Article

Health Care-Associated Measles Outbreak in the United States After an Importation: Challenges and Economic Impact

Epidemic Intelligence Service, Office of Workforce and Career Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 5.78). 06/2011; 203(11):1517-25. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir115
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT On 12 February 2008, an infected Swiss traveler visited hospital A in Tucson, Arizona, and initiated a predominantly health care-associated measles outbreak involving 14 cases. We investigated risk factors that might have contributed to health care-associated transmission and assessed outbreak-associated hospital costs.
Epidemiologic data were obtained by case interviews and review of medical records. Health care personnel (HCP) immunization records were reviewed to identify non-measles-immune HCP. Outbreak-associated costs were estimated from 2 hospitals.
Of 14 patients with confirmed cases, 7 (50%) were aged ≥ 18 years, 4 (29%) were hospitalized, 7 (50%) acquired measles in health care settings, and all (100%) were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status. Of the 11 patients (79%) who had accessed health care services while infectious, 1 (9%) was masked and isolated promptly after rash onset. HCP measles immunity data from 2 hospitals confirmed that 1776 (25%) of 7195 HCP lacked evidence of measles immunity. Among these HCPs, 139 (9%) of 1583 tested seronegative for measles immunoglobulin G, including 1 person who acquired measles. The 2 hospitals spent US$799,136 responding to and containing 7 cases in these facilities.
Suspecting measles as a diagnosis, instituting immediate airborne isolation, and ensuring rapidly retrievable measles immunity records for HCPs are paramount in preventing health care-associated spread and in minimizing hospital outbreak-response costs.

0 Followers
 · 
130 Views
  • Source
    Vaccine 06/2012; 30(30):4407-8. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.015 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2010, an expert advisory panel convened by the World Health Organization to assess the feasibility of measles eradication concluded that (1) measles can and should be eradicated, (2) eradication by 2020 is feasible if measurable progress is made toward existing 2015 measles mortality reduction targets, (3) measles eradication activities should occur in the context of strengthening routine immunization services, and (4) measles eradication activities should be used to accelerate control and elimination of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). The expert advisory panel also emphasized the critical role of research and innovation in any disease control or eradication program. In May 2011, a meeting was held to identify and prioritize research priorities to support measles and rubella/CRS control and potential eradication activities. This summary presents the questions identified by the meeting participants and their relative priority within the following categories: (1) measles epidemiology, (2) vaccine development and alternative vaccine delivery, (3) surveillance and laboratory methods, (4) immunization strategies, (5) mathematical modeling and economic analyses, and (6) rubella/CRS control and elimination.
    Vaccine 04/2012; 30(32):4709-16. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.04.058 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A cluster randomized trial was performed to evaluate an educational intervention to improve parental attitudes and vaccine uptake in vaccine-hesitant parents. Two primary care sites were randomized to provide families with either usual care or an intervention (video and written information) for vaccine-hesitant parents. Eligible parents included those presenting for their child's 2-week well-child visit with performance on the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey suggesting vaccine hesitancy (score ≥25). Enrollees completed PACV surveys at the 2-month well-child visit and vaccination status at 12 weeks of age was assessed. The primary outcome was the difference in PACV scores obtained at enrollment and 2 months between the 2 groups. The proportion of on-time vaccination was also compared at 12 weeks. A total of 454 parents were approached, and 369 (81.3%) participated; 132 had PACV scores of ≥25 and were enrolled, 67 in the control group (mean PACV score 37) and 55 in the intervention group (mean PACV score 40). Two-month PACV surveys were completed by 108 (∼90%) of enrollees. Parents in the intervention group had a significant decrease in PACV score at 2 months compared to control (median difference 6.7, P = .049); this remained significant after adjustment for baseline PACV score, race/ethnicity, and income (P = .044). There was no difference in the on-time receipt of vaccines between groups at 12 weeks. A brief educational intervention for vaccine-hesitant parents was associated with a modest but significant increase in measured parental attitudes toward vaccines.
    Academic pediatrics 09/2013; 13(5):475-80. DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2013.03.011 · 2.23 Impact Factor