Trial reportClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2012
A comparison of 2 strategies to prevent infection following pertussis exposure in vaccinated healthcare personnel.
Trial report in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00469274 (A Randomized Open-Label Non-Inferiority Study to Examine the Impact of Pertussis Vaccination of Healthcare Workers on Post-exposure Prophylaxis), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized Open-Label Non-Inferiority Study to Examine the Impact of Pertussis Vaccination of Healthcare Workers on Post-exposure Prophylaxis
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention of Pertussis, Tetanus, and Diphtheria with Vaccines in the United States: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2018Guideline
- Expert consensus on competency enhancement of pertussis prevention, diagnosis, and management for healthcare professionals through medical-preventive integration.Infectious diseases & immunity · 2026Article
- Article
- Interpretation of guidelines for diagnosis, management, and prevention of pertussis in China (version 2024).Infectious diseases & immunity · 2025Article
- Article
- Azithromycin to Prevent Pertussis in Household Contacts, Catalonia and Navarre, Spain, 2012-2013.Emerging infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Occupational Health Update: Focus on Preventing the Acquisition of Infections with Pre-exposure Prophylaxis and Postexposure Prophylaxis.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2016Review
- Postexposure management of healthcare personnel to infectious diseases.Hospital practice (1995) · 2015Article
- Does working in hospital increases seroprevalence and carrier state against Bordetella pertussis?Advanced biomedical research · 2015Article
- Pertussis post-exposure prophylaxis among household contacts: a cost-utility analysis.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotic postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) following pertussis exposure is recommended but has never been evaluated in healthcare personnel (HCP) vaccinated with acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap).
methodsTdap-vaccinated HCP were randomized to receive azithromycin PEP or no PEP following pertussis exposure. Acute and convalescent nasopharyngeal swabs and sera were obtained for pertussis testing by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and anti-pertussis toxin (PT) immunoglobulin G, respectively. A nasopharyngeal aspirate was also collected for PCR and culture from subjects who reported respiratory symptoms within 21 days following identification of the exposure. Pertussis infection was defined as a positive culture or PCR, a 2-fold rise in anti-PT titer, or a single anti-PT titer of ≥94 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units/mL. Daily symptom monitoring without PEP was considered noninferior to PEP after pertussis exposure if the lower limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the reduction in pertussis was greater than -7%.
resultsDuring 30 months of study, 86 subjects were randomized following a pertussis exposure. Using the predefined definition of infection, pertussis infection did not develop in 41 (97.6%) of 42 subjects who received azithromycin PEP and 38 (86.4%) of 44 subjects who did not receive PEP (absolute risk difference, -11.3%; lower bound of the 1-sided 95% CI, -20.6%; P = .81). However, no subject developed symptomatic pertussis confirmed with culture or a specific PCR assay, and possibly no subject developed subclinical pertussis infection based upon additional serologic testing.
conclusionsUsing the predefined definition of pertussis infection, noninferiority for preventing pertussis following exposure was not demonstrated for daily symptom monitoring of Tdap-vaccinated HCP without PEP when compared with antibiotic PEP. However, the small number of exposed HCP warrants further study of this approach. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT00469274.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.