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 J: Prospects for Immunizing Against Herpesvirus varicellae." 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
333
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

induced protection cannot yet be determined. The vaccine appears to be about 90 percent effective against varicella in high-risk individuals and to be about 50 percent effective against herpes zoster in this group (Gershon et al., 1984).

Adverse reactions to the vaccines (detected in short-term follow-up) in field trials have been minor, mostly limited to a mild vesicular transient rash in a small percentage of vaccine recipients (Weibel et al., 1984).

Clinical trials have not posed any unusual logistic, ethical, or legal issues, and none are expected. Comprehensive analysis requires, however, that there be sufficient natural varicella occurring in the control group, against which to measure the protective efficacy in the vaccinated group. Maintenance of long-term surveillance of recipients to assess the frequency and severity of herpes-zoster, if it occurs, may be a problem in the future (McIntosh, 1984).

Anticipated Vaccine Utilization

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

Vaccine for High-Risk Individuals

Lay Acceptance Potential recipients in this target population probably have only a moderate perception of the likelihood of exposure and susceptibility to varicella, but they may be highly apprehensive about the severe consequences of the disease. High-risk recipients are likely to perceive the benefits of the vaccine to be high and the barriers low since it may prevent fatal disease.


Provider Acceptance Providers generally are aware of the risk and of the severity of the disease in this population. They may be somewhat skeptical, however, about the efficacy of the vaccine in this target population; hence, the vaccine received a moderate score for provider perception of vaccination benefits in this group. Perceived barriers to vaccination were judged to be very low, however, since the vaccine may prevent fatal disease in these patients. Overall, scores reflect the committee’s belief that the vaccine will be used extensively in high-risk individuals.

Vaccine for Normal Persons

Lay Acceptance It is expected that the vaccine will be used much less frequently in this target population. Although most individuals accept the inevitability of exposure to varicella and the high proba-

Page
333
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)