Post-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of measles: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In susceptible individuals, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is often recommended following exposure to measles, however the data that these recommendations are based on are limited. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of immunoglobulins (Ig) or measles-containing vaccine (MCV) for the prevention of measles. METHODS: Prospective studies evaluating the use of Ig or MCV as PEP in susceptible individuals exposed to measles were eligible for inclusion. For studies evaluating Ig, only studies published since 1970 were eligible. Critical outcomes included confirmed cases of measles infection, and death due to measles. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched (until May 23, 2024). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: Nine studies were included, totalling 660 patients receiving PEP (434 Ig and 226 MCV). Three studies were in children, one in adults, and five included both children and adults. Data were limited in immunocompromised or pregnant individuals. Details regarding intensity of exposure, time from exposure to treatment, and dose of Ig were poorly reported, and all studies presented moderate/serious concerns regarding the risk of bias. Measles infection rates in those who received Ig PEP ranged from 0 to 30 % and from 0 to 15 % in those receiving MCV PEP. Estimates of effectiveness ranged from 76 % (95 % CI 0-94) to 100 % (95 % CI 56.2-99.8 %) for Ig PEP, and from 83.4 % (95 % CI 34.4-95.8) to 100 % (95 % CI not estimable) for MCV PEP. DISCUSSION: Our systematic review provides a contemporary estimate of measles PEP effectiveness in the context of decreased measles antibody titres in donor-derived blood products over time, and highlights the key limitations to available evidence. Future research should seek to estimate effectiveness of measles PEP in populations of special interest, including immunocompromised and/or pregnant populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".