Performance of an Algorithm for Assessing Smallpox Risk among Patients with Rashes That May Be Confused with Smallpox
1National Immunization Program and 2National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 3Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Departments of 4Preventive Medicine, 5Biomedical Informatics, and 6Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, and 7Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville, Tennessee; 8Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul; 9Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; 10Division for Disease Control, City of Philadelphia Department of Health, 11Division of Infectious Diseases, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and 12Department of Emergency Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and 13Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven
After the 2001 anthrax bioterror attacks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed an algorithm to evaluate patients rapidly for suspected smallpox. A prospective, multicenter study examined the performance of this algorithm in assessing patients with an acute, generalized vesicular or pustular rash (AGVPR) admitted to emergency departments and inpatient units of 12 acute‐care hospitals in 6 states. Of 26,747 patients (3.5% of all admissions) with rashlike conditions screened, 89 (1.2 patients per 10,000 admissions) had an AGVPR. Physicians or study staff classified none of 73 enrolled patients as being at high risk for having smallpox; 72 (99%) were classified as being at low risk, and 1 was classified as being at moderate risk. The discharge diagnosis for 55 (75%) of these 73 participants was varicella illness. Use of the algorithm did not result in misclassification of AGVPR as high risk for smallpox. The algorithm is a highly specific tool for clinical evaluation of suspected smallpox disease.
Cited by
Online publication date: 15-Mar-2008.
Online publication date: 15-Mar-2008.
Online publication date: 15-Mar-2008.
-
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agency.



