title: Antenatal herpes serologic screening: an appraisal of the evidence.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Calls for universal antenatal type-specific herpes simplex virus (HSV) screening to prevent neonatal herpes have recently increased and would affect the four million pregnant women and their partners annually in the United States. We undertook this review to assess the appropriateness of such screening, making relevant comparisons to established antenatal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening programs.
  
  
  METHODS
  We conducted a full PubMed and bibliographic search for relevant literature in English available from 1966 through February 2006, using the terms "genital herpes," "neonatal herpes," "decision analysis" or "cost-effectiveness analysis," and "herpes and pregnancy" or "antenatal herpes screening." Comparison literature was obtained by replacing "herpes" with "HBV" or "HIV".
  
  
  METHODS
  We appraised antenatal type-specific HSV screening using well-established criteria for a good screening program, which we articulated as questions. Of 455 articles we selected those that addressed at least one of the questions and were pertinent to the U.S. population.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We found that neonatal HSV is rare and its incidence is imprecisely defined. There is a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of interventions to prevent maternal acquisition of new infection in late pregnancy, which accounts for 60-80% of neonatal herpes. The consequences of universal screening are incompletely understood but include the potential for unnecessary cesarean deliveries and medical treatment, maternal psychosocial stress, and discord among partners. The available evidence indicates universal screening is not cost-effective. In contrast, antenatal HIV and HBV screening programs better satisfy accepted criteria for screening.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  On the basis of this appraisal, universal antenatal type-specific HSV screening to prevent neonatal herpes does not adequately satisfy criteria of a good screening program, and we recommend against its adoption.
authors.affiliation: Center for Research in Women's Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35233, USA. alan.tita@obgyn.uab.edu
authors.forename: Alan T N
authors.initials: AT
authors.lastname: Tita
authors.forename: William A
authors.initials: WA
authors.lastname: Grobman
authors.forename: Dwight J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Rouse
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006558:Herpes Genitalis / Q000175:diagnosis*; D006561:Herpes Simplex / Q000517:prevention & control* / Q000635:transmission; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D018445:Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical / Q000517:prevention & control; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D011247:Pregnancy; D011251:Pregnancy Complications, Infectious / Q000175:diagnosis*; D011296:Prenatal Diagnosis; D018139:Simplexvirus / Q000302:isolation & purification*