| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Cohort study ‐ postexposure prophylaxis |
| Participants |
Contacts were identified by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene between 13 March 2013 and 30 June 2013. For the purpose of this analysis, all cases who subsequently developed measles were considered as contacts. All contacts, inclusive of those who developed measles, were then subject to the same exclusion criteria regardless of disease outcome. Contacts who were aged ≥ 19 years at the time of their exposure were excluded from the analysis because adults typically do not have copies of their immunisation records, and reporting of immunisation doses to the CIR is only required for individuals aged < 19 years. |
| Interventions |
MMR PEP |
| Outcomes |
Investigation of suspected cases included patient interviews, medical record reviews, and ascertainment of immunisation records. Testing for measles immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M and testing for measles virus RNA by RT‐PCR were performed, and measles genotype was determined. |
| Funding Source |
Government |
| Notes |
Conclusions: contacts who received PEP were less likely to develop disease. Authors' findings support current recommendations for administration of PEP following exposure to measles. These results highlight the importance of a rapid public health outbreak response to limit measles transmission following case identification. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| PCS/RCS ‐ exposed cohort selection |
Low risk |
Secure record ‐ immunisation record |
| PCS/RCS ‐ non‐exposed cohort selection |
Low risk |
Drawn from the same community |
| PCS/RCS ‐ comparability |
Unclear risk |
The cohort was limited to affected classes. |
| PCS/RCS ‐ assessment of outcome |
Unclear risk |
There was insufficient information. |
| Summary Risk of Bias assessment |
Unclear risk |
We had concerns regarding at least 1 domain such that some doubt is raised about the results. |
