结核病与肺部健康杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 3 ›› Issue (3): 161-165.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-3755.2014.03.005

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

一起校园结核病暴发事件的回顾性分析

齐怡, 路华跃, 杨连军, 杨蕴轶, 周颖, 路希维   

  1. 116033 大连市结核病医院 结核病公共卫生科(齐怡、杨连军、杨蕴轶、周颖、路希维);大连市育明高中(志愿者:路华跃)
  • 收稿日期:2014-08-11 出版日期:2014-06-20 发布日期:2014-06-20
  • 通信作者: 路希维,Email:yiluxiwei@126.com

The retrospective analysis of a tuberculosis outbreak in a middle school

QI Yi*, LU Hua-yue, YANG Lian-jun, YANG Yun-yi, ZHOU Ying, LU Xi-wei.   

  1. Department of Tuberculosis Prevention and Contral, Tuberculosis Hospital of Dalian, Dalian 116033, China
  • Received:2014-08-11 Online:2014-06-20 Published:2014-06-20
  • Contact: LU Xi-wei, Email:yiluxiwei@126.com

摘要: 目的 对一起学校结核病暴发事件进行回顾性分析,探讨疫情处置的最佳原则与方法。方法对发生结核病暴发的大连市一所中学的整个初3年级229名学生进行胸部X线摄影和PPD筛查。描述疫情的三间分布特征、评价暴露水平、PPD与续发患者的关系。结果根据与传染源的接触密切程度关系,将暴露分为4个水平:1级暴露人群为传染源所在班级接触者,PPD强阳性率为74.0%(37/50);2级暴露人群为与1班相邻且经常在一个教室上课的接触者,PPD强阳性率为58.5%(24/41);3级暴露人群为位于同一楼层但不与传染源同在一教室上课的接触者,PPD强阳性率为31.8%(21/66);4级暴露人群为既不在同一楼层上课,又不在同一教室上课的其他班级接触者,PPD强阳性率为12.7%(9/71)。1级和2级暴露人群的结核病罹患率分别为16.0%(8/50)和2.4%(1/41),χ2=4.65,P<0.05。按照首次密切接触者筛查PPD试验结果统计: PPD硬结平均直径≥15mm与<15mm两组的结核病罹患率分别为13.3%(2/15)和17.1%(6/35),χ2=0.11,P>0.05;按照3个月随诊密切接触者PPD试验结果统计:PPD硬结平均直径≥15mm和<15mm的结核病罹患率分别为16.2%(6/37)和15.4%(2/13),χ2=0.00,P>0.05。对于本次疫情,即使对PPD硬结平均直径≥15mm者(共计15名)全部进行预防,理论上仅能对22.2%(2/9)的续发患者进行前期干预。结论在结核病暴发中,结核分枝杆菌高暴露者具有较高的发病风险;续发患者与PPD是否强阳性无关。建立风险评估机制是防止学校聚集性疫情发生的有效手段。

Abstract: Objective Retrospective analysis was conducted for a tuberculosis (TB) outbreak in a middle school to explore the best principles and methods of handling the TB outbreak.Methods A total of 229 students in grade 3 in the junior high school with TB outbreak were screened by chest X ray and PPD. The distribution of time, space and population was described, and the relation among the exposure level, TST result and the secondary cases was evaluated.Results According to the degree of contact with the index TB case, the 229 students were divided into four groups: Level 1 (L1) students studied with the index case in the same classroom. Level 2 (L2): students studied in the adjacent class but studied frequently in the same classroom. Level 3 (L3) students studied on the same floor but in different classroom with the index case. Level 4 (L4) students studied on the different floor and in different classrooms. Based on the above criteria, the strongly positive PPD rates were 74.0% (37/50), 58.5% (24/41), 31.8% (21/66) and 12.7% (9/71) respectively in the 4 group. The attack rates of TB were 16% (8/50) and 2.4% (1/41) in L1 and L2 respectively (χ2=4.65, P<0.05). According to the TST results of the first screening in close contacts (L1), the attack rates of TB of the group of TST≥15 mm and TST<15 mm were 13.3% (2/15) and 17.1% (6/35) respectively (χ2=0.11, P>0.05). Based on the TST results of the second screening in close contacts (L1, 3 months later), the attack rates of TB with TST≥15 mm and TST<15 mm were 16.2% (6/37) and 15.4% (2/13) respectively (χ2=0.00, P>0.05). In the TB outbreak, even if the preventive therapy was applied to all of the 15 students with TST≥15 mm after the first TST, only 22.2% (2/9) of the se-condary case could be selected to received the early intervention.Conclusion The level of exposure is a high risk factor for TB incidence during an TB outbreak. Whether the TST is strongly positive or not is unrelated to secondary cases. Establishing a mechanism for risk evaluation is an effective means of preventing TB outbreak in school.