评估血清学在潜在的澳大利亚蝙蝠赖沙病毒和狂犬病暴露后预防期间的益处。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
James Harris, Alexandra Uren, James Smith, Emily Titmus, Megan Young
{"title":"评估血清学在潜在的澳大利亚蝙蝠赖沙病毒和狂犬病暴露后预防期间的益处。","authors":"James Harris,&nbsp;Alexandra Uren,&nbsp;James Smith,&nbsp;Emily Titmus,&nbsp;Megan Young","doi":"10.1016/j.anzjph.2023.100091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for potential lyssavirus exposures consists of wound management, rabies vaccination and may include rabies immunoglobulin (RIG). Rabies serology is sometimes indicated if there is risk of PEP failure.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Evaluate the benefit of serology by indication.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Chart review of potential lyssavirus exposures managed at a Public Health Unit (June 2015 – December 2022) where serology was requested was conducted. The proportion of non-therapeutic titres was compared by sex, age, Indigenous status, serology indication, and whether RIG was given.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>46 notifications with serology were included. Males (5/19) and people over 40 (3/16) were more likely to demonstrate a non-therapeutic response. 2/3 of cases where vaccine doses were not given in the deltoid were non-therapeutic. The rate of non-therapeutic titres was similar for RIG given into the ipsilateral arm (2/11) and given excess RIG for weight (1/4). Although this small sample was inconclusive in isolation, it was also noted that all cases who did not receive RIG had therapeutic serology, whereas 6/35 of those receiving RIG had non-therapeutic serology.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study supports broader literature questioning the utility of systemic RIG administration as likely limited and potentially detrimental considering the increased risk of immune interference.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for public health</h3><p>Highlights a need to review Australian national guidelines to align with World Health Organization advice recommending local RIG administration only.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8620,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020023052688/pdfft?md5=b82c63f35f552e3a84dbc7fc865ff02b&pid=1-s2.0-S1326020023052688-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the benefit of serology during potential Australian bat lyssavirus and rabies post-exposure prophylaxis\",\"authors\":\"James Harris,&nbsp;Alexandra Uren,&nbsp;James Smith,&nbsp;Emily Titmus,&nbsp;Megan Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.anzjph.2023.100091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for potential lyssavirus exposures consists of wound management, rabies vaccination and may include rabies immunoglobulin (RIG). Rabies serology is sometimes indicated if there is risk of PEP failure.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Evaluate the benefit of serology by indication.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Chart review of potential lyssavirus exposures managed at a Public Health Unit (June 2015 – December 2022) where serology was requested was conducted. The proportion of non-therapeutic titres was compared by sex, age, Indigenous status, serology indication, and whether RIG was given.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>46 notifications with serology were included. Males (5/19) and people over 40 (3/16) were more likely to demonstrate a non-therapeutic response. 2/3 of cases where vaccine doses were not given in the deltoid were non-therapeutic. The rate of non-therapeutic titres was similar for RIG given into the ipsilateral arm (2/11) and given excess RIG for weight (1/4). Although this small sample was inconclusive in isolation, it was also noted that all cases who did not receive RIG had therapeutic serology, whereas 6/35 of those receiving RIG had non-therapeutic serology.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study supports broader literature questioning the utility of systemic RIG administration as likely limited and potentially detrimental considering the increased risk of immune interference.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for public health</h3><p>Highlights a need to review Australian national guidelines to align with World Health Organization advice recommending local RIG administration only.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020023052688/pdfft?md5=b82c63f35f552e3a84dbc7fc865ff02b&pid=1-s2.0-S1326020023052688-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020023052688\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020023052688","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

潜在赖沙病毒暴露的暴露后预防(PEP)包括伤口处理、狂犬病疫苗接种,可能包括狂犬病免疫球蛋白(RIG)。如果存在PEP失败的风险,有时会提示狂犬病血清学。目的:通过适应症评估血清学的益处。方法:对要求血清学检查的公共卫生部门(2015年6月至2022年12月)管理的潜在lyssavirus暴露进行图表审查。根据性别、年龄、土著状况、血清学指征以及是否给予RIG来比较非治疗性滴度的比例。结果:包括46例血清学通知。男性(5/19)和40岁以上的人(3/16)更有可能表现出非治疗性反应。在三角肌未接种疫苗的病例中,有2/3是非治疗性的。对同侧臂给予RIG(2/11)和对体重给予过量RIG(1/4)的非治疗性滴度率相似。尽管这个小样本在单独情况下没有结论,但也注意到,所有没有接受RIG的病例都有治疗性血清学,而接受RIG治疗的病例中有6/35有非治疗性血清学。结论:考虑到免疫干扰的风险增加,这项研究支持了更广泛的文献,质疑系统性RIG给药的效用可能是有限的,并且可能是有害的。对公共卫生的影响:强调有必要审查澳大利亚国家指南,以与世界卫生组织建议仅在当地进行RIG管理的建议保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the benefit of serology during potential Australian bat lyssavirus and rabies post-exposure prophylaxis

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for potential lyssavirus exposures consists of wound management, rabies vaccination and may include rabies immunoglobulin (RIG). Rabies serology is sometimes indicated if there is risk of PEP failure.

Objectives

Evaluate the benefit of serology by indication.

Methods

Chart review of potential lyssavirus exposures managed at a Public Health Unit (June 2015 – December 2022) where serology was requested was conducted. The proportion of non-therapeutic titres was compared by sex, age, Indigenous status, serology indication, and whether RIG was given.

Results

46 notifications with serology were included. Males (5/19) and people over 40 (3/16) were more likely to demonstrate a non-therapeutic response. 2/3 of cases where vaccine doses were not given in the deltoid were non-therapeutic. The rate of non-therapeutic titres was similar for RIG given into the ipsilateral arm (2/11) and given excess RIG for weight (1/4). Although this small sample was inconclusive in isolation, it was also noted that all cases who did not receive RIG had therapeutic serology, whereas 6/35 of those receiving RIG had non-therapeutic serology.

Conclusions

This study supports broader literature questioning the utility of systemic RIG administration as likely limited and potentially detrimental considering the increased risk of immune interference.

Implications for public health

Highlights a need to review Australian national guidelines to align with World Health Organization advice recommending local RIG administration only.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
121
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (ANZJPH) is concerned with public health issues. The research reported includes formal epidemiological inquiries into the correlates and causes of diseases and health-related behaviour, analyses of public policy affecting health and disease, and detailed studies of the cultures and social structures within which health and illness exist. The Journal is multidisciplinary and aims to publish methodologically sound research from any of the academic disciplines that constitute public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信