An observational study in Streptococcus Infection and Pregnancy, sponsored by The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2013-05-03.
Sponsored by The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston · Observational
This study evaluates the use of a new method of growing and detecting Group B streptococcus in pregnant women. This new method utilizes sandwiched-membrane petri technology and has the advantage of detecting GBS in less than 6 hours, with less cost, and the potential of allowing antibiotic sensitivities to be performed.
Intrapartum infection with group B streptococci (GBS) may lead to untoward neonatal sequelae such as pneumonia, septicemia, and meningitis. Several clinical trials have demonstrated that the use of intrapartum intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (with penicillin being the agent of choice due to a narrower spectrum of antimicrobial activity) is highly effective to prevent early-onset neonatal GBS infections. It has been estimated that 10% to 30% of all pregnant women are GBS carriers, and it is likely that GBS colonizes virtually every female at some point. Consensus guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend prenatal screening at 35 to 37 weeks of gestation and chemoprophylaxis at delivery based upon this culture result. The CDC-recommended method for detecting GBS colonization involves collecting a combined vaginal and rectal specimen and culturing the organism in a selective broth medium, followed be subculturing onto blood agar plates.
However, this traditional method of culture takes up to 72 hours for results to be available. With 12.8% of patients experiencing a preterm delivery prior to when a GBS screening occurs, and up to 15% of term pregnancies not having routine GBS screening performed, a significant portion of women present with unknown GBS status at the time of potential delivery. These clinical situations require obstetricians to utilize a risk-based strategy that has been shown to be only half as effective as culture-based screening. Thus, a need exists for a rapid detection method for GBS.
Recent research has focused on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based methods for detection of GBS. Sensitivity for detection of GBS by the PCR assay has ranged from 87% to 91%. These methods are limited by high cost, and inability to perform antibiotic sensitivities for GBS (in women with a penicillin allergy). New technologies, called bionanopore (BNP) and bionanofilter (BNF) are rapid, microbial detection systems that utilizes sandwiched-membrane petri technology. These have the advantage of detecting GBS in less than 6 hours, with less cost, and the potential of allowing antibiotic sensitivities to be performed.
155 studies on the registry are indexed under Streptococcal Infections; 15 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 358 is close to the median of 339 across 42 observational studies indexed under Streptococcal Infections.
Browse Streptococcal Infections studies →The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston is the lead sponsor of 880 studies on the registry; 209 are open to participants now.
Of its 170 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 140 (82%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Pregnant patients who present to the UT resident or attending clinic between 35-37 weeks for routine follow-up will be asked to enroll.
Exclusion Criteria:
Culture of Group B streptococcus
Rapid assay results will be compared to routine culture results.
Time frame: 48 hours
This study is completed, as verified in May 2013. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston