infections would result in 1741 foetal infections, and an unknown number of maternal reinfections would result in 1699 foetal infections. There would be 788 cytomegalovirus-related consequences, including 316 foetal deaths or terminations of pregnancy, and 424 moderate and 48 severe sequelae. Screening would result in a 1.66-fold increase of poor outcomes, mostly related to a 2.93-fold increase in deaths and terminations of pregnancy, not compensated by the decrease in severe symptomatic newborns. The promotion of hygiene would result in a 0.75-fold decrease of poor outcomes, related to both a decrease in severe sequelae among symptomatic newborns (RR = 0.75; min-max: 1.00-0.68), and in deaths and terminations of pregnancy (RR = 0.75; min-max: 0.97-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy should promote hygiene; serological screening should not be recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Villemeur et al. (2020) studied Cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy (n=800,000). Hygiene promotion vs. Current no-screening situation was evaluated on Poor outcomes (severe sequelae, moderate sequelae, and death or termination of pregnancy) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.97). Hygiene promotion reduced poor outcomes of cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy by 25% compared to no screening, whereas serological screening increased poor outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: