miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children
Federal University of Rio Grande, Faculty of Medicine, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil.
Federal University of Rio Grande, Faculty of Medicine, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil.
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Human Sciences, Department of Nursing Sciences.
Halifax Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Halifax, NS, Canada.
2014 (English)In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ISSN 1469-493X, E-ISSN 1469-493X, no 9, CD001478Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background Routine use of whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccines was suspended in some countries in the 1970s and 1980s because of concerns about adverse effects. Following this action, there was a resurgence of whooping cough. Acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines, containing purified or recombinant Bordetella pertussis (B. pertussis) antigens, were developed in the hope that they would be as effective, but less reactogenic than the whole-cell vaccines. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1999, and previously updated in 2012. In this update, we included no new studies. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of acellular pertussis vaccines in children and to compare them with the whole-cell vaccines. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1950 to January week 2, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to January 2014), Biosis Previews (2009 to January 2014) and CINAHL (2009 to January 2014). Selection criteria We selected double-blind randomised efficacy and safety trials of aP vaccines in children up to six years old, with active follow-up of participants and laboratory verification of pertussis cases. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. Differences in trial design precluded a meta-analysis of the efficacy data. We pooled the safety data from individual trials using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Main results We included six efficacy trials with a total of 46,283 participants and 52 safety trials with a total of 136,541 participants. Most of the safety trials did not report the methods for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, which made it difficult to assess the risk of bias in the studies. The efficacy of multi-component (>= three) vaccines varied from 84% to 85% in preventing typical whooping cough (characterised by 21 or more consecutive days of paroxysmal cough with confirmation of B. pertussis infection by culture, appropriate serology or contact with a household member who has culture-confirmed pertussis), and from 71% to 78% in preventing mild pertussis disease (characterised by seven or more consecutive days of cough with confirmation of B. pertussis infection by culture or appropriate serology). In contrast, the efficacy of one-and two-component vaccines varied from 59% to 78% against typical whooping cough and from 41% to 58% against mild pertussis disease. Multi-component acellular vaccines are more effective than low-efficacy whole-cell vaccines, but may be less effective than the highest-efficacy whole-cell vaccines. Most systemic and local adverse events were significantly less common with aP vaccines than with wP vaccines for the primary series as well as for the booster dose. Authors' conclusions Multi-component (>= three) aP vaccines are effective in preventing whooping cough in children. Multi-component aP vaccines have higher efficacy than low-efficacy wP vaccines, but they may be less efficacious than the highest-efficacy wP vaccines. Acellular vaccines have fewer adverse effects than whole-cell vaccines for the primary series as well as for booster doses.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. no 9, CD001478
Keyword [en]
Age Factors, Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine [adverse effects, therapeutic use], Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis Vaccines [adverse effects, Pertussis Vaccine [therapeutic use], Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Whooping Cough [prevention & control], Child, Humans
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology Infectious Medicine Pediatrics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-24406DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001478.pub6ISI: 000347645800007OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-24406DiVA: diva2:790111
Note

This is version 6 of this Cochrane systematic review:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001478.pub6/otherversions

Available from: 2015-02-23 Created: 2015-02-23 Last updated: 2016-01-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Axelsson, Inge
By organisation
Department of Nursing Sciences
In the same journal
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and EpidemiologyInfectious MedicinePediatrics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 73 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf