ArticlePloS one2023
High post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) uptake among household contacts of pertussis patients enrolled in a PEP effectiveness evaluation - United States, 2015-2017.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-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.
methodsCulture- 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsVery 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.
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.