Literature DB >> 16038246

Immunoprophylactic effects of the anti-leprosy Mw vaccine in household contacts of leprosy patients: clinical field trials with a follow up of 8-10 years.

Pankaj Sharma1, Rama Mukherjee, G P Talwar, K G Sarathchandra, R Walia, S K Parida, R M Pandey, Rajni Rani, Hemant Kar, Ashok Mukherjee, Kiran Katoch, S K Benara, Tulsi Singh, Padam Singh.   

Abstract

We report here a large scale, double blind immunoprophylactic trial of a leprosy vaccine based on Mycobacterium w (Mw) in an endemic area of Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh, India. A population of 420,823 spread over 272 villages was screened where 1226 multibacillary (MB) and 3757 paucibacillary (PB) cases of leprosy were detected. A total of 29,420 household contacts (HHC) of these patients were screened for evidence of active or inactive leprosy. After exclusion of 1622 contacts for any of the different exclusion criteria, a total of 24,060 HHC could be vaccinated for vaccine or placebo under coding (20,194 administered two doses and 3866 received single dose). The vaccine consisted of 1 x 10(9) heat killed bacilli (Mw) in normal saline for the first dose and half of the first dose, i.e. 5 x 10(8) bacilli for the second dose, given 6 months after the first dose. The placebo consisted of 1/8th dose of the normal dose of tetanous toxoid. Both placebo and vaccine were given under double-blind coding, The contacts were followed up during three surveys at 3, 6 and 9 years after the initial vaccination, for detection of post-vaccination cases (PVCs) and observing any side-effects caused as a result of vaccination. The codes were opened on 24th January 2001, after the analysis of the data following completion of the third and final follow-up survey. When only contacts received the vaccine, Mw vaccine showed a protective efficacy (PE) of 68-6% at the end of first, 59% at the end of the second and 39.3% at the end of the third follow-up survey. When both patients and contacts received the vaccine, the protective efficacy observed was 68%, 60% and 28% at the end of the first, second and third surveys, respectively. When patients, and not the contacts, received the vaccine, a PE of 42.9% in the first, 31% in the second and 3% in the third survey was shown. These results suggest that the vaccination of the contacts is more valuable in achieving the objective of immunoprophylaxis than that of patients, and the vaccine effects are noted maximally in children (as compared to adolescents and adults) who constitute the most responsive group The effect of vaccine is sustained for a period of about 7-8 years, following which there is a need to provide a booster vaccination for the sustained protection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16038246

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lepr Rev        ISSN: 0305-7518            Impact factor:   0.537


  28 in total

1.  A destiny to fulfill.

Authors:  G P Talwar
Journal:  J Biosci       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 1.826

Review 2.  Mycobacterium leprae-host-cell interactions and genetic determinants in leprosy: an overview.

Authors:  Roberta Olmo Pinheiro; Jorgenilce de Souza Salles; Euzenir Nunes Sarno; Elizabeth Pereira Sampaio
Journal:  Future Microbiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.165

3.  Immunostimulatory activity of recombinant Mycobacterium bovis BCG that secretes major membrane protein II of Mycobacterium leprae.

Authors:  Masahiko Makino; Yumi Maeda; Katsuya Inagaki
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.441

Review 4.  Leprosy.

Authors:  W Cairns S Smith; Paul Saunderson
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2010-06-28

Review 5.  Advances and hurdles on the way toward a leprosy vaccine.

Authors:  Malcolm S Duthie; Thomas P Gillis; Steven G Reed
Journal:  Hum Vaccin       Date:  2011-11-01

6.  Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of "Mycobacterium w" against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in mice immunized with live versus heat-killed M. w by the aerosol or parenteral route.

Authors:  Ankan Gupta; Nishamol Geetha; Jiju Mani; Pramod Upadhyay; V M Katoch; M Natrajan; U D Gupta; Sangeeta Bhaskar
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2008-11-03       Impact factor: 3.441

7.  Prednisolone and Mycobacterium indicus pranii in tuberculous pericarditis.

Authors:  Bongani M Mayosi; Mpiko Ntsekhe; Jackie Bosch; Shaheen Pandie; Hyejung Jung; Freedom Gumedze; Janice Pogue; Lehana Thabane; Marek Smieja; Veronica Francis; Laura Joldersma; Kandithalal M Thomas; Baby Thomas; Abolade A Awotedu; Nombulelo P Magula; Datshana P Naidoo; Albertino Damasceno; Alfred Chitsa Banda; Basil Brown; Pravin Manga; Bruce Kirenga; Charles Mondo; Phindile Mntla; Jacob M Tsitsi; Ferande Peters; Mohammed R Essop; James B W Russell; James Hakim; Jonathan Matenga; Ayub F Barasa; Mahmoud U Sani; Taiwo Olunuga; Okechukwu Ogah; Victor Ansa; Akinyemi Aje; Solomon Danbauchi; Dike Ojji; Salim Yusuf
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Leprosy.

Authors:  Diana Nj Lockwood
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2007-04-01

9.  Inhibition of the multiplication of Mycobacterium leprae by vaccination with a recombinant M. bovis BCG strain that secretes major membrane protein II in mice.

Authors:  Y Maeda; T Tamura; M Matsuoka; M Makino
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2009-08-12

10.  Polyphasic taxonomic analysis establishes Mycobacterium indicus pranii as a distinct species.

Authors:  Vikram Saini; Saurabh Raghuvanshi; Gursaran P Talwar; Niyaz Ahmed; Jitendra P Khurana; Seyed E Hasnain; Akhilesh K Tyagi; Anil K Tyagi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.