OBJECTIVE: To better understand the role that diagnostic test-ordering behaviour of general practitioners has on current pertussis epidemiology in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of Australian general practice encounter data (from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health [BEACH] program) on 13 "pertussis-related problem" (PRP) codes that were most likely to result in a pertussis laboratory test request and Australian pertussis notifications data (from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System [NNDSS]) for the period April 2000 to March 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The change in the proportion of PRP general practice encounters with a pertussis test request between 2000 and 2011, and the change in national pertussis notifications over the same period. RESULTS: The proportion of PRP encounters resulting in a pertussis test request increased from 0.25% between April 2000 and March 2004 to 1.71% between April 2010 and March 2011 (odds ratio, 7.0; 95% CI, 5.5-8.8). The BEACH data on pertussis testing and NNDSS data on pertussis notifications were highly correlated (r = 0.99), and the notification data mirrored the likelihood of a pertussis test request in general practice. The proportion of NNDSS pertussis notifications with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed diagnosis increased from 16.3% between April 2000 and March 2004 to 65.3% between April 2010 and March 2011. CONCLUSION: An increase in pertussis testing following recognition of early epidemic cases may have led to identification of previously undetected infections, resulting in a further increase in notified disease and awareness among GPs. The changing likelihood of being tested may also be due to expanding availability and use of PCR testing in Australia.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the role that diagnostic test-ordering behaviour of general practitioners has on current pertussis epidemiology in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of Australian general practice encounter data (from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health [BEACH] program) on 13 "pertussis-related problem" (PRP) codes that were most likely to result in a pertussis laboratory test request and Australian pertussis notifications data (from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System [NNDSS]) for the period April 2000 to March 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The change in the proportion of PRP general practice encounters with a pertussis test request between 2000 and 2011, and the change in national pertussis notifications over the same period. RESULTS: The proportion of PRP encounters resulting in a pertussis test request increased from 0.25% between April 2000 and March 2004 to 1.71% between April 2010 and March 2011 (odds ratio, 7.0; 95% CI, 5.5-8.8). The BEACH data on pertussis testing and NNDSS data on pertussis notifications were highly correlated (r = 0.99), and the notification data mirrored the likelihood of a pertussis test request in general practice. The proportion of NNDSS pertussis notifications with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed diagnosis increased from 16.3% between April 2000 and March 2004 to 65.3% between April 2010 and March 2011. CONCLUSION: An increase in pertussis testing following recognition of early epidemic cases may have led to identification of previously undetected infections, resulting in a further increase in notified disease and awareness among GPs. The changing likelihood of being tested may also be due to expanding availability and use of PCR testing in Australia.
Authors: Gary S Marshall; Vitali Pool; David P Greenberg; David R Johnson; Xiaohua Sheng; Michael D Decker Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2014-09-17
Authors: X Huang; S Lambert; C Lau; R J Soares Magalhaes; J Marquess; M Rajmokan; G Milinovich; W Hu Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 4.434
Authors: Marlena C Kaczmarek; Robert S Ware; Julie A McEniery; Mark G Coulthard; Stephen B Lambert Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Boris Kauhl; Jeanne Heil; Christian J P A Hoebe; Jürgen Schweikart; Thomas Krafft; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marlena C Kaczmarek; Robert S Ware; Mark G Coulthard; Julie McEniery; Stephen B Lambert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240