The effectiveness of prophylaxis for measles contacts in NSW
Vicky Sheppeard A B F , Bradley Forssman C , Mark J. Ferson D , Conrad Moreira B , Sue Campbell-Lloyd A , Dominic E. Dwyer E and Jeremy M. McAnulty AA Centre for Health Protection, NSW Department of Health
B Centre for Population Health, Sydney West Area Health Service
C School of Public Health, University of Sydney
D Public Health Unit, South Eastern Sydney Illawarra Area Health Service and School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of NSW
E Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital
F Corresponding author. Email: vicky.sheppeard@swahs.health.nsw.gov.au
NSW Public Health Bulletin 20(6) 81-85 https://doi.org/10.1071/NB08014
Published: 24 June 2009
Abstract
Objectives: As international estimates of the effectiveness of post-exposure prophylaxis of measles vary, we sought to determine the effectiveness of post-exposure prophylaxis with either vaccine or immunoglobulin in susceptible persons with known measles contact. Methods: Data were obtained on all cases of measles notified in NSW between 1 March and 31 May 2006 and their contacts. The effectiveness of prophylaxis was calculated using the cohort method. Results: During March to May 2006, 57 cases of measles were notified and 1760 measles contacts were identified, of which 553 were classified as susceptible. The calculated effectiveness of post-exposure prophylaxis with vaccine or immunoglobulin in preventing measles was 83.3% (95% CI: 27–96%). Conclusion: Post-exposure immunisation remains an effective tool for preventing secondary cases of measles.
Acknowledgments
The NSW Public Health Network, particularly communicable disease surveillance officers, the Virology Section of the Institute for Clinical Pathology and Medical Research and NSW Department of Health Communicable Diseases Branch and Immunisation Unit all contributed extensively. Alex Rosewell assisted with the review of emergency department records to identify the index patient.
[1] Gidding HF, Burgess MA, Kempe AE. A short history of vaccination in Australia. Med J Aust 2001; 174 37–40.
| PubMed | CAS | (Cited 20 March 2006.)
[5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Postexposure prophylaxis, isolation, and quarantine to control an import-associated measles outbreak – Iowa, 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004; 53 969–71.
| PubMed | (Cited November 2008.)
[9] Weston KM, Dwyer DE, Ratnamohan M, McPhie K, Chan SW, Branley JM, et al. Nosocomial and community transmission of measles virus genotype D8 by a returning traveller from Nepal. Commun Dis Intell 2006; 30 58–65.
[10]
[11] Torvaldsen S, McIntyre PB. Observational methods in epidemiologic assessment of vaccine effectiveness. Commun Dis Intell 2002; 26 451–7.
| PubMed |
[12] Hightower AW, Orenstein WA, Martin SM. Recommendations for the use of Taylor series confidence intervals for estimates of vaccine efficacy. Bull World Health Organ 1988; 66 99–105.
| PubMed | CAS |
[13] Communicable Diseases Report New South Wales, for March and April 2006. NSW Public Health Bull 2006; 17 88–94.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] MacIntyre CR, Hull B, Burgess M. Measles control in NSW Divisions of General Practice. NSW Public Health Bull 2003; 14 13–6.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Parker AA, Staggs W, Dayan GH, Ortega-Sánchez IR, Rota PA, Lowe L, et al. Implications of a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana for sustained elimination of measles in the United States. N Engl J Med 2006; 355 447–55.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | CAS |
[16] Gidding HF, Gilbert GL. Measles immunity in young Australian adults. Commun Dis Intell 2001; 25 133–6.
| PubMed | CAS |
[17]
