BackgroundPost-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for pertussis is recommended for household contacts of pertussis cases in the United States within 21 days of exposure, but data on PEP effectiveness for prevention of secondary cases in the setting of widespread pertussis vaccination are limited. We implemented a multi-state evaluation of azithromycin PEP use and effectiveness among household contacts.MethodsCulture- or PCR-confirmed pertussis cases were identified through surveillance. Household contacts were interviewed within 7 days of case report and again 14–21 days later. Interviewers collected information on exposure, demographics, vaccine history, prior pertussis diagnosis, underlying conditions, PEP receipt, pertussis symptoms, and pertussis testing. A subset of household contacts provided nasopharyngeal and blood specimens during interviews.ResultsOf 299 household contacts who completed both interviews, 12 (4%) reported not receiving PEP. There was no evidence of higher prevalence of cough or pertussis symptoms among contacts who did not receive PEP. Of 168 household contacts who provided at least one nasopharyngeal specimen, four (2.4%) were culture or PCR positive forB.pertussis; three of these received PEP prior to their positive test result. Of 156 contacts with serologic results, 14 (9%) had blood specimens that were positive for IgG anti-pertussis toxin (PT) antibodies; all had received PEP.ConclusionsVery high PEP uptake was observed among household contacts of pertussis patients. Although the number of contacts who did not receive PEP was small, there was no difference in prevalence of pertussis symptoms or positive laboratory results among these contacts compared with those who did receive PEP.