ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Currently, the status of serological screening for toxoplasmosis in pregnant women in Spain is unknown, and there is no official recommendation. The objective of this study is to show the current practice of gestational screening for toxoplasmosis in hospitals belonging to the Spanish Network for Research on Congenital Toxoplasmosis (REIV-TOXO). METHODS: An electronic survey was sent between April 2021 and September 2021 to investigators from 118 hospitals of REIV-TOXO, representing all Spanish regions. Nine items related to gestational screening for toxoplasmosis were collected. This information was compared with cases of congenital toxoplasmosis (CT) identified in REIV-TOXO to determine if these were diagnosed in the presence of gestational screening. RESULTS: During the study period, serological screening was performed in 53.3% (63/118) hospitals, with variations between regions and even among hospitals within the same region. Testing performed in each trimester was the most common practice (57.7%), followed by a single determination (24.4%). 89.4% of CT cases between January 2015 and September 2021 were diagnosed due to gestational screening. CONCLUSION: The decision to perform gestational screening for toxoplasmosis in Spain is highly heterogeneous, with significant local and regional differences. Despite this, screening still allows the diagnosis of most CT cases. It is urgent to have current epidemiological data to inform decision-making in public health.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Early-onset neonatal sepsis (EONS) can cause significant morbidity and mortality, especially if it is not detected early. Given the decrease in its incidence in the past few decades, it is important to find a balance between reducing the use of diagnostic tests and continuing to detect affected patients. We compared 3 detection strategies in patients with risk factors (RFs) for infection: laboratory screening (S1), the Neonatal Sepsis Risk Calculator (S2) and clinical observation (S3). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study in neonates born at 34 weeks of gestation or later and with RFs or symptoms compatible with EONS. We analysed outcomes in our unit with the use of laboratory screening (S1) and compared them with the other two strategies (S2 and S3) to contemplate whether to modify our protocol. RESULTS: The study included 754 patients, and the most frequent RFs were prolonged rupture of membranes (35.5%) and maternal colonization by Streptococcus agalactiae (38.5%). Strategies S2 and S3 would decrease the performance of laboratory tests (S1, 56.8% of patients; S2, 9.9%; S3, 22.4%; P < 0.01), hospital admissions (S1, 11%; S2, 6.9%; S3, 7.9%; P < 0.01) and the use of antibiotherapy (S1, 8.6%; S2, 6.7%; S3, 6.4%; P < 0.01). Sepsis was diagnosed in 13 patients, and it would have been detected with S2 and S3 except in 1 patient who had asymptomatic bacteriemia by Enterococcus faecalis. No patient with mild and self-limited symptoms in whom antibiotherapy was not started received a diagnosis of sepsis later on. CONCLUSION: Close clinical observation seems to be a safe option and could reduce the use of diagnostic tests, hospital admission and unnecessary antibiotherapy. The watchful waiting approach in patients with mild and self-limiting symptoms in the first hours post birth does not appear to be associated with failure to identify sepsis.
