Volume 14, Number 10—October 2008
Research
Prophylaxis after Exposure to Coxiella burnetii
Table 1
Input values used in the primary and secondary analyses of PEP efficacy*
Variable | Primary analysis (sensitivity analysis) | Sensitivity analyses |
References | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Less virulent | More virulent | |||
Exposure | (0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00) | NA | NA | NA |
Efficacy of doxycycline PEP (8–12 d postexposure) | 0.82 (0.82–0.965) | 0.965 | 0.40 | (22,23) |
Efficacy of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole PEP (8–12 d postexposure) | 0.82 (0.40–0.965) | 0.965 | 0.40 | (21,24,25) |
Asymptomatic infection w/o PEP (all groups) | 0.50 | 0.65 | 0.40 | (1,3,5,7,8,26) |
Full recovery after acute (gp) | 0.74 | Residual (0.934) | Residual (0.576) | (7–9) |
Full recovery after acute illness (hr) | 0.28 | Residual (0.739) | Residual (0.076) | (7–9) |
Full recovery after acute illness (pw) | 0.08 | Residual (0.57) | Residual (0.02) | (7–9) |
Probability of hospitalization and recovery given acute illness (gp) | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.05 | (5,7,27) |
Probability of hospitalization and recovery given acute illness (hr) | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | (5,7) |
Probability of hospitalization and recovery given acute illness (pw) | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | (5,7) |
Q fever fatigue syndrome (gp) | 0.20 | 0.05 | 0.30 | (1,10,16,28–30) |
Q fever fatigue syndrome (hr) | 0.30 | 0.05 | 0.20 | (1,10,16,28–30) |
Q fever fatigue syndrome (pw) | 0.03 | Residual (0.03) | Residual (0.04) | (1,10,16,17,28–30) |
Death from acute illness (gp) | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.024 | (7,9–11) |
Death from acute illness (hr and pw) | 0.02 | 0.001 | 0.024 | (7,9–11) |
Chronic disease (gp) | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.05 | (8,11,12,26,31) |
Chronic disease (hr) | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.65 | (13,14,31) |
Chronic disease (pw) | 0.86 | 0.39 | 0.90 | (17) |
Endocarditis (all groups) | 0.65 | 0.60 | 0.90 | (1,7,8) |
Death from endocarditis (all groups) | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.60 | (1,3,7,8,11,15,32) |
Death from other chronic diseases (all groups) | 0.30 | 0.05 | 0.60 | (9) |
Abortion or neonatal death | 0.38 | 0.25 | 0.56 | (8,14 ,17,21) |
Premature birth/low birth weight baby | 0.33 | 0.25 | 0.28 | (8,14,17,21) |
Healthy, unaffected baby | 0.29 | 0.50 | 0.16 | (8,14,17,21) |
*PEP, postexposure prophylaxis; NA, not applicable; gp, general population; hr, high-risk; pw, pregnant women. See online Appendix Table 1 for a detailed explanation of how the primary input values were selected.
References
- McQuiston JH, Childs JE. Q fever in humans and animals in the United States. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2002;2:179–91. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases. Medical management of biological casualities handbook. 5th ed. Frederick (MD): The Institute; 2004.
- Franz DR, Jahrling PB, Friedlander AM, McClain DJ, Hoover DL, Bryne WR, Clinical recognition and management of patients exposed to biological warfare agents. JAMA. 1997;278:399–411. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bioterrorism agents/diseases [cited 2006 Sep 9]. Available from http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp#b
- Benenson AS, Tigertt WD. Studies on Q fever in man. Trans Assoc Am Physicians. 1956;69:98–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Byrne WR. Chapter 26: Q fever. In: Zajtchuk R, editor. Textbook of military medicine: medical aspects of chemical and biological warfare. Washington: US Department of the Army, Surgeon General and the Borden Institute; 1997. p. 523–37.
- Marmion BP, Shannon M, Maddocks I, Storm P, Penttila I. Protracted debility and fatigue after acute Q fever. Lancet. 1996;347:977–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fowler RA, Sanders GD, Bravata DM, Nouri B, Gastwirth JM, Peterson D, Cost-effectiveness of defending against bioterrorism: a comparison of vaccination and antibiotic prophylaxis against anthrax. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:601–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sabbaj J, Hoagland VL, Shih WJ. Multiclinic comparative study of norfloxacin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for treatment of urinary tract infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985;27:297–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Talan DA, Stamm WE, Hooton TM, Moran DJ, Burke T, Travani A, Comparison of ciprofloxacin (7 days) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (14 days) for acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis in women: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2000;283:1583–90. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kocak Z, Hatipoglu CA, Ertem G, Kinikli S, Tufan A, Irmak H, Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole induced rash and fatal hematologic disorders. J Infect. 2006;52:e49–52. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- See S, Mumford JM. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:694–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fennelly KP, Davidow AL, Miller SL, Connell N, Ellner JJ. Airborne infection with Bacillus anthracis—from mills to mail. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:996–1001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Page created: July 13, 2010
Page updated: July 13, 2010
Page reviewed: July 13, 2010
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.