Article

Ward, J.I. et al. Efficacy of an acellular pertussis vaccine among adolescents and adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 1555-1563

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 11/2005; 353(15):1555-63. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa050824
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Pertussis immunization of adults may be necessary to improve the control of a rising burden of disease and infection. This trial of an acellular pertussis vaccine among adolescents and adults evaluated the incidence of pertussis, vaccine safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy.
Bordetella pertussis infections and illnesses were prospectively assessed in 2781 healthy subjects between the ages of 15 and 65 years who were enrolled in a national multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of an acellular pertussis vaccine. Subjects received either a dose of a tricomponent acellular pertussis vaccine or a hepatitis A vaccine (control) and were monitored for 2.5 years for illnesses with cough that lasted for more than 5 days. Each illness was evaluated with use of a nasopharyngeal aspirate for culture and polymerase-chain-reaction assay, and serum samples from patients in both acute and convalescent stages of illness were analyzed for changes in antibodies to nine B. pertussis antigens.
Of the 2781 subjects, 1391 received the acellular pertussis vaccine and 1390 received the control vaccine. The groups had similar ages and demographic characteristics, and the median duration of follow-up was 22 months. The acellular pertussis vaccine was safe and immunogenic. There were 2672 prolonged illnesses with cough, but the incidence of this nonspecific outcome did not vary between the groups, even when stratified according to age, season, and duration of cough. On the basis of the primary pertussis case definition, vaccine protection was 92 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 32 to 99 percent). Among unimmunized controls with illness, 0.7 percent to 5.7 percent had B. pertussis infection, and the percentage increased with the duration of cough. On the basis of other case definitions, the incidence of pertussis in the controls ranged from 370 to 450 cases per 100,000 person-years.
The acellular pertussis vaccine was protective among adolescents and adults, and its routine use might reduce the overall disease burden and transmission to children.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Joel I Ward, Aug 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
176 Views
  • Source
    • "Therefore, while immunization of older individuals against pertussis can prevent disease [8], immunisation of adults may also prevent transmission to vulnerable infants [9]. Booster vaccination of adults is achieved using combined reduced-antigen content diphtheriatetanus-acellular pertussis (dTpa) vaccines. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regular booster vaccination might be necessary throughout life to protect against pertussis infection. Nevertheless the duration of protection after booster vaccination remains unclear. In this study, antibody persistence up to 10 years after previous vaccination of adolescents (N = 478) with combined reduced-antigen-content diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine (dTpa, Boostrix™, GlaxoSmithKline Belgium) containing 0.5 mg, 0.3 mg or 0.133 mg of aluminium was assessed. The immunogenicity, reactogenicity and safety of a decennial booster dTpa dose were also investigated.
    Vaccine 01/2015; 98(26). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.10.049 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "During the last years, the median age of infected individuals increased in many countries and thereby adults came into the focus of vaccination [54]. The risk of a clinically relevant disease is around 1:500 per year and vaccination reduces this risk by over 90 % at least for the first 2–3 years after vaccination [55]. The only licensed vaccine for adults is an acellular vaccine (with less side effects compared with a whole-cell vaccine) with a reduced antigen content compared with childhood vaccines used for basic immunization. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Public health vaccination guidelines cannot be easily transferred to elite athletes. An enhanced benefit from preventing even mild diseases is obvious but stronger interference from otherwise minor side effects has to be considered as well. Thus, special vaccination guidelines for adult elite athletes are required. In most of them, protection should be strived for against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and varicella. When living or traveling to endemic areas, the athletes should be immune against tick-borne encephalitis, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, poliomyelitis, typhoid fever, and meningococcal disease. Vaccination against pneumococci and Haemophilus influenzae type b is only relevant in athletes with certain underlying disorders. Rubella and papillomavirus vaccination might be considered after an individual risk-benefit analysis. Other vaccinations such as cholera, rabies, herpes zoster, and Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) cannot be universally recommended for athletes at present. Only for a very few diseases, a determination of antibody titers is reasonable to avoid unnecessary vaccinations or to control efficacy of an individual's vaccination (especially for measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B and, partly, hepatitis A). Vaccinations should be scheduled in a way that possible side effects are least likely to occur in periods of competition. Typically, vaccinations are well tolerated by elite athletes, and resulting antibody titers are not different from the general population. Side effects might be reduced by an optimal selection of vaccines and an appropriate technique of administration. Very few discipline-specific considerations apply to an athlete's vaccination schedule mainly from the competition and training pattern as well as from the typical geographical distribution of competitive sites.
    Sports Medicine 07/2014; 44(10). DOI:10.1007/s40279-014-0217-3 · 5.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Data are lacking on the effectiveness of pertussis vaccination in persons aged 50 and older. The risk of pertussis was reduced by 92% in patients aged 15 to 65 years old after acellular pertussis vaccination [63,64]. Since a single dose of Boostrix induced an effective immune humoral response against pertussis, it is likely to protect persons aged 55 and older. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The increasing life expectancy in most European countries has resulted in growth of the population 50 and older. This population is more susceptible to infectious diseases because of immunosenescence, co-morbidity and general frailty. Thus, to promote healthy aging, vaccination against vaccine-preventable-diseases could be one strategy. In addition to its possible individual benefits, vaccination may also yield social benefits, such as a lower overall cost of healthcare. Most European countries, however, offer only influenza vaccine although vaccines for pneumococcal disease, herpes zoster, pertussis, and hepatitis A are also available. Our aim is to review the knowledge of these vaccines for persons aged 50 and older and explore the arguments for expanding current vaccination programmes beyond just influenza. Methods The evaluation model of Kimman et al. was used to assess herpes zoster, pneumococcal disease, pertussis and hepatitis A in terms of four domains: pathogen, vaccine, disease outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The sources were Dutch surveillance systems, seroprevalence studies and the international literature. Results Herpes zoster, pneumococcal disease and pertussis are prevalent among persons aged 50 and older. Vaccines vary in effectiveness and have mild and self-limiting side effects. Vaccination against pneumococcal disease and pertussis causes adaptation of the responsible pathogen. For pertussis and hepatitis A, the vaccine is not registered specifically for the elderly population. Vaccination against herpes zoster and pertussis could improve quality of life, while vaccination against pneumococcal disease and hepatitis A prevents mortality. However, only vaccination against herpes zoster and pneumococcal disease appear to be cost-effective. Conclusions Vaccination can improve the health of the elderly population. As our review shows, however, the data are too incomplete to accurately judge its potential impact. More research is needed to determine how vaccination can most effectively improve the health of the growing population 50 years and older.
    BMC Geriatrics 04/2013; 13(1):32. DOI:10.1186/1471-2318-13-32 · 2.00 Impact Factor
Show more