Literature DB >> 9027138

[Comparison of the efficacy of various strains of mumps vaccine: a school survey].

L Toscani1, M Batou, P Bouvier, A Schlaepfer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the program of immunization of children against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) in 1987, various outbreaks of mumps have occurred in Switzerland, with a significant proportion of cases in immunized children. Previous studies have suggested a possible lack of efficacy of the Rubini vaccine strain, which has been much used in this country.
METHODS: Incidence study of secondary cases of mumps in the schools of Geneva, between March 18th and June 30th 1994. STUDY POPULATION: During the study period, mumps outbreaks have been observed in 10 school classes. After exclusion of the 10 primary cases, the study population comprised 195 children aged 4 to 12 years.
RESULTS: Raw estimation of vaccine efficacy against mumps was 72.5%. Whereas both the Urabe and Jeryl-Lynn strains showed a significant efficacy, the Rubini strain didn't show any significant protective effect. After adjustment by Poisson regressions for the confounding effect of age, efficacy rates and 95% confidence limits were 75.8% (35.6%, 90.9%) for Urabe; 64.7% (10.6%, 86.0%) for Jeryl-Lynn; and 12.4% (-102%, 62.1%) für Rubini.
CONCLUSION: This study didn't show any protective effect of the Rubini vaccine strain. Furthermore, it demonstrated a statistically significant protective effect of the Urabe and Jeryl-Lynn strains, compared to the Rubini strains. In this conditions the use of the Rubini strain should be restricted to situations of confirmed contra-indications to the other vaccinal strains, as long as its protective efficacy is not clearly demonstrated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9027138     DOI: 10.1007/bf01324283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soz Praventivmed        ISSN: 0303-8408


  16 in total

1.  Mumps meningitis and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.

Authors:  A Colville; S Pugh
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1992-09-26       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Assessing vaccine efficacy in the field. Further observations.

Authors:  W A Orenstein; R H Bernier; A R Hinman
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.222

3.  The efficacy of pertussis vaccines under conditions of household exposure. Further analysis of the 1978-80 PHLS/ERL study in 21 area health authorities in England.

Authors:  P E Fine; J A Clarkson; E Miller
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  On measures and models for the effectiveness of vaccines and vaccination programmes.

Authors:  S Greenland; R R Frerichs
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 5.  Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II--The design and analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  N E Breslow; N E Day
Journal:  IARC Sci Publ       Date:  1987

6.  Vaccine safety versus vaccine efficacy in mass immunisation programmes.

Authors:  D J Nokes; R M Anderson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-11-23       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  [Immune response to various antiviral vaccines].

Authors:  R Tabin; J P Berclaz; G Dupuis; O Peter
Journal:  Rev Med Suisse Romande       Date:  1993-12

8.  Outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations: implications for studies of vaccine performance.

Authors:  P E Fine; E R Zell
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1994-01-01       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity.

Authors:  P A Briss; L J Fehrs; R A Parker; P F Wright; E C Sannella; R H Hutcheson; W Schaffner
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 5.226

10.  Assessment of the protective efficacy of vaccines against common diseases using case-control and cohort studies.

Authors:  P G Smith; L C Rodrigues; P E Fine
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 7.196

View more
  5 in total

1.  Re: V. Usonis et al.: Comparative study of reactogenicity and immunogenicity of new and established measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in healthy children (Infection 26 [1998] 222-226)

Authors:  D Nalin
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.553

2.  Factors influencing preclinical in vivo evaluation of mumps vaccine strain immunogenicity.

Authors:  B Halassy; T Kurtović; M Brgles; M Lang Balija; D Forčić
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Close the gap for routine mumps vaccination in Japan.

Authors:  Taito Kitano
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Effectiveness of one dose of mumps vaccine against clinically diagnosed mumps in Guangzhou, China, 2006-2012.

Authors:  Chuanxi Fu; Jianxiong Xu; Yuanjun Cai; Qing He; Chunhuan Zhang; Jian Chen; Zhiqiang Dong; Wensui Hu; Hui Wang; Wei Zhu; Ming Wang
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Seroepidemiology of mumps in Europe (1996-2008): why do outbreaks occur in highly vaccinated populations?

Authors:  J Eriksen; I Davidkin; G Kafatos; N Andrews; C Barbara; D Cohen; A Duks; A Griskevicius; K Johansen; K Bartha; B Kriz; G Mitis; J Mossong; A Nardone; D O'Flanagan; F DE Ory; A Pistol; H Theeten; K Prosenc; M Slacikova; R Pebody
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 4.434

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.