Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:05:51.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevalence of Measles Antibodies in Hospital Personnel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Teresa Chou ,
Diane Weil  and
Paul M. Arnow
Teresa Chou
Affiliation:
Infection Surveillance Program, University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics, Chicago, Illinois
Diane Weil
Affiliation:
Infection Surveillance Program, University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics, Chicago, Illinois
Paul M. Arnow*
Affiliation:
Infection Surveillance Program, University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics, Chicago, Illinois
*
Infection Surveillance Program, Box 11, University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A community outbreak of measles prompted a serologic survey of personnel in a hospital serving that community. Two hundred sixty-six personnel, primarily physicians (129) and nurses (100), voluntarily participated. Serum specimens were initially tested by the immunofluorescent antibody and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (EIA) methods. Specimens with negative results by either test were further examined using the hemagglutination inhibition and plaque neutralization (PN) methods. If EIA and PN results were negative, an individual was considered susceptible. Only one of the 98 participants born during or after 1957 and none of the 168 participants born before 1957 were serosusceptible. The low rate of serosusceptibility, in contrast to previous studies of young adults, appears attributable to the sensitivity of the testing methods used. Based on our experience, institutions considering a measles serologic testing and immunization program should expect to identify very few serosusceptible personnel, even among those born during or after 1957.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 7 , Issue 6 , June 1986 , pp. 309 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Centers for Disease Control: Measles—United States, 1984. MMWR 1985; 34:308–312.Google Scholar
2. Centers for Disease Control: Multiple measles outbreaks on college campuses—Ohio, Massachusetts, Illinois. MMWR 1985; 34:129–130.Google Scholar
3. Krause, PJ, Cherry, JD, Deseda-Tous, J, et al: Epidemic measles in young adults. Clinical, epidemiologic, and serologic studies. Ann Intern Med 1979 90:873–876.Google Scholar
4. Preblud, SR, Gross, F, Halsey, NA, et al: Assessment of susceptibility to measles and rubella. JAMA 1982; 247:1134–1137.Google Scholar
5. James, JJ, Halvorson, GW, Gates, JR, et al: Measles-like disease and measles antibody titers in an adult population. Milit Med 1979; 672–676.Google Scholar
6. Centers for Disease Control: Measles Surveillance Report No. II, 1977-1981. September 1982.Google Scholar
7. Centers for Disease Control: Measles in medical settings—United States. MMWR 1981; 30:125–126.Google Scholar
8. Mundon, FK, Henchal, LS, O'Neill, SP: Indirect fluorescent assay (IFA) for measles antibody in human serum and its relative cross reactivity with canine distemper, in Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Dallas, Texas, 1981.Google Scholar
9. Boteler, WL, Luipersbeck, PM, Fucillo, DA, et al: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of measles antibody. J Clin Microbiol 1983; 17:814–818.Google Scholar
10. Gershon, AA, Krugman, S: Measles virus, in Lenette, EH, Schmidt, NJ (eds): Diagnostic Procedures for Viral, Rickettsial, and Chlamydial Infections, (5th ed) Washington, DC, American Public Health Association, 1979, pp 685–686.Google Scholar
11. Albrecht, P, Herman, K, Burns, GR: Role of virus strain in conventional and enhanced measles plaque neutralization test. J Virol Methods 1981; 3:251–260.Google Scholar
12. Binomial, Poisson, and hypergeometric distributions; Confidence limits for proportions (confidence coefficient .95), in Beyer, WH (ed): Handbook of Tables for Probability and Statistics (2nd ed). Cleveland, The Chemical Rubber Co, 1968, p 228.Google Scholar
13. Weigle, KA, Murphy, MD, Brunell, PA: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for evaluation of immunity to measles virus. J Clin Microbiol 1984; 19:376–379.Google Scholar
14. Cremer, NE, Cossen, CK, Shell, G, et al: Enzyme immunoassay versus plaque neutralization and other methods for determination of immune status for measles and varicella-zoster viruses and versus complement fixation for serodiagnosis of infections with those viruses. J Clin Microbiol 1985; 21:869–874.Google Scholar
15. Sabin, AB, Arechiga, AF, Fernandez de Castro, J, et al: Successful immunization of children with and without maternal antibody by aerosolized measles vaccine. JAMA 1983; 249:2651–2662.Google Scholar
16. Centers for Disease Control: Measles on college campuses—United States, 1985. MMWR 1985; 34:445–449.Google Scholar