Cargando…
High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation – United States, 2015–2017
BACKGROUND: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for pertussis is recommended for household contacts of pertussis cases in the United States within 21 days of exposure, but data on PEP effectiveness for prevention of secondary cases in the setting of widespread pertussis vaccination are limited. We imple...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10194911/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37200360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285953 |
_version_ | 1785044116406534144 |
---|---|
author | McNamara, Lucy A. Rubis, Amy B. Pawloski, Lucia Briere, Elizabeth Misegades, Lara Brusseau, Aurora A. Peña, Sandra Edge, Karen Wester, Rachel Burzlaff, Kari Cruz, Victor Tondella, Lucia Skoff, Tami H. |
author_facet | McNamara, Lucy A. Rubis, Amy B. Pawloski, Lucia Briere, Elizabeth Misegades, Lara Brusseau, Aurora A. Peña, Sandra Edge, Karen Wester, Rachel Burzlaff, Kari Cruz, Victor Tondella, Lucia Skoff, Tami H. |
author_sort | McNamara, Lucy A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for pertussis is recommended for household contacts of pertussis cases in the United States within 21 days of exposure, but data on PEP effectiveness for prevention of secondary cases in the setting of widespread pertussis vaccination are limited. We implemented a multi-state evaluation of azithromycin PEP use and effectiveness among household contacts. METHODS: Culture- or PCR-confirmed pertussis cases were identified through surveillance. Household contacts were interviewed within 7 days of case report and again 14–21 days later. Interviewers collected information on exposure, demographics, vaccine history, prior pertussis diagnosis, underlying conditions, PEP receipt, pertussis symptoms, and pertussis testing. A subset of household contacts provided nasopharyngeal and blood specimens during interviews. RESULTS: Of 299 household contacts who completed both interviews, 12 (4%) reported not receiving PEP. There was no evidence of higher prevalence of cough or pertussis symptoms among contacts who did not receive PEP. Of 168 household contacts who provided at least one nasopharyngeal specimen, four (2.4%) were culture or PCR positive for B. pertussis; three of these received PEP prior to their positive test result. Of 156 contacts with serologic results, 14 (9%) had blood specimens that were positive for IgG anti-pertussis toxin (PT) antibodies; all had received PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Very high PEP uptake was observed among household contacts of pertussis patients. Although the number of contacts who did not receive PEP was small, there was no difference in prevalence of pertussis symptoms or positive laboratory results among these contacts compared with those who did receive PEP. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10194911 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101949112023-05-19 High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation – United States, 2015–2017 McNamara, Lucy A. Rubis, Amy B. Pawloski, Lucia Briere, Elizabeth Misegades, Lara Brusseau, Aurora A. Peña, Sandra Edge, Karen Wester, Rachel Burzlaff, Kari Cruz, Victor Tondella, Lucia Skoff, Tami H. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for pertussis is recommended for household contacts of pertussis cases in the United States within 21 days of exposure, but data on PEP effectiveness for prevention of secondary cases in the setting of widespread pertussis vaccination are limited. We implemented a multi-state evaluation of azithromycin PEP use and effectiveness among household contacts. METHODS: Culture- or PCR-confirmed pertussis cases were identified through surveillance. Household contacts were interviewed within 7 days of case report and again 14–21 days later. Interviewers collected information on exposure, demographics, vaccine history, prior pertussis diagnosis, underlying conditions, PEP receipt, pertussis symptoms, and pertussis testing. A subset of household contacts provided nasopharyngeal and blood specimens during interviews. RESULTS: Of 299 household contacts who completed both interviews, 12 (4%) reported not receiving PEP. There was no evidence of higher prevalence of cough or pertussis symptoms among contacts who did not receive PEP. Of 168 household contacts who provided at least one nasopharyngeal specimen, four (2.4%) were culture or PCR positive for B. pertussis; three of these received PEP prior to their positive test result. Of 156 contacts with serologic results, 14 (9%) had blood specimens that were positive for IgG anti-pertussis toxin (PT) antibodies; all had received PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Very high PEP uptake was observed among household contacts of pertussis patients. Although the number of contacts who did not receive PEP was small, there was no difference in prevalence of pertussis symptoms or positive laboratory results among these contacts compared with those who did receive PEP. Public Library of Science 2023-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10194911/ /pubmed/37200360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285953 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) public domain dedication. |
spellingShingle | Research Article McNamara, Lucy A. Rubis, Amy B. Pawloski, Lucia Briere, Elizabeth Misegades, Lara Brusseau, Aurora A. Peña, Sandra Edge, Karen Wester, Rachel Burzlaff, Kari Cruz, Victor Tondella, Lucia Skoff, Tami H. High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation – United States, 2015–2017 |
title | High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation – United States, 2015–2017 |
title_full | High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation – United States, 2015–2017 |
title_fullStr | High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation – United States, 2015–2017 |
title_full_unstemmed | High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation – United States, 2015–2017 |
title_short | High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation – United States, 2015–2017 |
title_sort | high post-exposure prophylaxis (pep) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a pep effectiveness evaluation – united states, 2015–2017 |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10194911/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37200360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285953 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcnamaralucya highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT rubisamyb highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT pawloskilucia highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT briereelizabeth highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT misegadeslara highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT brusseauauroraa highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT penasandra highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT edgekaren highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT westerrachel highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT burzlaffkari highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT cruzvictor highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT tondellalucia highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT skofftamih highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 AT highpostexposureprophylaxispepuptakeamonghouseholdcontactsofpertussispatientsenrolledinapepeffectivenessevaluationunitedstates20152017 |