Infectious DiseaseTetanus immunity and physician compliance with tetanus prophylaxis practices among emergency department patients presenting with wounds☆
Introduction
Tetanus continues to occur in the United States despite the widespread availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Between 1995 and 1997, 124 cases were reported, with a case fatality rate of 11%, and it is believed there is significant underreporting.1
Clinical tetanus in the United States has predominantly been limited to the elderly who were born before childhood immunization became routine.1, 2 Previous seroprevalence studies have found high rates of underprotection among the elderly and immigrants.3, 4 However, no seroprevalence data exist among emergency department (ED) patients seeking wound care. Recently, however, the epidemiology of tetanus has shifted to younger populations that include parenteral drug users.1, 2, 5 Seroprotection rates among these patients, who often seek ED care, are also unknown.
Many patients seeking wound care have not received adequate tetanus immunizations.6 In this circumstance, tetanus can be potentially prevented by episodic administration of tetanus toxoid either alone or with tetanus immunoglobulin, as dictated by recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (Appendix).7 However, to the best of our knowledge, no information exists about the extent to which these recommendations are followed in ED practice.
To evaluate the effectiveness of current tetanus prophylaxis recommendations, it is important to establish an understanding of the degree of tetanus risk among ED patients presenting with wounds and the extent to which episodic tetanus prophylaxis is appropriately administered.
The purpose of this study was to determine tetanus antitoxin levels among ED patients treated for wounds. We also evaluated physician compliance with Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices immunization recommendations for these patients and examined the frequency with which patients who did not receive adequate prophylaxis were unprotected based on their serology. We hypothesized that there continue to exist at-risk groups with substantial underprotection and practices that result in substantial underimmunization.
Section snippets
Study design and setting
This was a prospective observational case series conducted at 5 urban university-affiliated EDs in collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and EMERGEncy ID NET, a CDC-supported, ED-based network that conducts research on emerging infectious diseases. Each investigative site's institutional review board approved the study.
Selection of participants
Patients selected were a convenience sample aged 18 years or older and presenting for wound-related complaints between March 1999 and August
Results
Among 2,134 patients enrolled, 146 (6.8%) were excluded from serology evaluation because of a lack of specimen, and 210 (9.8%) were excluded from evaluation of tetanus immunization because their accompanying data sheet lacked documentation of tetanus immunization history (Figure). Twenty-three attending physicians completed a survey after the completion of the study to determine their knowledge of the study's purpose. Most had either no idea (52%) or low certainty (48%) of the study's specific
Limitations
In this study, compliance with Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations was used as the criterion standard for judging the appropriateness of tetanus prophylaxis practices. However, these recommendations have not been validated as the optimally effective strategy. The number of reported tetanus cases in the United States presently is low compared with that observed before the institution of routine and episodic immunization policies. It is beyond the scope of this research
Discussion
A 1995 editorial commenting on the low rates of tetanus seroprotection and continued observation of tetanus cases in the United States stated that “a case of tetanus reflects the failure of our health care delivery system to provide immunization.”11 Previous studies have found that approximately 30% of persons older than 6 years lack protective tetanus immunity, with rates as high as 60% among Mexican-born Americans and the elderly.3, 4 Not surprisingly, past tetanus cases and tetanus-related
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge Stewart Geboff, Gina Pulido, John DeHart, Chris King, the study assistants, and medical and nursing staff at the participating centers for their assistance with this project.
References (15)
- et al.
ELISA for the routine determination of antitoxic immunity to tetanus
J Biol Stand
(1986) - et al.
A comparison of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with the toxin neutralization test in mice as a method for the estimation of tetanus antitoxin in human sera
J Biol Stand
(1983) - et al.
Immunologic response to tetanus toxoid in geriatric patients
Ann Emerg Med
(1997) Tetanus immunization recommendations for persons seven years of age and older: American College of Emergency Physicians
Ann Emerg Med
(1986)Tetanus surveillance: United States, 1995-1997
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
(1998)Tetanus surveillance: United States, 1998-2000
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
(2003)- et al.
A population-based serologic survey of immunity to tetanus in the United States
N Engl J Med
(1995)
Cited by (77)
Should we believe emergency department patients self-reported tetanus vaccine status?
2019, American Journal of Emergency MedicineTetanus Toxoid
2017, Plotkin's VaccinesNatalizumab treatment shows no clinically meaningful effects on immunization responses in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
2014, Journal of the Neurological SciencesTetanus toxoid
2012, Vaccines: Sixth EditionEvaluation of a rapid immunochromatographic test as an aid to tetanus prophylaxis in the Emergency Department
2012, Immuno-Analyse et Biologie SpecialiseePoint-of-care tetanus immunoassay: An audit of unscheduled tetanus prophylaxis
2012, International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing
- ☆
Author contributions: DAT, GJM, KA, BRT, CVP, MTS, LMD, RSW, and SMO conceived and designed the study. FMA, KA, BRT, CVP, MTS, and LMD acquired the data. WRM, DAT, and FMA analyzed and interpreted the data. DAT and FMA drafted the manuscript. WRM and FMA conducted the statistical analysis. MDB conducted the serologic testing. DAT obtained funding. DAT, KA, BRT, CVP, MTS, LMD, RSW, and SMO provided administrative, technical, and material support. DAT, FMA, KA, BRT, CVP, MTS and LMD supervised the study. All authors take responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Supported by a research grant from Bayer Biological Products, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Dr. Talan, Dr. Abrahamian, Dr. Moran, and Dr. Alagappan have received speaking honoraria and research grants from Bayer. Dr. Dunbar has received research grants from Bayer.
Reprints not available from the authors.
- 1
Dr. Pollack is currently affiliated with the Pennsylvania Hospital, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.