Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mx8w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T14:22:12.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How are the sub-unit pertussis vaccines to be evaluated?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

D. N. Baxter  and
A. C. C. Gibbs
D. N. Baxter
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Manchester University Medical School, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK
A. C. C. Gibbs
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Manchester University Medical School, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK
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.

Although an effective whooping cough vaccine has been available in the UK since the 1950s, its current association with neurotoxicity has resulted in poor uptake: as a consequence major epidemics (with significant morbidity and mortality) arc still being experienced.

Component (sub-unit) vaccines, which incorporate those antigens thought to be concerned with generating a protective effect, have been developed and are now available for field testing. This paper addresses how such a vaccine might be evaluated, the organization of a trial and the difficulties to be expected.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , October 1987 , pp. 477 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

REFERENCES

Berg, J. M. (1958). Neurological complications of pertussis immunisation. British Medical Journal 2, 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casaorande, J. T. (1978). An improved approximate formula for calculating sample sizes for comparing two binomial distributions. Biometrics; 34, 483–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockdurn, W. C. (1955). Large-scale field trials of active immunizing agents. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 13, 395–107.Google Scholar
Expanded Programme on Immunisation (1985). Field evaluation of vaccine efficacy. Weekly Epidemiology Record 18, 133–140.Google Scholar
Expanded Programme of Immunisation (1980). Pertussis vaccine efficacy; Weekly Epi demiological Record 10, 73–4.Google Scholar
Miller, D. L., Ross, E. M., Alderslade, R., Bellman, M. H. & Rawson, N. S. (1986). Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children. British Medical Journal 282, 1595–1599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. (1986). Progress towards a new pertussis vaccine. British Medical Journal 292, 1348–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortimer, E. A. & Jones, P. K. (1979). An evaluation of pertussis vaccine. Review of Infectious Diseases 1, 927–934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Public Health Laboratory Service (1982). Epidemiological Research Laboratory: efficacy of pertussis vaccination in England. British Medical Journal 285, 357–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, T. M., Miller, E., Mortimer, J.& Smith, G. (1984). Symptoms after primary immunisation with DTP and DT vaccine. Lancet ii, 146–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, N. W. (1979). Whooping cough in Hertfordshire. Lancet ii, 645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, N. W. (1986). Recognising whooping cough. British Medical Journal 292, 901–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Report (1981). Whooping Cough. Report of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. London: Her Majestys Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. (1977). Vaccination against whooping cough. Lancet i, 234–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, J. (1967). Further experience of reactions, especially of a cerebral nature, in conjunction with triple vaccine: a study based on vaccination in Sweden, 1959–1965. British Medical Journal 4, 320–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waioht, P., Pollock, T. M., Miller, E. & Coleman, E. M. (1983). Pyrexia after diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis and diphtheria/tetanus vaccines. Archives of Diseases of Childhood 58, 921–3.Google Scholar