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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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