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 E: Prospects for Immunizing Against Cytomegalovirus." 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
226
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

Predictions on vaccine development are shown in Chapter 5.

Anticipated Vaccine Utilization

The health belief model parameters (perceptions of risk of illness, severity of illness, benefits of immunization, and barriers to vaccination) used to predict vaccine utilization are described in Chapter 6, in which scores assigned to various vaccines are displayed together for comparison.

Live Attenuated Vaccine for Nonpregnant Adolescent Females

Lay Acceptance Lay perception of the risk of illness is judged to be quite low, primarily because it seems that most parents of adolescents do not consider their own children to be at risk of having a mentally retarded child. Lay perception of the severity of mental retardation and of the benefits of a vaccine that might prevent it are considered to be quite high. Because of the relatively high frequency of adverse reactions to the vaccine, lay perception of the barriers to vaccination also are judged to be relatively high.


Provider Acceptance Because most congenital and perinatal CMV infections are clinically inapparent, physician perception of the risk of illness is judged to be low. Perception of the severity of disease caused by congenital and perinatal infection is judged to be high and a vaccine with the potential to prevent severe neurological disease probably would be perceived as having relatively high benefits, moderated somewhat by the relatively low predicted efficacy of the vaccine. The high frequency of adverse reactions to the vaccine may result in relatively high perceived barriers to its administration.

Live Attenuated Vaccine for High-Risk Individuals

Lay Acceptance Lay perceptions of the risk and severity of disease and of the benefits of the vaccine are judged to be quite high, primarily because of physician cueing and because the consequences of disease caused by CMV, including graft rejection, may be quite severe. The perception of barriers to vaccination is judged to be low, as a result of the serious nature of the underlying diseases in these patients, the perceived severity of the possible consequences of CMV disease, and the experience of these patients with intensive medical treatment.


Provider Acceptance Physician perceptions of the risk and severity of disease caused by CMV in this group of patients are judged to be quite high, because of the severe disease and relatively high fatality

Page
226
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)