Developing a serocorrelate of protection against invasive group B streptococcus disease in pregnant women: a feasibility study
Authors: Carreras-Abad Clara , Cochet Madeleine , Hall Tom , Ramkhelawon Laxmee , Khalil Asma , Peregrine Elisabeth , Vinayakarao Latha , Sivarajan Sharmila , Hamid Rosol , Planche Tim , Sheridan Elizabeth , Winchester Stephen , Plumb Jane , Djennad Abdelmajid , Andrews Nick , Le Doare Kirsty , Heath Paul 
Published: December 2019

BackgroundGroup B streptococcus is the leading cause of infection in infants. Currently, intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis is the major strategy to prevent invasive group B streptococcus disease. However, intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis does not prevent maternal sepsis, premature births, stillbirths or late-onset disease. Maternal vaccination may offer an alternative strategy. Multivalent polysaccharide protein conjugate vaccine development is under way and a serocorrelate of protection is needed to expedite vaccine licensure.ObjectivesThe ultimate aim of this work is to determine the correlate of protection against the major group B streptococcus disease-causing serotypes in infants in the UK. The aim of this feasibility study is to test key operational aspects of the study design.DesignProspective cohort study of pregnant women and their infants in a 6-month period (1 July to 31 December 2018).SettingFive secondary and tertiary hospitals from London and South England. National iGBS disease surveillance was conducted in all trusts in England and Wales.ParticipantsPregnant women aged ≥ 18 years who were delivering at one of the selected hospitals and who provided consent during the study period. There were no exclusion criteria.InterventionsNo interventions were performed.Main outcome measures(1) To test the feasibility of collecting serum at delivery from a large cohort of pregnant women. (2) To test the key operational aspects for a proposed large serocorrelates study. (3) To test the feasibility of collecting samples from those with invasive group B streptococcus.ResultsA total of 1823 women were recruited during the study period. Overall, 85% of serum samples were collected at three sites collecting only cord blood. At the two sites collecting maternal, cord and infant blood samples, the collection rate was 60%. A total of 614 women were screened for group B streptococcus with a colonisation rate of 22% (serotype distribution: 30% III, 25% Ia, 16% II, 14% Ib, 14% V and 1% IV). A blood sample was collected from 34 infants who were born to colonised women. Maternal and infant blood and the bacterial isolates for 15 newborns who developed invasive group B streptococcal disease during the study period were collected (serotype distribution: 29% III, 29% II, 21% Ia, 7% Ib, 7% IV and 7% V).LimitationsRecruitment and sample collection were dependent on the presence of research midwives rather than the whole clinical team. In addition, individualised consent limited the number of women who could be approached each day, and site set-up for the national surveillance study and the limited time period of this feasibility study limited recruitment of all eligible participants.ConclusionsWe have verified the feasibility of collecting and processing rectovaginal swabs and blood samples in pregnant women, as well as samples from those with invasive group B streptococcal disease. We have made recommendations for the recruitment of cases within the proposed GBS3 study and for controls both within GBS3 and as an extension of this feasibility study.Future workA large case–control study comparing specific immunoglobulin G levels in mothers whose infants develop invasive group B streptococcal disease with those in colonised mothers whose infants do not develop invasive group B streptococcal disease is recommended.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN49326091; IRAS project identification number 246149/REC reference number 18/WM/0147.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.