Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-02T06:54:40.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Age-specific efficacy of pertussis vaccine during epidemic and non-epidemic periods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

M. E. B. Ramsay ,
C. P. Farrington  and
E. Miller
M. E. B. Ramsay*
Affiliation:
Immunisation Division, PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
C. P. Farrington
Affiliation:
Immunisation Division, PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
E. Miller
Affiliation:
Immunisation Division, PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
*
* Author for correspondence: Dr M. Ramsay, Department of Public Health Medicine, St Mary's Hospital Medical School, Imperial College, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A national survey was conducted of 3150 notified cases of whooping cough in order to determine age-specific pertussis vaccine efficacy by the ‘screening’ method. The cases were collected over two periods, one just prior to the start and one at the first peak of the whooping cough epidemic of 1989–90. Vaccination status was determined by a postal questionnaire to the reporting doctor and clinical data were also collected to provide efficacy estimates according to standardized case definitions. Overall, observed vaccine efficacy was high but differed between epidemic (87%) and non-epidemic (93%) periods (P = 0·03). Efficacy estimates were generally higher for typical or severe cases than for children with an atypical illness. Vaccine efficacy declined with age (P < 0·01) but estimates remained high up to the age of 8 years. This study will provide baseline data for comparison with efficacy observed from similar studies of children immunized at an accelerated schedule and from phase III studies of acellular pertussis vaccines performed elsewhere.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , August 1993 , pp. 41 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

1. Department of Health. Immunisation against infectious disease 1990. London: HMSO, 1990.Google Scholar
2.Ramsay, MEB, Corbel, MJ, Redhead, K, Ashworth, LAE, Begg, NT. Persistence of antibody after accelerated immunisation with diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine. BMJ 1991; 302: 1489–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Booy, R, Aitken, SJM, Taylor, S, et al. Immunogenicity of combined diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine given at 2, 3 and 4 months of age versus 3, 5 and 9 months of age. Lancet 1992; 339: 507–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Ad-hoc group for the study of pertussis vaccines. Placebo controlled trial of two acellular pertussis vaccines in Sweden - protective efficacy and adverse events. Lancet 1988; i: 955–60.Google Scholar
5.Blackwelder, WC, Storsaeter, J, Olin, P, Hallander, H. Acellular pertussis vaccines. Efficacy and evaluation of clinical case definitions. Amer J Dis Child 1991; 145: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. PHLS Epidemiological Research Laboratory and 21 Area Health Authorities. Efficacy of pertussis vaccination in England. BMJ 1982; 285: 357–9.Google Scholar
7.Jenkinson, D. Duration of effectiveness of pertussis vaccine: evidence from a 10-year community study. BMJ 1988; 296: 612–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Pollock, TM, Miller, E, Lobb, J. Severity of whooping cough in England before and after the decline in pertussis immunisation. Arch Dis Child 1984; 59: 162–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Miller, E, Jacombs, B, Pollock, TM. Whooping cough notifications. Lancet 1980; i: 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Orenstein, WA, Bernier, RH, Donder, TJ, et al. Field evaluation of vaccine efficacy. Bull WHO 1985; 63: 1055–68.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Begg, NT, Gill, ON, White, JM. COVER (Cover of Vaccination Evaluated Rapidly): description of the England and Wales scheme. Public Health 1989; 103: 81–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. World Health Organisation. Report of a meeting on the case definition of pertussis. MIM/EPI/PERT/91.1 Geneva: WHO, 1991.Google Scholar
13.Onorato, IM, Wassilak, SGF. Laboratory diagnosis of pertussis: the state of the art. Paediatr Infect Dis J 1987; 6: 145–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Jenkinson, D, Pepper, JD. A search for subclinical infection during a small outbreak of whooping cough: implications for clinical diagnosis. J R Coll Gen Pract 1986; 36: 547–8.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Grob, PR, Crowder, MJ, Robbins, JF. Effect of vaccination on the severity and dissemination of whooping cough. BMJ 1981; 282: 1925–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Swansea Research Unit of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Effect of a low pertussis vaccination uptake on a large community. BMJ 1981; 282: 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Miller, CL, Fletcher, WB. Severity of notified whooping cough. BMJ 1976; i: 117–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Palmer, SR. Vaccine efficacy and control measures in pertussis. Arch Dis Child 1991; 66: 854–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Orenstein, WA, Bernier, RH, Hinman, AR. Assessing vaccine efficacy in the field. Further observations. Epidemiol Rev 1988; 10: 212–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Fine, PEM, Clarkson, JA. Reflections of the efficacy of pertussis vaccines. Rev Infect Dis 1987; 9: 866–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Farrington, CP. The measurement and interpretation of age specific vaccine efficacy. Int J of Epidemiol 1992; 21: 1014–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed