Fulton T Roice, Phadke Varun K, Orenstein Walter A, Hinman Alan R, Johnson Wayne D, Omer Saad B
Department of Global Health.
Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University.
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 May 1;62(9):1100-1110. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw051. Epub 2016 Feb 7.
Acellular pertussis (aP) and whole-cell (wP) pertussis vaccines are presumed to have similar short-term (<3 years after completion of the primary series) efficacy. However, vaccine effect varies between individual pertussis vaccine formulations, and many originally studied formulations are now unavailable. An updated analysis of the short-term protective effect of pertussis vaccines limited to formulations currently on the market in developed countries is needed.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that evaluated pertussis vaccine efficacy or effectiveness within 3 years after completion (>3 doses) of a primary series of a currently available aP or wP vaccine formulation. The primary outcome was based on the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical case definitions for pertussis. Study quality was assessed using the approach developed by the Child Health Epidemiology Research Group. We determined overall effect sizes using random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by vaccine (aP or wP) and study (efficacy or effectiveness) type.
Meta-analysis of 2 aP vaccine efficacy studies (assessing the 3-component GlaxoSmithKline and 5-component Sanofi-Pasteur formulations) yielded an overall aP vaccine efficacy of 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81%-87%). Meta-analysis of 3 wP vaccine effectiveness studies (assessing the Behringwerke, Pasteur/Mérieux, and SmithKline Beecham formulations) yielded an overall wP vaccine effectiveness of 94% (95% CI, 88%-97%) (bothI(2)= 0%).
Although all contemporary aP and wP formulations protect against pertussis disease, in this meta-analysis the point estimate for short-term protective effect against WHO-defined pertussis in young children was lower for currently available aP vaccines than wP vaccines.
无细胞百日咳(aP)疫苗和全细胞(wP)百日咳疫苗被认为具有相似的短期(完成基础免疫系列后<3年)效力。然而,不同的百日咳疫苗制剂之间的疫苗效果存在差异,并且许多最初研究的制剂现在已无法获得。因此,需要对百日咳疫苗的短期保护效果进行更新分析,该分析应仅限于目前在发达国家市场上销售的制剂。
我们对已发表的研究进行了系统综述和荟萃分析,这些研究评估了在完成(>3剂)目前可用的aP或wP疫苗制剂基础免疫系列后3年内的百日咳疫苗效力或效果。主要结局基于世界卫生组织(WHO)对百日咳的临床病例定义。使用儿童健康流行病学研究组开发的方法评估研究质量。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析确定总体效应大小,并按疫苗(aP或wP)和研究(效力或效果)类型进行分层。
对2项aP疫苗效力研究(评估葛兰素史克的3组分制剂和赛诺菲巴斯德的5组分制剂)进行荟萃分析,得出aP疫苗的总体效力为84%(95%置信区间[CI],81%-87%)。对3项wP疫苗效果研究(评估贝林、巴斯德/梅里埃和史克必成的制剂)进行荟萃分析,得出wP疫苗的总体效果为94%(95%CI,88%-97%)(两者I(2)=0%)。
尽管所有当代aP和wP制剂都能预防百日咳疾病,但在这项荟萃分析中,目前可用的aP疫苗对幼儿预防WHO定义的百日咳的短期保护效果的点估计低于wP疫苗。