Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T18:53:05.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measles Immunity in Employees of a Multihospital Healthcare Provider

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Larry J. Wright  and
John F. Carlquist
Larry J. Wright*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Utah College of Medicine, and Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah
John F. Carlquist
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Utah College of Medicine, and Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah
*
Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, LDS Hospital, 8th Ave. and C St., Salt Lake City, UT84143
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the potential for nosocomial measles transmission by measuring seropositivity among healthcare workers in Utah.

Design:

Blood specimens were collected for measurement of measles IgG antibody by enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Individuals with undetectable or equivocal antibody levels were considered at risk for infection. Employees were grouped according to the decade of their birth, and analyses of serological findings were done by the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for trend.

Setting:

The study was performed in a healthcare organization comprised of six urban and 10 rural hospitals.

Participants:

Employees (n = 5825) were tested regardless of age, history of disease, or immunization.

Results:

There were 599 employees (10.3%) who were nonimmune. A trend showing age-related differences in immunity was not noted among employees born prior to 1957 (4.7% nonimmune). However, for employees born after that time, there was a significant age-associated increase in the percentage of susceptible individuals (P= 0.00001). The rate of susceptibility was 8.1% for individuals born between 1957 and 1959, 16.3% for individuals born during the 1960s, and 33.7% for those born in the 1970s.

Conclusions:

We concluded that employees born after 1960 represent a material risk for transmission of measles in the hospital setting. Despite the low percentage of susceptibility among those born before 1957, the 144 susceptible individuals in this group also are at risk for measles transmission. Thus, during periods of increased measles prevalence, we would recommend screening all healthcare workers regardless of age and vaccinating those who are susceptible.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 8 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1994 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Centers for Disease Control. Summary of notifiable diseases USA, 1991. MMWR 1991;40:57.Google Scholar
2. Atkinson, WL, Markowitz, LE, Adams, NC, Seastrom, GR. Transmission of measles in medical settings-United States, 1985-1989. Am J Med 1991;91 (suppl 3B):320S–324S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Centers for Disease Control. Measles prevention: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). MMWR 1989;38(S-9):5–10.Google Scholar
4. Neumann, PW, Weber, JM, Jessamine, AG, O'Shaughnessy, MV. Comparison of measles antihemolysin test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and hemagglutination inhibition test with neutralization test for determination of immune status. J Clin Microbiol 1985;22:296–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Chen, RT; Markowitz, LE, Albrecht, P, et al. Measles antibody: reevaluation of protective titers. J Infect Dis 1990;162:1036–1042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Gustafson, TL, Lievens, AW, Brunell, PA, et al. Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population. N Engl J Med 1987;316:771–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Kelley, PW, Petruccelli, BP, Stehr-Green, P. Erickson, RL, Mason, CJ. The susceptibility of young Americans to vaccine-preventable infections. JAMA 1991;266:2724–2729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee. The measles epidemic. JAMA 1991;266:1547–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Center for Disease Control. Update on immunization: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). MMWR 1991;40(RR12):19–22.Google Scholar
10. Braunstein, H, Thomas, S, Ito, R Immunity to measles in a large population of varying age. Am J Dis Child 1990;144:296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Sellick, JA, Longbine, D, Schifeling, R, Mylotte, JM. Screening hospital employees for measles immunity is more cost effective than blind immunization . Ann Intern Med 1992;116:982–984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Subbarao, EK, Amin, S, Kumar, ML. Prevaccination serologic screening for measles in health care workers. J Infect Dis 1991;163:876–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Grabowsky, M, Markowitz, L. Serologic screening, mass immunization, and implications for immunization programs. J Infect Dis 1991;164:1237–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed