4.6 Article

Measles outbreak risk assessment for transplant candidates and recipients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 338-343

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.16278

关键词

clinical research; practice; epidemiology; infection and infectious agents - viral; infectious disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By implementing a systematic approach during a large measles outbreak, the study successfully identified and protected at-risk SOT patients. Through education in outbreak areas and testing nonimmune patients, the risk of measles infection in transplant patients was effectively reduced.
Solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates and recipients are at risk of significant morbidity and mortality from infection, including those circulating in the community from unexpected outbreaks. In late 2018-summer of 2019, a measles outbreak occurred in the New York City area, with a total of 649 cases reported. We developed a systematic 3-part approach to address measles risk in our adult SOT program through: (a) identification of nonimmune adults living in outbreak ZIP codes, (b) education focused on risk reduction for patients from outbreak ZIP codes, and (c) risk reduction for nonimmune patients. All waitlisted or previously transplanted patients residing in outbreak areas received a measles patient education handout. The electronic medical record of patients born in or after 1957 was reviewed for serologic evidence of measles immunity. Measles immunity testing was performed in patients without documentation of immunity. Patients who tested nonimmune were offered MMR vaccination or intravenous immunoglobulin depending on their transplant phase and risk profile. Thus, we demonstrate successful implementation of a systematic risk assessment during a large measles outbreak to identify and protect at-risk SOT patients. As vaccine hesitancy persists, our strategies may be increasingly relevant to transplant centers and those caring for immunocompromised patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据