OBJECTIVE: To compare the immunogenicity of a licensed conventional whole-cell (WCL) and 13 diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines that differed in source, method of manufacture, and included antigens; all vaccines included diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. METHODS:Healthy infants were enrolled through six university-based vaccine and treatment evaluation units and were randomized to receive one of the study vaccines at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. Sera were obtained before the first immunization and 1 month after the third immunization and were analyzed for antibody to pertussis toxin (PT), filamentous hemagglutinin, fimbriae, pertactin, and diphtheria and tetanus toxins. Chinese hamster ovary cell toxin neutralization assays were performed, and levels of agglutinating antibodies were determined. RESULTS: Of 2342 infants enrolled, 1942 contributed usable preimmunization and postimmunization serum specimens. Each vaccine produced significant increases in antibodies directed against the included antigens; postimmunization antibody titers differed significantly among the DTaP vaccines. For each evaluated antigen, the majority of DTaP vaccines produced antibody responses that equaled or exceeded those produced by WCL. For some antigens (eg, PT), mean antibody levels by vaccine correlated poorly with the quantity of antigen included in each vaccine; for others (eg., fimbriae), there was a close correlation. CONCLUSION: Although serologic correlates of pertussis immunity are not defined, it is clear that DTaP vaccines can stimulate immune responses that exceed those of licensed whole-cell vaccine with respect to the measured antibodies. Particularly for PT, immunogenicity seems to depend on factors in addition to antigen concentration, possibly including antigen derivation and formulation. No DTaP was most or least immunogenic with respect to all included antigens.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the immunogenicity of a licensed conventional whole-cell (WCL) and 13 diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines that differed in source, method of manufacture, and included antigens; all vaccines included diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. METHODS: Healthy infants were enrolled through six university-based vaccine and treatment evaluation units and were randomized to receive one of the study vaccines at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. Sera were obtained before the first immunization and 1 month after the third immunization and were analyzed for antibody to pertussis toxin (PT), filamentous hemagglutinin, fimbriae, pertactin, and diphtheria and tetanus toxins. Chinese hamster ovary cell toxin neutralization assays were performed, and levels of agglutinating antibodies were determined. RESULTS: Of 2342 infants enrolled, 1942 contributed usable preimmunization and postimmunization serum specimens. Each vaccine produced significant increases in antibodies directed against the included antigens; postimmunization antibody titers differed significantly among the DTaP vaccines. For each evaluated antigen, the majority of DTaP vaccines produced antibody responses that equaled or exceeded those produced by WCL. For some antigens (eg, PT), mean antibody levels by vaccine correlated poorly with the quantity of antigen included in each vaccine; for others (eg., fimbriae), there was a close correlation. CONCLUSION: Although serologic correlates of pertussis immunity are not defined, it is clear that DTaP vaccines can stimulate immune responses that exceed those of licensed whole-cell vaccine with respect to the measured antibodies. Particularly for PT, immunogenicity seems to depend on factors in addition to antigen concentration, possibly including antigen derivation and formulation. No DTaP was most or least immunogenic with respect to all included antigens.
Authors: C M Ausiello; R Lande; F Urbani; A la Sala; P Stefanelli; S Salmaso; P Mastrantonio; A Cassone Journal: Infect Immun Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: S C M van Amersfoorth; L M Schouls; H G J van der Heide; A Advani; H O Hallander; K Bondeson; C H W von König; M Riffelmann; C Vahrenholz; N Guiso; V Caro; E Njamkepo; Q He; J Mertsola; F R Mooi Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Maria Rosario Capeding; Josefina Cadorna-Carlos; May Book-Montellano; Esteban Ortiz Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: M Ryan; G Murphy; E Ryan; L Nilsson; F Shackley; L Gothefors; K Oymar; E Miller; J Storsaeter; K H Mills Journal: Immunology Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 7.397