Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers

Discover Pediatric Collections on COVID-19 and Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health

American Academy of Pediatrics
Commentary

Azithromycin Prophylaxis for Laboring Mothers

Jeffrey S. Gerber and Theoklis E. Zaoutis
Pediatrics February 2017, 139 (2) e20163643; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3643
Jeffrey S. Gerber
Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Department of Pediatrics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theoklis E. Zaoutis
Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Department of Pediatrics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF
  • Abbreviation:
    GBS —
    group B Streptococcus
  • Antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent infection is an appealing concept. This approach is used for clinical scenarios in which the benefits have been clearly established, such as the prevention of surgical site infections, group B Streptococcus (GBS) sepsis in the neonate, and congenital and acquired immune deficiencies. In each case, the potential benefits of prophylaxis, including infection-associated morbidity and even mortality, must be weighed against the known risks of antimicrobial resistance and adverse drug effects. Ideally, only the highest risk patients are targeted for prophylaxis to avoid unnecessary exposure (eg, laboring mothers who are GBS positive or clean-contaminated surgical procedures) and the risk/benefit assessment is periodically reassessed over time as new data emerge.

    Postpartum infections of the mother and newborn are critically important targets of preventive health efforts. Approximately 1 million neonates die each year from infection; 99% of the deaths occur in developing countries.1 Because GBS is a major cause of both maternal (endometritis, chorioamnionitis, urinary tract infection) and neonatal (sepsis, pneumonia) infections, guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend antibiotic prophylaxis with penicillin or ampicillin for laboring mothers known to be colonized with GBS through universally recommended screening during pregnancy.2 This targeted approach to deliver antimicrobial prophylaxis has cut the rate of early-onset neonatal invasive GBS infection by 80% but might not be feasible in the developing world.

    In an attempt to expand the scope of peripartum prophylaxis, Oluwalana et al examined the impact of azithromycin prophylaxis given to all laboring mothers on rates of postpartum maternal and neonatal infections.3 Because this was a post hoc analysis of data from a previously conducted study, it is important to describe the details of the parent study: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial designed to determine the impact of a single dose (2 g) of azithromycin given during labor on maternal (vaginal, breast milk) and neonatal (nasopharyngeal swab) colonization with Staphylococcus aureus, GBS, or pneumococcus.4 Mothers were recruited from a government-operated health center in Western Gambia between April 2013 and April 2014. Those enrolled received azithromycin or placebo and were followed daily for 1 week postpartum and then weekly through 8 weeks for assessment of the primary outcome (colonization). The parent study found that azithromycin was associated with a reduction in maternal and infant colonization for all pathogens investigated. For the current study, the authors aimed to determine whether azithromycin prophylaxis protected against (1) postpartum infection in the mother, including mastitis, sepsis, urinary tract infection, pelvic inflammatory disease, and malaria, and (2) neonatal infection, including skin infection, umbilical infection, conjunctivitis, otitis, oral infection, sepsis, meningitis, pneumonia, and malaria.

    Of 1061 eligible laboring women, 829 were enrolled (414 received azithromycin and 415 placebo). Although the authors accurately conclude that both mothers and infants in the treatment arm experienced fewer infections overall, these rates were entirely driven by mastitis in the mothers and skin infections in neonates, none of which were described as severe. Furthermore, based on the reported risk differences between groups, the number needed to treat to prevent a skin infection in mother or infants was 27. No significant differences in rates of sepsis, malaria, hospitalizations, or death in mothers or infants were observed; there were 3 maternal hospitalizations and 3 neonatal deaths in the azithromycin arm versus 2 maternal hospitalizations and 4 deaths in subjects receiving placebo.

    Strengths of this study include the important public health topic addressed; the randomized, placebo-controlled study design; and the thorough follow-up of study subjects for 8 weeks after delivery. Some important limitations must be noted, however. Because this was a post hoc analysis of data from a study designed to evaluate a different primary outcome (colonization), the study was not powered to assess the outcomes of interest (infections). Furthermore, these outcomes were derived from adverse event reports from the parent study that were less rigorously defined (based on clinical judgment of study clinicians). Thus, it remains unclear from these data whether this approach to prophylaxis protects mothers or infants against life-threatening infections. Of note, a recent study examining the effect of azithromycin prophylaxis, albeit a lower (500 mg) dose, to prevent postoperative wound infections in mothers undergoing caesarean delivery confirmed its lack of protection against neonatal sepsis in a secondary analysis.5

    In the face of this uncertainly, we must also consider the potential downside of universal azithromycin exposure to laboring mothers. Although only a single administration, the large dose coupled with azithromycin’s long half-life provide a relatively prolonged exposure. Azithromycin exposure may also facilitate the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in other antibiotic classes.6 Clinically important resistance to azithromycin has been demonstrated in both maternal and neonatal infections worldwide for the pathogens targeted in this study as well as for group A Streptococcus, Chlamydia, and gonococcal infections. In addition, despite the intent to target colonization with pathogenic organisms, systemic antimicrobial exposure can alter the structure and function of the human microbiome, which has been associated with a variety of chronic health conditions in both adults and children,7 and macrolide exposure has the most dramatic effects on energy metabolism and adiposity in animal models.8 Early-life azithromycin exposure has also been associated with development of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis in infants.9 Although maternal azithromycin use has not been directly linked to this condition, widespread exposure during labor could have unintended consequences on a population level.

    In light of the small potential benefits observed in the Oluwalana study, the potential harms of azithromycin exposure likely outweigh the upside for this specific indication. If azithromycin prophylaxis in laboring mothers becomes common, however, future studies should systematically capture its effects on serious maternal and neonatal infections, as well as antimicrobial resistance, adverse drug effects, and disruptions to the host microbiome.

    Footnotes

      • Accepted November 4, 2016.
    • Address correspondence to Jeffrey S. Gerber, MD, PhD, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 3535 Market St, Suite 1518, Philadelphia, PA 19147. E-mail: gerberj{at}email.chop.edu
    • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    • FUNDING: No external funding.

    • POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

    • COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2016-2281.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Waters D,
      2. Jawad I,
      3. Ahmad A, et al
      . Aetiology of community-acquired neonatal sepsis in low and middle income countries. J Glob Health. 2011;1(2):154–170pmid:23198116
      OpenUrlPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Committee on Infectious Diseases, American Academy of Pediatrics
      . Group B Streptococcal infection. In: Kimberlin DW, Brady M, Jackson MA, Long SS, eds. 2015 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2015:1–6
    3. ↵
      1. Oluwalana C,
      2. Camara B,
      3. Bottomley C, et al
      . Azithromycin in labor lowers clinical infections in mothers and newborns: a double-blind trial. Pediatrics. 2017;139(2):e20162281
    4. ↵
      1. Roca A,
      2. Oluwalana C,
      3. Bojang A, et al
      . Oral azithromycin given during labour decreases bacterial carriage in the mothers and their offspring: a double-blind randomized trial. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(6):565.e1–565.e9pmid:27026482
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Tita ATN,
      2. Szychowski JM,
      3. Boggess K, et al; C/SOAP Trial Consortium
      . Adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1231–1241pmid:27682034
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Barkai G,
      2. Greenberg D,
      3. Givon-Lavi N,
      4. Dreifuss E,
      5. Vardy D,
      6. Dagan R
      . Community prescribing and resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(6):829–837pmid:15963276
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Vangay P,
      2. Ward T,
      3. Gerber JS,
      4. Knights D
      . Antibiotics, pediatric dysbiosis, and disease. Cell Host Microbe. 2015;17(5):553–564
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Nobel YR,
      2. Cox LM,
      3. Kirigin FF, et al
      . Metabolic and metagenomic outcomes from early-life pulsed antibiotic treatment. Nat Commun. 2015;6:7486
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Eberly MD,
      2. Eide MB,
      3. Thompson JL,
      4. Nylund CM
      . Azithromycin in early infancy and pyloric stenosis. Pediatrics. 2015;135(3):483–488pmid:25687145
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    • Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
    PreviousNext
    Back to top

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    In this issue

    Pediatrics
    Vol. 139, Issue 2
    1 Feb 2017
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    View this article with LENS
    PreviousNext
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Azithromycin Prophylaxis for Laboring Mothers
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Request Permissions
    Article Alerts
    Log in
    You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
    Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Azithromycin Prophylaxis for Laboring Mothers
    Jeffrey S. Gerber, Theoklis E. Zaoutis
    Pediatrics Feb 2017, 139 (2) e20163643; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-3643

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Share
    Azithromycin Prophylaxis for Laboring Mothers
    Jeffrey S. Gerber, Theoklis E. Zaoutis
    Pediatrics Feb 2017, 139 (2) e20163643; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-3643
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Print
    Download PDF
    Insight Alerts
    • Table of Contents

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • Comments

    Related Articles

    • No related articles found.
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

    Cited By...

    • No citing articles found.
    • Google Scholar

    More in this TOC Section

    • Realizing the Potential of Nurse Home Visiting
    • The Public Health and Clinical Importance of Accurate Neonatal Testing for COVID-19
    • Addressing Health Inequities for Limited English Proficiency Patients: Interpreter Use and Beyond
    Show more Commentary

    Similar Articles

    Subjects

    • Fetus/Newborn Infant
      • Fetus/Newborn Infant
      • Neonatology
    • Infectious Disease
      • Infectious Disease
      • Epidemiology
    • Journal Info
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Policies
    • Overview
    • Licensing Information
    • Authors/Reviewers
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit My Manuscript
    • Open Access
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Librarians
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Usage Stats
    • Support
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Resources
    • Media Kit
    • About
    • International Access
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Statement
    • FAQ
    • AAP.org
    • shopAAP
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
    • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
    • RSS
    American Academy of Pediatrics

    © 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics