Literature DB >> 4014148

Clinical mumps vaccine efficacy.

R Kim-Farley, S Bart, H Stetler, W Orenstein, K Bart, K Sullivan, T Halpin, B Sirotkin.   

Abstract

From February 5 through April 23, 1982, 110 cases of mumps were reported among 357 students in a middle school in Ashtabula County, Ohio, an overall attack rate of 31%. Vaccine efficacy was calculated using a variety of case definitions, case surveillance systems, and vaccination-status ascertainment methods to evaluate their effects on the estimated vaccine efficacy. From data collected at the school for case ascertainment and vaccination status, clinical vaccine efficacy was initially estimated at 37%. By means of a uniform case definition (parotitis lasting two days or more) and only cases and vaccination status ascertained from parental questionnaires, estimated vaccine efficacy increased to 70%. From secondary attack rates in household members with provider-verified vaccination status, the vaccine efficacy further increased to 85%. This outbreak investigation confirms that the methods used to ascertain cases and determine vaccination status greatly affect estimates of vaccine efficacy. Studies relying solely on school records for case finding and determination of immunization status may provide misleadingly low estimates of vaccine efficacy for mumps vaccine as well as for other vaccines. Appropriate methods demonstrate that mumps vaccine is highly effective and support recommendations for its continued use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4014148     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  11 in total

1.  Mumps in the US Army 1980-86: should recruits be immunized?

Authors:  D R Arday; D D Kanjarpane; P W Kelley
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Mumps: an Update on Outbreaks, Vaccine Efficacy, and Genomic Diversity.

Authors:  Eugene Lam; Jennifer B Rosen; Jane R Zucker
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 3.  [Mumps vaccines: virological basis].

Authors:  A Ströhle; D Germann
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1995

4.  A path-specific SEIR model for use with general latent and infectious time distributions.

Authors:  Aaron T Porter; Jacob J Oleson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Mumps caused by an inadequately attenuated measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.

Authors:  W Bakker; R Mathias
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  2001-05

6.  Vaccine effectiveness estimates, 2004-2005 mumps outbreak, England.

Authors:  Cheryl Cohen; Joanne M White; Emma J Savage; Judith R Glynn; Yoon Choi; Nick Andrews; David Brown; Mary E Ramsay
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 6.883

7.  Analysis of mumps vaccine failure by means of avidity testing for mumps virus-specific immunoglobulin G.

Authors:  M Narita; Y Matsuzono; Y Takekoshi; S Yamada; O Itakura; M Kubota; H Kikuta; T Togashi
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  1998-11

8.  Immune responses to mumps vaccine in adults who were vaccinated in childhood.

Authors:  Rima Hanna-Wakim; Linda L Yasukawa; Phillip Sung; Ann M Arvin; Hayley A Gans
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2008-06-15       Impact factor: 5.226

9.  [A look back at 2 mumps outbreaks].

Authors:  M F Paccaud; P Hazeghi; M Bourquin; A M Maurer; C A Steiner; A J Seiler; P Helbling; H Zimmermann
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1995

10.  [Mumps epidemiology in Switzerland: results from the Sentinella surveillance system 1986-1993. Sentinella Work Group].

Authors:  H Zimmermann; H C Matter; T Kiener
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1995
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.