Comparison of a semipermeable dressing bonded to an absorbent pad and a semipermeable dressing over a separate gauze pad for containment of vaccinia virus at the vaccination site

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 3.94). 01/2008; 28(12):1339-43. DOI: 10.1086/523277
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare the ability of 2 types of dressings to contain vaccinia virus after smallpox vaccination.
Prospective, nonrandomized trial.
The smallpox vaccination clinic in a medium-sized military hospital.
Ninety-seven active-duty military members who received smallpox vaccination in accordance with US Department of Defense and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
The first 40 participants enrolled were instructed to cover their vaccination sites with a semipermeable membrane placed over a separate gauze pad, and the subsequent 57 participants were given a semipermeable membrane bonded to an absorbent pad. Swab samples of the external surface of the dressing were collected 7 and 21 days after vaccination. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to detect vaccinia DNA in the samples.
The rate of vaccinia DNA detection was significantly higher for samples obtained from vaccinees who were using the separate gauze and semipermeable membrane, compared with the vacinees who were using the gauze-impregnated semipermeable membrane (22% vs 2.2%; ; odds ratio, 12.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.4-567.4]).
A gauze-impregnated semipermeable membrane more effectively reduced viral passage to the external surface of the dressing than did a semipermeable membrane placed over a separate gauze pad. Routine use of such dressings following smallpox vaccination might reduce the incidence of autoinoculation and secondary transmission.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Young camels were inoculated intradermally with either camelpox or smallpox virus and the courses of infection, including serological response, were compared. Camelpox virus was highly infectious; generalized disease resulted which was transmitted naturally to contact animals. Smallpox virus produced only transient lesions at the inoculation site and a less marked serological response. Nevertheless, the camels inoculated with smallpox virus subsequently resisted a severe challenge with camelpox virus, and the possibility that limited replication of smallpox virus took place is discussed. The differences demonstrated between the behavior of the vituses is discussed in the light of their otherwise close relationship and the limited information available about camelpox infections in man.
    Infection and Immunity 05/1975; 11(4):617-21. · 4.16 Impact Factor
  • JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 05/2006; 295(16):1898-900. DOI:10.1001/jama.295.16.1898 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The orthopox viruses that are pathogenic for humans include variola major virus (VAR), monkeypox virus (MPV), cowpox virus (CPV), and to a lesser extent, camelpox virus (CML) and vaccinia virus (VAC). PCR is a powerful tool to detect and differentiate orthopox viruses, and real-time PCR has the further advantages of rapid turnaround time, low risk of contamination, capability of strain differentiation, and use of multiplexed probes. We used real-time PCR with fluorescence resonance energy transfer technology to simultaneously detect and differentiate VAR, MPV, CPV/VAC, and CML. An internal control generated by cloning and mutating the PCR target gene facilitated monitoring of PCR inhibition in each individual test reaction. Strain differentiation results showed little interassay variability (CV, 0.4-0.6%), and the test was 100-fold more sensitive than virus culture on Vero cells. Low copy numbers of DNA could be detected with > or =95% probability (235-849 genome copies/mL of plasma). The real-time PCR assay can detect and differentiate human pathogenic orthopox viruses. The use of an internal control qualifies the assay for high sample throughput, as is likely to be needed in situations of suspected acts of biological terrorism, e.g., use of VAR.
    Clinical Chemistry 04/2004; 50(4):702-8. DOI:10.1373/clinchem.2003.026781 · 7.77 Impact Factor