National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume I, Diseases of Importance in the United States (1985)
Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice (BPH)

Citation Manager

. "Appendix C: Prospects for Immunizing Against Bordetella pertussis." New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume I, Diseases of Importance in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1985.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
174
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


New Vaccine Development Establishing Priorities, Volume I: Diseases of Importance in the United States

The duration of vaccine-induced immunity is known only by inference. Occasional outbreaks of pertussis have been reported among young adults, particularly health care personnel caring for pediatric populations in which pertussis was prevalent. This information suggests that vaccine-induced immunity is not life-long, but the major morbidity and mortality of pertussis definitely occurs in infants and small children. The disease burden incurred by waning immunity in adults probably is minor.

Magnitude of Disease Burden

Benefits from an improved pertussis vaccine are likely to arise from the elimination of adverse side effects rather than from a further decrease in the already reduced disease incidence. Researchers do not expect to produce significant increases in vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity (at lower ages), or utilization. Therefore, no effort has been made to document the current burden of pertussis illness or to calculate what the burden would be in the absence of the current vaccination program, if desired, these calculations could be made with methods devised by Hinman and Koplan (1984).

For this report, the burden of illness that could be eliminated by an improved pertussis vaccine is considered to be equivalent to the adverse effects arising from the current vaccine. The manner in which this has been calculated is described below in the section “Vaccine Preventable Illness.”

Vaccine Target Population

The target population for an improved pertussis vaccine would be identical to the target population for the existing vaccine: the entire cohort of infants born every year in the United States. Indeed, simple substitution of an improved pertussis component for the existing whole cell pertussis component in the DPT vaccine would be the desirable goal. This would maintain the present simplicity of immunization patterns for infants and small children. All 50 states have mandatory immunization laws requiring completion of primary immunization prior to school entry.

With an improved, less reactive vaccine it might be possible to offer immunization to older individuals who were, for some reason, not vaccinated. This is not possible with existing vaccines because of adverse reactions with increasing age.

Suitability for Vaccine Control

The documented efficacy of the existing pertussis vaccine, when given as recommended, clearly indicates the suitability of pertussis for vaccine control.

Page
174
Front Matter (R1-R14)
1. Summary (1-16)
2. Priority Setting for Health Related Investments: A Review of Methods (17-27)
3. Overview of the Analytic Approach (28-38)
4. Comparison of Disease Burdens and Costs (39-58)
5. Predictions on Vaccine Development (59-66)
6. Assessing the Likely Utilization of New Vaccines (67-91)
7. Calculation and Comparison of the Health Benefits and Costs Associated with Candidate Vaccines (92-120)
8. Additional Issues in the Selection of Priorities for Accelerated Vaccine Development (121-126)
9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (127-148)
Appendix A: Some Examples of the Application of Project Selection Method (149-152)
Appendix B: Pathogenic Agents for Which Accelerated Vaccine Development Does Not Appear Appropriate (153-170)
Appendix C: Prospects for Immunizing Against Bordetella pertussis (171-182)
Appendix D: Prospects for Immunizing Against Coccidioidomycosis (183-197)
Appendix E: Prospects for Immunizing Against Cytomegalovirus (198-234)
Appendix F: Prospects for Immunizing Against Hemophilus influenzae type b (235-251)
Appendix G: Prospects for Immunizing Against Hepatitis A Virus (252-260)
Appendix H: Prospects for Immunizing Against Hepatitis B Virus (261-279)
Appendix I: Prospects for Immunizing Against Herpes Simplex Viruses 1 and 2 (280-312)
Appendix J: Prospects for Immunizing Against Herpesvirus varicellae (313-341)
Appendix K: Prospects for Immunizing Against Influenza Viruses A and B (342-364)
Appendix L: Prospects for Immunizing Against Neisseria gonorrhoeae (365-384)
Appendix M: Prospects for Immunizing Against Parainfluenza Viruses (385-396)
Appendix N: Prospects for Immunizing Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus (397-409)
Appendix O: Prospects for Immunizing Against Rotavirus (410-423)
Appendix P: Prospects for Immunizing Against Streptococcus group B (424-439)
Appendix Q: Questionnaire for Assessing Morbidity-Mortality Trade-Offs (440-443)
Appendix R: Technical Notes (444-444)
Appendix S: Biographical Notes on Committee Members (445-449)
Appendix T: Additional Sources of Advice to the Committee (450-452)
Index (453-458)