Volume 26, Number 11—November 2020
Research
Azithromycin to Prevent Pertussis in Household Contacts, Catalonia and Navarre, Spain, 2012–2013
Table 2
Chemoprophylaxis timing for contacts* | No. contacts | Type of contact |
Effectiveness, % (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Healthy contact, no. (%) | Secondary case-patient, no. (%) | |||
All | 1,914 | 1831 (95.7) | 64 (3.3) | |
1–21 d | 1,266 | 1,227 (96.9) | 39 (3.1) | 43.9 (−1.8 to 69.1) |
>21 d | 393 | 363 (92.4) | 30 (7.6) | −39.0 (−157.0 to 25.0) |
No chemoprophylaxis |
255 |
241 (94.5) |
14 (5.5) |
Reference |
Completely vaccinated | ||||
1–21 d | 248 | 233 (94.0) | 15 (6.0) | 44.1 (−59.5 to 80.4) |
No chemoprophylaxis |
37 |
33 (89.2) |
4 (10.8) |
Reference |
Incompletely vaccinated | ||||
1–21 d | 50 | 45 (90.0) | 5 (10.0) | 50.0 (−248.0, 92.8) |
No chemoprophylaxis | 5 | 4 (80.0) | 1 (20.0) | Reference |
*No. days after symptom onset in primary patient whose contacts received chemoprophylaxis. Includes vaccination status of contacts <18 years of age.
1Members of the Transmission of Pertussis in Households Working Group who contributed data are listed at the end of this article.
Page created: August 28, 2020
Page updated: October 17, 2020
Page reviewed: October 17, 2020
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.