Risk of secondary meningococcal disease in health-care workers

Anna Gilmore, James Stuart, Nick Andrews

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Guidelines on chemoprephylaxis vary between countries and reflect uncertainty about the risk of meningococcal disease in health-care workers. In a retrospective survey of risk in healthcare workers in England and Wales, three pairs of primary cases and health-care workers with secondary infections were identified between 1982 and 1996. Secondary infections were probably caused by exposure to primary cases' respiratory droplets around the time of admission. We estimated an attack rate of 0-8 per 100 000 health-care workers at risk, a risk 25 times that in the general population (p=0.0003). The excess risk is small and inappropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics should be avoided.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1654-1655
Number of pages2
JournalLancet
Volume356
Issue number9242
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Nov 2000

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Risk of secondary meningococcal disease in health-care workers. / Gilmore, Anna; Stuart, James; Andrews, Nick.

In: Lancet, Vol. 356, No. 9242, 11.11.2000, p. 1654-1655.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gilmore, Anna ; Stuart, James ; Andrews, Nick. / Risk of secondary meningococcal disease in health-care workers. In: Lancet. 2000 ; Vol. 356, No. 9242. pp. 1654-1655.
@article{37e8dfc721d647ab97cbcad18edce0d2,
title = "Risk of secondary meningococcal disease in health-care workers",
abstract = "Guidelines on chemoprephylaxis vary between countries and reflect uncertainty about the risk of meningococcal disease in health-care workers. In a retrospective survey of risk in healthcare workers in England and Wales, three pairs of primary cases and health-care workers with secondary infections were identified between 1982 and 1996. Secondary infections were probably caused by exposure to primary cases' respiratory droplets around the time of admission. We estimated an attack rate of 0-8 per 100 000 health-care workers at risk, a risk 25 times that in the general population (p=0.0003). The excess risk is small and inappropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics should be avoided.",
author = "Anna Gilmore and James Stuart and Nick Andrews",
year = "2000",
month = "11",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03163-9",
language = "English",
volume = "356",
pages = "1654--1655",
journal = "The Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier Masson",
number = "9242",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk of secondary meningococcal disease in health-care workers

AU - Gilmore, Anna

AU - Stuart, James

AU - Andrews, Nick

PY - 2000/11/11

Y1 - 2000/11/11

N2 - Guidelines on chemoprephylaxis vary between countries and reflect uncertainty about the risk of meningococcal disease in health-care workers. In a retrospective survey of risk in healthcare workers in England and Wales, three pairs of primary cases and health-care workers with secondary infections were identified between 1982 and 1996. Secondary infections were probably caused by exposure to primary cases' respiratory droplets around the time of admission. We estimated an attack rate of 0-8 per 100 000 health-care workers at risk, a risk 25 times that in the general population (p=0.0003). The excess risk is small and inappropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics should be avoided.

AB - Guidelines on chemoprephylaxis vary between countries and reflect uncertainty about the risk of meningococcal disease in health-care workers. In a retrospective survey of risk in healthcare workers in England and Wales, three pairs of primary cases and health-care workers with secondary infections were identified between 1982 and 1996. Secondary infections were probably caused by exposure to primary cases' respiratory droplets around the time of admission. We estimated an attack rate of 0-8 per 100 000 health-care workers at risk, a risk 25 times that in the general population (p=0.0003). The excess risk is small and inappropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics should be avoided.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034638702&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03163-9

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03163-9

M3 - Article

VL - 356

SP - 1654

EP - 1655

JO - The Lancet

JF - The Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 9242

ER -