This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (6)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Bacterial Infections  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases  • Neonatology and Infant Care  • Pregnancy and Breast Feeding  • Drug Therapy  • Adverse Effects  • Infectious Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Marc B. Rosenman, MD; Barbara E. Mahon, MD, MPH; Stephen M. Downs, MD, MS; Martin B. Kleiman, MD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:565-571.

Background  Chlamydia trachomatis exposure at birth may cause conjunctivitis or pneumonia. Until recently, a course of oral erythromycin prophylaxis was recommended for C trachomatis–exposed neonates. However, recognition of an association between erythromycin and pyloric stenosis prompted a change to a watchful waiting recommendation under which only infants who develop symptomatic C trachomatis infection are treated with oral erythromycin.

Objective  To compare erythromycin prophylaxis with watchful waiting for a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 neonates exposed to C trachomatis.

Methods  In a decision tree, potential outcomes were C trachomatis conjunctivitis, C trachomatis pneumonia (which could require inpatient or outpatient therapy), no clinical disease, and pyloric stenosis. Published data were reviewed to derive probability point estimates and ranges. Estimated charges served as outcome measures.

Results  Watchful waiting is less expensive than erythromycin prophylaxis ($15.1 million vs $28.3 million); prophylaxis prevents 5986 cases of C trachomatis pneumonia, including 1197 hospital admissions, but causes 3284 pyloric stenosis cases. (For every 30 infants given oral erythromycin prophylaxis, one additional case of pyloric stenosis would be expected to occur, and approximately 1.8 cases of C trachomatis pneumonia would be prevented.) In sensitivity analyses, if more than 3.4% of exposed neonates are hospitalized for C trachomatis pneumonia, prophylaxis becomes favored.

Conclusions  This study supports the watchful waiting recommendation for asymptomatic C trachomatis–exposed neonates. However, there are wide plausible ranges for pyloric stenosis risk after erythromycin administration and for the incidence of C trachomatis pneumonia severe enough to require hospitalization; under some combinations of these rates, prophylaxis could be favored.

From the Sections of Children's Health Services Research (Drs Rosenman and Downs), Adolescent Medicine (Dr Mahon), and Infectious Disease (Dr Kleiman), Department of Pediatrics, and Regenstrief Institute (Drs Rosenman and Downs), Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr Mahon is now with the Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The cost effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia screening in England
Adams et al.
Sex. Transm. Infect. 2007;83:267-275.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Neonatal pneumonia in developing countries
Duke
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90:F211-f219.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT