Oral erythromycin prophylaxis vs watchful waiting in caring for newborns exposed to Chlamydia trachomatis

Marc Rosenman, Barbara E. Mahon, Stephen Downs, Martin B. Kleiman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 100000 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 neonates exposed to C trachomatis. 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)565-571
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
Volume157
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2003

Fingerprint

Watchful Waiting
Chlamydia trachomatis
Erythromycin
Pyloric Stenosis
Newborn Infant
Pneumonia
Conjunctivitis
Decision Trees
Inpatients
Hospitalization
Outpatients
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Parturition
Incidence
Infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Oral erythromycin prophylaxis vs watchful waiting in caring for newborns exposed to Chlamydia trachomatis. / Rosenman, Marc; Mahon, Barbara E.; Downs, Stephen; Kleiman, Martin B.

In: Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 6, 01.06.2003, p. 565-571.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{717f4f89ecfa4e428ce8ea43527c28ce,
title = "Oral erythromycin prophylaxis vs watchful waiting in caring for newborns exposed to Chlamydia trachomatis",
abstract = "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 100000 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 neonates exposed to C trachomatis. 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.",
author = "Marc Rosenman and Mahon, {Barbara E.} and Stephen Downs and Kleiman, {Martin B.}",
year = "2003",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/archpedi.157.6.565",
language = "English",
volume = "157",
pages = "565--571",
journal = "JAMA Pediatrics",
issn = "2168-6203",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oral erythromycin prophylaxis vs watchful waiting in caring for newborns exposed to Chlamydia trachomatis

AU - Rosenman, Marc

AU - Mahon, Barbara E.

AU - Downs, Stephen

AU - Kleiman, Martin B.

PY - 2003/6/1

Y1 - 2003/6/1

N2 - 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 100000 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 neonates exposed to C trachomatis. 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.

AB - 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 100000 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 neonates exposed to C trachomatis. 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037637538&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037637538&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archpedi.157.6.565

DO - 10.1001/archpedi.157.6.565

M3 - Article

C2 - 12796237

AN - SCOPUS:0037637538

VL - 157

SP - 565

EP - 571

JO - JAMA Pediatrics

JF - JAMA Pediatrics

SN - 2168-6203

IS - 6

ER -