Cargando…

The optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy

OBJECTIVE: The current policy of measles vaccination at 9 months of age was decided in the mid-1970s. The policy was not tested for impact on child survival but was based on studies of seroconversion after measles vaccination at different ages. The authors examined the empirical evidence for the six...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aaby, Peter, Martins, Cesário L, Garly, May-Lill, Rodrigues, Amabelia, Benn, Christine S, Whittle, Hilton
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22815465
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000761
_version_ 1782238664190853120
author Aaby, Peter
Martins, Cesário L
Garly, May-Lill
Rodrigues, Amabelia
Benn, Christine S
Whittle, Hilton
author_facet Aaby, Peter
Martins, Cesário L
Garly, May-Lill
Rodrigues, Amabelia
Benn, Christine S
Whittle, Hilton
author_sort Aaby, Peter
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The current policy of measles vaccination at 9 months of age was decided in the mid-1970s. The policy was not tested for impact on child survival but was based on studies of seroconversion after measles vaccination at different ages. The authors examined the empirical evidence for the six underlying assumptions. DESIGN: Secondary analysis. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: These assumptions have not been research issues. Hence, the authors examined case reports to assess the empirical evidence for the original assumptions. The authors used existing reviews, and in December 2011, the authors made a PubMed search for relevant papers. The title and abstract of papers in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German and Scandinavian languages were assessed to ascertain whether the paper was potentially relevant. Based on cumulative measles incidence figures, the authors calculated how many measles cases had been prevented assuming everybody was vaccinated at a specific age, how many ‘vaccine failures’ would occur after the age of vaccination and how many cases would occur before the specific age of vaccination. In the combined analyses of several studies, the authors used the Mantel–Haenszel weighted RR stratifying for study or age groups to estimate common trends. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: African community studies of measles infection. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Consistency between assumptions and empirical evidence and the predicted effect on mortality. RESULTS: In retrospect, the major assumptions were based on false premises. First, in the single study examining this point, seronegative vaccinated children had considerable protection against measles infection. Second, in 18 community studies, vaccinated measles cases (‘vaccine failures’) had threefold lower case death than unvaccinated cases. Third, in 24 community studies, infants had twofold higher case death than older measles cases. Fourth, the only study examining the assumption that ‘vaccine failures’ lead to lack of confidence found the opposite because vaccinated children had milder measles infection. Fifth, a one-dose policy was recommended. However, the two randomised trials of early two-dose measles vaccination compared with one-dose vaccination found significantly reduced mortality until 3 years of age. Thus, current evidence suggests that the optimal age for a single dose of measles vaccine should have been 6 or 7 months resulting in fewer severe unvaccinated cases among infants but more mild ‘vaccine failures’ among older children. Furthermore, the two-dose trials indicate that measles vaccine reduces mortality from other causes than measles infection. CONCLUSIONS: Many lives may have been lost by not determining the optimal age of measles vaccination. Since seroconversion continues to be the basis for policy, the current recommendation is to increase the age of measles vaccination to 12 months in countries with limited measles transmission. This policy may lead to an increase in child mortality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3401826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BMJ Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34018262012-07-26 The optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy Aaby, Peter Martins, Cesário L Garly, May-Lill Rodrigues, Amabelia Benn, Christine S Whittle, Hilton BMJ Open Global Health OBJECTIVE: The current policy of measles vaccination at 9 months of age was decided in the mid-1970s. The policy was not tested for impact on child survival but was based on studies of seroconversion after measles vaccination at different ages. The authors examined the empirical evidence for the six underlying assumptions. DESIGN: Secondary analysis. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: These assumptions have not been research issues. Hence, the authors examined case reports to assess the empirical evidence for the original assumptions. The authors used existing reviews, and in December 2011, the authors made a PubMed search for relevant papers. The title and abstract of papers in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German and Scandinavian languages were assessed to ascertain whether the paper was potentially relevant. Based on cumulative measles incidence figures, the authors calculated how many measles cases had been prevented assuming everybody was vaccinated at a specific age, how many ‘vaccine failures’ would occur after the age of vaccination and how many cases would occur before the specific age of vaccination. In the combined analyses of several studies, the authors used the Mantel–Haenszel weighted RR stratifying for study or age groups to estimate common trends. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: African community studies of measles infection. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Consistency between assumptions and empirical evidence and the predicted effect on mortality. RESULTS: In retrospect, the major assumptions were based on false premises. First, in the single study examining this point, seronegative vaccinated children had considerable protection against measles infection. Second, in 18 community studies, vaccinated measles cases (‘vaccine failures’) had threefold lower case death than unvaccinated cases. Third, in 24 community studies, infants had twofold higher case death than older measles cases. Fourth, the only study examining the assumption that ‘vaccine failures’ lead to lack of confidence found the opposite because vaccinated children had milder measles infection. Fifth, a one-dose policy was recommended. However, the two randomised trials of early two-dose measles vaccination compared with one-dose vaccination found significantly reduced mortality until 3 years of age. Thus, current evidence suggests that the optimal age for a single dose of measles vaccine should have been 6 or 7 months resulting in fewer severe unvaccinated cases among infants but more mild ‘vaccine failures’ among older children. Furthermore, the two-dose trials indicate that measles vaccine reduces mortality from other causes than measles infection. CONCLUSIONS: Many lives may have been lost by not determining the optimal age of measles vaccination. Since seroconversion continues to be the basis for policy, the current recommendation is to increase the age of measles vaccination to 12 months in countries with limited measles transmission. This policy may lead to an increase in child mortality. BMJ Group 2012-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3401826/ /pubmed/22815465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000761 Text en © 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Global Health
Aaby, Peter
Martins, Cesário L
Garly, May-Lill
Rodrigues, Amabelia
Benn, Christine S
Whittle, Hilton
The optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy
title The optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy
title_full The optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy
title_fullStr The optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy
title_full_unstemmed The optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy
title_short The optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy
title_sort optimal age of measles immunisation in low-income countries: a secondary analysis of the assumptions underlying the current policy
topic Global Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22815465
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000761
work_keys_str_mv AT aabypeter theoptimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT martinscesariol theoptimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT garlymaylill theoptimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT rodriguesamabelia theoptimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT bennchristines theoptimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT whittlehilton theoptimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT aabypeter optimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT martinscesariol optimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT garlymaylill optimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT rodriguesamabelia optimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT bennchristines optimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy
AT whittlehilton optimalageofmeaslesimmunisationinlowincomecountriesasecondaryanalysisoftheassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentpolicy