BACKGROUND: In most emergency departments, tetanus prophylaxis currently relies on vaccination history. Bedside evaluation of tetanus immunity may improve this process. OBJECTIVES: (i) To determine the seroprevalence of tetanus immunity; (ii) to evaluate the accuracy of vaccination history in assessing tetanus immunity; (iii) to identify factors predictive of seroprotection and incorrect history. METHOD: In a prospective observational study, tetanus immunity was assessed in 784 adults using Tétanos Quick Stick (TQS). A questionnaire was completed to obtain vaccination and general histories. Immunity assessed by TQS and by vaccination history were compared with anti-tetanus antibody levels measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (seroprotection threshold >0.15 IU/ml). RESULTS: Overall, 64.2% of patients were protected according to TQS results. Four independent predictors of seroprotection were identified: young age, birthplace in Belgium, male sex and occupational medicine consultation. TQS performance was good: kappa=0.71, sensitivity 85.3%, specificity 87.2%, positive predictive value 92.1% and negative predictive value 77.2%. Seven hundred and sixty-two participants responded to the vaccination history: 23.4% said they were protected, 22.1% that they were not and 54.5% did not know. History performance was poor: kappa=0.27, sensitivity 60.3%, specificity 73.3%, positive predictive value 81.8% and negative predictive value 45.8%. Compared with history, TQS offered a significantly better sensitivity, negative and positive predictive values, but specificity was similar. No predictor of an incorrect history was identified. CONCLUSION: Lack of protective immunity against tetanus is frequent but poorly evaluated by history taking. Several demographic characteristics are good predictors of seroprotection. TQS could be a valuable tool in selected patients to improve tetanus prophylaxis in the emergency department.
BACKGROUND: In most emergency departments, tetanus prophylaxis currently relies on vaccination history. Bedside evaluation of tetanus immunity may improve this process. OBJECTIVES: (i) To determine the seroprevalence of tetanus immunity; (ii) to evaluate the accuracy of vaccination history in assessing tetanus immunity; (iii) to identify factors predictive of seroprotection and incorrect history. METHOD: In a prospective observational study, tetanus immunity was assessed in 784 adults using Tétanos Quick Stick (TQS). A questionnaire was completed to obtain vaccination and general histories. Immunity assessed by TQS and by vaccination history were compared with anti-tetanus antibody levels measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (seroprotection threshold >0.15 IU/ml). RESULTS: Overall, 64.2% of patients were protected according to TQS results. Four independent predictors of seroprotection were identified: young age, birthplace in Belgium, male sex and occupational medicine consultation. TQS performance was good: kappa=0.71, sensitivity 85.3%, specificity 87.2%, positive predictive value 92.1% and negative predictive value 77.2%. Seven hundred and sixty-two participants responded to the vaccination history: 23.4% said they were protected, 22.1% that they were not and 54.5% did not know. History performance was poor: kappa=0.27, sensitivity 60.3%, specificity 73.3%, positive predictive value 81.8% and negative predictive value 45.8%. Compared with history, TQS offered a significantly better sensitivity, negative and positive predictive values, but specificity was similar. No predictor of an incorrect history was identified. CONCLUSION: Lack of protective immunity against tetanus is frequent but poorly evaluated by history taking. Several demographic characteristics are good predictors of seroprotection. TQS could be a valuable tool in selected patients to improve tetanus prophylaxis in the emergency department.
Authors: Menno C van Zelm; Julie Smet; Brigitte Adams; Françoise Mascart; Liliane Schandené; Françoise Janssen; Alina Ferster; Chiung-Chi Kuo; Shoshana Levy; Jacques J M van Dongen; Mirjam van der Burg Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 14.808