Table. PEP recipients and factors associated with inappropriate administration of PEP, suburban Cook County, IL, 2015–2018*.
| Variable | Total, no. (%), n = 611 | Exposure met ACIP guidelines for PEP administration, no. (%) |
Unadjusted GEE model† OR (95% CI) | Adjusted GEE model‡ aOR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, n = 272 | No, n = 339 | ||||
| District§ | |||||
| North | 309 (50.6) | 125 (45.9) | 184 (54.3) | Referent | Referent |
| West | 131 (21.4) | 54 (19.9) | 77 (22.7) | 0.97 (0.52–1.80) | 0.76 (0.39–1.47) |
| Southwest | 82 (13.4) | 47 (17.3) | 35 (10.3) | 0.51 (0.27–0.94) | 0.41 (0.20–0.83) |
| South |
89 (14.6) |
46 (16.9) |
43 (12.7) |
0.64 (0.35–1.15) |
0.52 (0.27–0.98) |
| Age, y | |||||
| 0–5 | 47 (7.7) | 24 (8.8) | 23 (6.8) | 0.84 (0.44–1.62) | 0.74 (0.36–1.50) |
| 6–17 | 170 (27.8) | 64 (23.5) | 106 (31.3) | 1.46 (0.92–2.32) | 1.49 (0.90–2.45) |
| 18–25 | 50 (8.2) | 23 (8.5) | 27 (8.0) | 1.03 (0.55–1.94) | 1.20 (0.53–2.72) |
|
>26 |
344 (56.3) |
161 (59.2) |
183 (54.0) |
Referent |
Referent |
| Sex | |||||
| F | 317 (51.9) | 131 (48.2) | 186 (54.9) | Referent | Referent |
| M |
294 (48.1) |
141 (51.8) |
153 (45.1) |
0.76 (0.53–1.10) |
0.77 (0.51–1.15) |
| Exposing animal | |||||
| Bat | 393 (64.3) | 181 (66.5) | 212 (62.5) | Referent | Referent |
| Cat | 35 (5.7) | 6 (2.2) | 29 (8.6) | 4.13 (1.62–10.50) | 4.15 (1.49–11.60) |
| Dog | 111 (18.2) | 39 (14.3) | 72 (21.2) | 1.58 (0.91–2.72) | 2.05 (1.07–3.96) |
| Raccoon | 31 (5.1) | 26 (9.6) | 5 (1.5) | 0.16 (0.06–0.45) | 0.19 (0.06–0.57) |
| Other |
41 (6.7) |
20 (7.4) |
21 (6.2) |
0.90 (0.45–1.79) |
0.93 (0.43–2.01) |
| HD consult¶ | |||||
| Yes | 183 (30.0) | 138 (50.7) | 45 (13.3) | 0.15 (0.09–0.23) | 0.13 (0.08–0.22) |
| No | 428 (70.0) | 134 (49.3) | 294 (86.7) | Referent | Referent |
*ACIP, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; GEE, generalized estimating equation; HD, health department; PEP, rabies postexposure prophylaxis; OR, odds ratio. †Bivariate GEE model for PEP inappropriateness as a function of the given categorical variable. ‡Multivariable GEE model for PEP inappropriateness as a function of all the predictors included in the table. §Suburban Cook County residential district of patient’s home address. ¶Whether healthcare provider contacted a state or local health department to discuss appropriateness of PEP.