Advanced Search

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorŞener, Alper
dc.contributor.authorAkman, Canan
dc.contributor.authorAkça, Anıl
dc.contributor.authorVarışlı, Behcet
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-01T06:10:53Z
dc.date.available2023-08-01T06:10:53Z
dc.date.issued2021en_US
dc.identifier.citationŞener, A., Akman, C., Akça, A., & Varışlı, B. (2021). A fatal rabies case and experiences of a mass post exposure prophylaxis among healthcare workers. Acta Microbiologica et Immunologica Hungarica, 68(3), 212-216. doi: 10.1556/030.2021.01130 ‌en_US
dc.identifier.issn1217-8950 / 1588-2640
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1556/030.2021.01130
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/4455
dc.description.abstractWe aimed to monitor the adverse effects (AE) and efficacy of post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in health care workers (HCWs) exposed to a rabies patient. In this study 109 HCWs and eight household contacts were PEP candidates. Contact persons without infection control precautions were in Group I (high risk-82 cases). HCWs indirectly exposed to environmental surfaces were classified in Group II (low risk-35 cases). PEP schedule was rabies vaccine (RBV) + equine rabies immunoglobulin (eRIG) in Group I and only RBV in Group II. Local and systemic AE were observed in all cases. Efficacy of post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) was determined by rabies development in a six month follow-up. 585 doses of RBV have been used in 117 cases and eRIG has been used in 82 cases. 32 Nurses (39%); 22 emergency medicine technicians (26.8%); 12 doctors (14%); six laboratory technicians (0.07%); six radiology technicians (0.07%); four cleaners (0.05%) were in Group I (82 cases), respectively. One doctor, laboratory technician, nurse and radiology technician (0.02%); two emergency medicine technicians (0.04%) and nine cleaners (25.7%) were in Group II (35 cases), respectively. Routes of transmission were blood in five (0.06%); saliva in 14 (17%); sweat in 50 (61%); CSF/serum in five (0.06%); sexual intercourse in one (0.01%); personal equipment in seven (0.09%) in Group I, respectively. Indirect contact was the only route in Group II. The most common local and systemic AE were seen in Group I; pain at injection side (19 cases) and fever (13 cases). Both of them showed statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Allergic rash has been seen at only one case. PEP failed in one case where the possible exposure way was sexual intercourse. PEP is the safest way to prevent rabies. Infection control precautions were still not enough applied. eRIGs are also safe and have rare AE.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherAkademiai Kiado ZRt.en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectHealth care workeren_US
dc.subjectPost exposure prophylaxisen_US
dc.subjectRabiesen_US
dc.titleA fatal rabies case and experiences of a mass post exposure prophylaxis among healthcare workersen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.authorid-en_US
dc.authorid0000-0002-3427-5649en_US
dc.authorid-en_US
dc.relation.ispartofActa Microbiologica et Immunologica Hungaricaen_US
dc.departmentFakülteler, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümüen_US
dc.departmentFakülteler, Tıp Fakültesi, Dahili Tıp Bilimleri Bölümüen_US
dc.identifier.volume68en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage212en_US
dc.identifier.endpage216en_US
dc.institutionauthorŞener, Alper
dc.institutionauthorAkman, Canan
dc.institutionauthorAkça, Anıl
dc.identifier.doi10.1556/030.2021.01130en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.authorwosidF-6427-2011en_US
dc.authorwosid-en_US
dc.authorwosid-en_US
dc.authorscopusid23996235800en_US
dc.authorscopusid57213614084en_US
dc.authorscopusid57417317400en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000694018400012en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85132614368en_US
dc.identifier.pmidPMID: 33974554en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record