Article

CDC. Pertussis vaccine effectiveness among children 6 to 59 months of age in the United States, 1998–2001

Idaho State University, PIH, Idaho, United States
PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.3). 09/2005; 116(2):e285-94. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-2759
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite the dramatic pertussis decrease since the licensure of whole-cell pertussis (diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-pertussis [DTP]) vaccines in the middle 1940s, pertussis remains endemic in the United States and can cause illness among persons at any age; >11000 pertussis cases were reported in 2003. Since July 1996, in addition to 2 DTP vaccines already in use, 5 acellular pertussis (diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-acellular pertussis [DTaP]) vaccines were licensed for use among infants; 3 DTaP vaccines were distributed widely during the study period. Because of the availability of 3 DTaP and 2 DTP vaccines and the likelihood of the vaccines being used interchangeably to vaccinate children with the recommended 5-dose schedule, measuring the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccines was a high priority.
To measure the pertussis vaccine effectiveness (VE) among US children 6 to 59 months of age.
We conducted a case-control study in the Cincinnati, Ohio, metropolitan area, Colorado, Idaho, and Minnesota.
Confirmed pertussis cases among children 6 to 59 months of age at the time of disease onset, with onset in 1998-2001, were included. For each case subject, 5 control children were matched from birth certificate records, according to the date of birth and residence.
A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain vaccination data from parents and providers. Parents/guardians were asked about demographic characteristics, child care attendance, the number of household members who stayed at the same home as the enrolled child for > or =2 nights per week, and cough illness of > or =2-week duration among these household members in the month before the case patient's cough onset. Pertussis vaccine doses among case children were counted as valid if they were received > or =14 days before the cough onset date ("valid period"). The age of the case patient (in days) at the end of the valid period was determined, and doses of vaccine for the matched control subjects were counted as valid if they were received by that age. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate the matched odds ratios (ORs) for pertussis according to the number of pertussis vaccine doses. The VE was calculated with the following formula: (1 - OR) x 100. Because the pertussis antigen components or amounts differed according to vaccine, the VE of 3 or 4 doses of DTP and/or DTaP was estimated according to the recorded vaccine manufacturer and vaccine type.
All enrolled children (184 case subjects and 893 control subjects) had their vaccine history verified. The proportions of children who received 0, 1 or 2, 3, and > or =4 pertussis (DTP and/or DTaP) vaccine doses among case subjects were 26%, 14%, 26%, and 34% and among control subjects were 2%, 8%, 33%, and 57%, respectively. Compared with 0 doses, the unadjusted VE estimate for 1 or 2 pertussis doses was 83.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61.1-93.1%), that for 3 doses was 95.6% (95% CI: 89.7-98.0%), and for > or =4 doses was 97.7% (95% CI: 94.7-99.0%). Among children who received 4 pertussis vaccinations, the risk of pertussis was slightly higher among those who received only 1 type of vaccine (either 4 DTP doses or 4 DTaP doses), compared with those who received a combination of DTP for doses 1 to 3 and DTaP for dose 4 (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.1-5.2). Among children who received 3 or 4 DTaP vaccine doses, the risk of pertussis was slightly higher among those who received a DTaP vaccine with 4 pertussis antigen components (a vaccine no longer available), compared with those who received the DTaP vaccine with 2 pertussis antigen components (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.8). Among children who received 4 doses, the risk of pertussis was 2.7 times higher for children who received dose 4 early (age of < or =13 months), compared with children who received dose 4 at an older age (age of > or =14 months) (95% CI: 1.1-6.8). For children 6 to 23 months of age, features of household structure were significant risk factors for pertussis. In a multivariate model, compared with living with an older parent (> or =25 years of age), not living with an "other" household member (a relative other than a parent or sibling or a nonrelated person), and not living with a sibling 6 to 11 years of age, the risk of pertussis for children 6 to 23 months of age was 6.8 times higher if they lived with a young parent (< or =24 years of age) (95% CI: 3.1-15.0), 2.5 times higher if they lived with an "other" household member (95% CI: 1.2-5.4), and 2.2 times higher if they lived with a sibling 6 to 11 years of age (95% CI: 1.2-4.3). Adjusting for these risk factors did not change the VE. Compared with control children, case children were significantly more likely to live with a household member (representing all age groups and relationships) who reported a recent cough illness with duration of > or =2 weeks (87 [52%] of 168 case subjects, compared with 79 [8%] of 860 control subjects).
Any combination of > or =3 DTP/DTaP vaccine doses for children 6 to 59 months of age was highly protective against pertussis. However, there were differences according to vaccine type (DTaP or DTP) and DTaP manufacturer. Among children who received 4 pertussis vaccine doses, a combination of 3 DTP doses followed by 1 DTaP dose had a slightly higher VE than other combinations; among children who received 3 or 4 DTaP vaccine doses, 1 DTaP vaccine performed less well. The finding that pertussis dose 4 was more effective when given to children at > or =14 months of age might be confounded if health care providers were more likely to vaccinate children at 12 months of age because of a perceived risk of undervaccination and if these same children were also at higher risk for pertussis. Household members of any age group and relationship could have been the source of pertussis, and household structure was associated with risk for pertussis for children 6 to 23 months of age. In contrast to control children in the study, 26% of case children had never been vaccinated against pertussis. Unvaccinated children are at risk for pertussis and, in a community with other unvaccinated children, can lead to community-wide pertussis outbreaks. Parents need to be educated about the morbidity and mortality risks associated with Bordetella pertussis infection, and they need to be encouraged to vaccinate their children against pertussis on time and with the recommended number of vaccine doses for optimal protection.

0 Followers
 · 
95 Views
 · 
0 Downloads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hemos leído con gran interés el artículo titulado "Impacto económico de la introducción de la vacuna inactivada inyectable contra la poliomielitis en Colom-bia", publicado por Nelson Alvis y colaboradores en el volumen 27, número 5, de esa Revista (1). Trata sin dudas un tema de gran relevancia para las políticas de vacunación en los países en desarrollo: la viabilidad de sustituir la forma oral de la vacuna contra la poliomie-litis (VOP) por la vacuna basada en la forma inacti-vada del poliovirus (VIP). Aun cuando el trabajo expone con claridad su objetivo y sus conclusiones, y sus métodos son los usualmente utilizados en estudios de este tipo, creemos que adolece de problemas metodológicos que ameritan una mayor discusión dada la importancia que entraña este problema de salud pública. Nuestras objeciones conciernen fundamentalmente a dos aspectos: la perti-nencia de la pregunta propuesta y la validez de los datos que usan los autores para darle respuesta. Respecto del primer punto, el estudio analiza la mera sustitución de la VOP por la VIP, sin considerar (a excepción de una breve referencia en la discusión) la introducción de vacunas combinadas que incluyan la VIP. En el contexto actual, la posible modificación de las políticas de vacunación en diferentes países pasa por la evaluación del valor agregado de pasar de la VOP a una vacuna combinada que incluya la VIP, puesto que de esta forma se logran obvios beneficios operacionales que no se obtendrían con la VIP sola — y que no fueron incluidos en el trabajo de Alvis y co-laboradores (1). En cuanto a los problemas de identificación y validez de los datos utilizados, solo a título ilustrativo mencionaremos que la primera frase del artículo re-fiere al número de casos de poliomielitis en 2006 utili-zando tres citas de las cuales la más reciente es de 2004. Dicho esto, a continuación señalamos las falen-cias que consideramos más importantes para la obten-ción de las conclusiones en ese trabajo: – La revisión de artículos publicados en que se apo-yan los autores no cumple con las directivas inter-nacionalmente aceptadas (p. ej. Cochrane [2]). Esto podría ser aceptable puesto que no pretenden reali-zar una revisión sistemática, pero resulta sorpren-dente que se intente identificar trabajos sobre costo-efectividad sin utilizar ninguno de los términos de búsqueda comúnmente empleados en estudios de este tipo. A raíz de esta falla metodológica, los auto-res encontraron solamente tres estudios que conclu-yen que la introducción de la VIP no es costo-efectiva (3-5), pero no identificaron dos trabajos que llegan a conclusiones contrarias (ambos aparecen entre los 10 primeros resultados de una búsqueda en Pubmed con los términos "cost-effectiveness inacti-vated polio") (6, 7). – No se hace una descripción detallada de los pará-metros utilizados en la evaluación económica que permita la replicación de los resultados. Por ejem-plo, varias de las referencias utilizadas son inaccesi-bles o no documentan las afirmaciones de los auto-res, entre otras las referencias 17 y 34, que deberían dar acceso a los datos utilizados para los cálculos, son inaccesibles usando el enlace publicado e in-cluso buscándolas en los sitios correspondientes por el título indicado en la referencia. – El precio utilizado en el artículo para la VIP monovalente (US$ 7,5) correspondería al de una va-cuna combinada con la VIP, ya que el precio de la VIP monovalente es bastante inferior, diferencia que obviamente impacta en los costos calculados para esa sustitución. – En la discusión, los autores hacen una valoración rápida y pobremente documentada acerca de las vacunas combinadas con la VIP. La afirmación "este beneficio . . . [el de la vacuna acelular contra la tos ferina] . . . no ha sido comprobado en estudios con-trolados" es discutible en función de la numerosa evidencia disponible acerca de la existencia de dicho beneficio (8). También es cuestionable la aserción "la vacuna acelular podría interferir con la respuesta inmunológica a otras vacunas, especialmente las que contienen el antígeno vacunal del Haemophilus influenzae tipo b". Si bien esa interferencia resulta observable en las vacunas combinadas, no es clíni-camente relevante según los expertos, algo que ade-más ha sido demostrado en sistemas de vigilancia epidemiológica nacionales (9, 10).
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The incidence of reported pertussis among adolescents, adults, and young infants has increased sharply over the past decade. Combined acellular pertussis vaccines for adolescents and adults are available in Canada, Australia, and Germany and may soon be considered for use in the United States. To evaluate the potential health benefits, risks, and costs of a national pertussis vaccination program for adolescents and/or adults. The projected health states and immunity levels associated with pertussis disease and vaccination were simulated with a Markov model. The following strategies were examined from the health care payer and societal perspectives: (1) no vaccination; (2) 1-time adolescent vaccination; (3) 1-time adult vaccination; (4) adult vaccination with boosters; (5) adolescent and adult vaccination with boosters; and (6) postpartum vaccination. Data on disease incidence, costs, outcomes, vaccine efficacy, and adverse events were based on published studies, recent unpublished clinical trials, and expert panel input. Cases prevented, adverse events, costs (in 2004 US dollars), cost per case prevented, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. One-time adolescent vaccination would prevent 30800 cases of pertussis (36% of projected cases) and would result in 91000 vaccine adverse events (67% local reactions). If pertussis vaccination cost $15 and vaccine coverage was 76%, then 1-time adolescent vaccination would cost $1100 per case prevented (or $1200 per case prevented) or $20000 per QALY (or $23000 per QALY) saved, from the societal (or health care payer) perspective. With a threshold of $50000 per QALY saved, the adolescent and adult vaccination with boosters strategy became potentially cost-effective from the societal perspective only if 2 conditions were met simultaneously, ie, (1) the disease incidence for adolescents and adults was > or =6 times higher than base-case assumptions and (2) the cost of vaccination was less than $10. Adult vaccination strategies were more costly and less effective than adolescent vaccination strategies. The results were sensitive to assumptions about disease incidence, vaccine efficacy, frequency of vaccine adverse events, and vaccine costs. Routine pertussis vaccination of adolescents results in net health benefits and may be relatively cost-effective.
    PEDIATRICS 06/2005; 115(6):1675-84. DOI:10.1542/peds.2004-2509 · 5.30 Impact Factor
Show more