Jenna Patterson1, Benjamin M Kagina2, Michael Gold3, Gregory D Hussey4, Rudzani Muloiwa5. 1. Vaccines for Africa Initiative, University of Cape Town, South Africa; School of Public Health & Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: PTTJEN005@myuct.ac.za. 2. Vaccines for Africa Initiative, University of Cape Town, South Africa; School of Public Health & Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: benjamin.kagina@uct.ac.za. 3. University of Adelaide, Discipline of Paediatrics, Women's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, Australia. Electronic address: michael.gold@adelaide.edu.au. 4. Vaccines for Africa Initiative, University of Cape Town, South Africa; Division of Medical Microbiology & Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: gregory.hussey@uct.ac.za. 5. Vaccines for Africa Initiative, University of Cape Town, South Africa; Department of Paediatrics & Child Health, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: rudzani.muloiwa@uct.ac.za.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Two types of vaccines are currently licensed for use against pertussis: whole-cell (wP) and acellular pertussis (aP). There is evidence that wP confers more durable immunity than aP, however wP has been more frequently associated with adverse events following immunisation (AEFI). A comparison of the frequency of AEFI with the first doses of wP and aP has not yet been clearly documented. This must be done in light of recent considerations to move towards a wP prime-aP boost vaccination strategy in low and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To compare the frequency of AEFI associated with the first dose of the wP and aP vaccines. We also compared the frequency of AEFI associated with subsequent doses of wP. METHODS: This systematic review was carried out in strict accordance with the published protocol. RESULTS: High heterogeneity amongst included one-armed studies did not allow for pooling of prevalence estimates. The prevalence estimates of AEFI at first vaccine dose of wP ranged from 0 to 75%, while the prevalence estimates of AEFI at first vaccine dose of aP ranges from 0 to 39%. The prevalence estimates of adverse events following second and third vaccine dose of wP ranged from 0 to 71% and 0 to 61%, respectively. Risk ratios among two-armed studies showed an increased risk of adverse events with first dose of wP compared to aP [local reaction RR 2.73 (2.33, 3.21), injection site pain RR 4.15 (3.24, 5.31), injection site swelling RR 4.38 (2.70, 7.12), fever over 38 °C RR 9.21 (5.39, 15.76), drowsiness RR 1.34 (1.18, 1.52) and vomiting RR 1.28 (0.91, 1.79)]. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that, when comparing the first dose, wP is more reacotgenic than aP. The proposed wP prime followed by aP boost pertussis vaccine strategy should be approached with caution.
INTRODUCTION: Two types of vaccines are currently licensed for use against pertussis: whole-cell (wP) and acellular pertussis (aP). There is evidence that wP confers more durable immunity than aP, however wP has been more frequently associated with adverse events following immunisation (AEFI). A comparison of the frequency of AEFI with the first doses of wP and aP has not yet been clearly documented. This must be done in light of recent considerations to move towards a wP prime-aP boost vaccination strategy in low and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To compare the frequency of AEFI associated with the first dose of the wP and aP vaccines. We also compared the frequency of AEFI associated with subsequent doses of wP. METHODS: This systematic review was carried out in strict accordance with the published protocol. RESULTS: High heterogeneity amongst included one-armed studies did not allow for pooling of prevalence estimates. The prevalence estimates of AEFI at first vaccine dose of wP ranged from 0 to 75%, while the prevalence estimates of AEFI at first vaccine dose of aP ranges from 0 to 39%. The prevalence estimates of adverse events following second and third vaccine dose of wP ranged from 0 to 71% and 0 to 61%, respectively. Risk ratios among two-armed studies showed an increased risk of adverse events with first dose of wP compared to aP [local reaction RR 2.73 (2.33, 3.21), injection site pain RR 4.15 (3.24, 5.31), injection site swelling RR 4.38 (2.70, 7.12), fever over 38 °C RR 9.21 (5.39, 15.76), drowsiness RR 1.34 (1.18, 1.52) and vomiting RR 1.28 (0.91, 1.79)]. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that, when comparing the first dose, wP is more reacotgenic than aP. The proposed wP prime followed by aP boost pertussis vaccine strategy should be approached with caution.
Authors: Janice Seinfeld; María Laura Rosales; Alfredo Sobrevilla; Juan Guillermo López Yescas Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Gladymar Perez Chacon; Jessica Ramsay; Christopher G Brennan-Jones; Marie J Estcourt; Peter Richmond; Patrick Holt; Tom Snelling Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-09-06
Authors: Dawid Pieper; Irma Hellbrecht; Linlu Zhao; Clemens Baur; Georgia Pick; Sarah Schneider; Thomas Harder; Kelsey Young; Andrea C Tricco; Ella Westhaver; Matthew Tunis Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Kamil Barański; Maksymilian Gajda; Bogumiła Braczkowska; Małgorzata Kowalska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gladymar Perez Chacon; Marie J Estcourt; James Totterdell; Dianne E Campbell; Kirsten P Perrett; Julie A Marsh; Peter C Richmond; Nicholas Wood; Michael S Gold; Patrick G Holt; Claire S Waddington; Thomas L Snelling Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 3.006