Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:22:40.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measles vaccination policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

B. G. Williams ,
F. T. Cutts  and
C. Dye
B. G. Williams
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Research Unit, P.O. Box 4584. Johannesburg 2000. South Africa
F. T. Cutts
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
C. Dye
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Where immunization campaigns locally eliminate measles, it will be important to identify the vaccination policy most likely to prevent future epidemics. The optimum age for vaccination depends on the rate of decline of maternal antibody, because the presence of antibody reduces vaccine efficacy. The first part of this paper contains a quantitative reappraisal of the data on antibody decline and seroconversion rates by age. The decline in maternal antibody protection follows delayed exponentials, with delays of 2–4 months, and subsequent half-lives of 1–2 months. Using this result in an analytical mathematical model we find that the optimal age to administer a single dose of vaccine to children, which is independent of vaccine coverage, lies within the range 11–19 months. We also show that, where the optimal age cannot be met, it is better to err towards late rather than early vaccination. There are therefore two reasons why developing countries, which presently vaccinate during infancy because measles transmission rates are high should eventually switch to the second year of life. The possible gains from two-dose vaccination schedules are explored with respect to both coverage and efficacy. A two-dose schedule will be beneficial, in principle, only when there is a need to increase net vaccine efficacy, after coverage has been maximized with a one-dose schedule.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 115 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 603 - 621
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

1.Peltola, H, Heinonen, OP, Valle, M et al. . The elimination of indigenous measles, mumps and rubella from Finland by a 12-year, two-dose vaccination program. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1397–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Cutts, FT, Markowitz, LE. Successes and failures in measles control. J Infect Dis 1994; 107: (supplement 1): S32–S41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Halsey, NA. The optimal age for administering measles vaccine in developing countries In: Halsev, NA, de Quadrros, CA, ed. Recent advances in immunization, Washington DC: PAHO, 1983; 4–13.Google Scholar
4.Heymann, DL, Kessing, Maben G, Murphy, K, Guyer, B, Foster, SO, Measles control in Yaounde: justification of a one-dose, nine month minimum age policy in tropical Africa, Lancet 1983; ii: 1470–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Orenstein, WA, Markowitz, L, Preblud, SR, Himan, AR, Tomasi, A, Bart, KJ. Appropriate ages for measles vaccination in the United States. Develop Biol Stand 1986; 65: 13–21.Google Scholar
6.Anderson, RM, May, RM. Infectious diseases of humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Fine, PEM. Herd immunity: history, theory and practice. Epidemiol Rev 1993; 15: 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Walsh, JA. Selective primarv health care: strategies for control of disease in the developing world. IV. Measles. Rev Infect Dis 1983; 5: 330–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. EPI: Expanded Programme on Immunization, Measles immunization. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 1979; 54: 337–9.Google Scholar
10.McLean, AR, Anderson, RM. Measles in developing countries. Part II. The predicted impact of mass immunization. Epidemiol Infect 1988; 100: 419–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Babad, HR, Nokes, DJ, Gay, NJ, Miller, E, Morgan-Capner, P, Anderson, RM. Predicting the impact of measles vaccination in England and Wales: model validation and analysis of policy options. Epidemiol Infect, In press.Google Scholar
12.Burgess, E, Garelick, H, Mann, G, Tomkins, A, (unpublished) Prediction of optimum age for measles immunization based on pre-vaccination antibody levels.Google Scholar
13.Markowitz, LE, Sepulveda, J, Diaz-Ortega, JL et al. Immunization of six-month old infants with different doses of Edmonston-Zagreb and Schwarz measles vaccines. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 580–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Ministry of Health Kenya and World Health Orgaization. Measles immunity in the first year after birth and the optimum age for vaccination in Kenyan children. Bull WHO 1977; 55:21–31.Google Scholar
15.Dabis, F, Waldman, RJ, Mann, GF, Commenges, D, Madzou, G, Jones, TS. Loss of maternal measles antibody during infancy in an African city. Intl J Epidemiol 1989; 18: 264–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Vaisberg, A, Alvarez, JO, Hernandez, H, Guillen, D, Chu, P, Colarossi, A. Loss of maternally acquired measles antibodies in well-nourished infants and response to measles vaccination. Peru Am J Publ Hlth 1990; 80: 736–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Black, FL et al. Geographic variation in infant loss of maternal measles antibody and in prevalence of rubella antibody. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 124:442–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Sato, H, Albrecht, P, Reynolds, DW, Stagno, S, Ennisr, FA. Am J Dis Child 1979: 133: 1240–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Lennon, JL, Black, FL. Maternally derived measles immunity in the era of vaccine protected mothers, J Pediatr 1986; 108: 671–6.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Jenks, PJ, Caul, EO, Roome, APCH. Maternally derived measles immunity in children of naturally infected and vaccinated mothers. Epidemiol Infect 1988; 101: 473–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Pabst, HF, Spady, DW, Marusky, RG et al. Reduced measles immunity in infants in a well-vaccinated population. Pediatr Inf Dis J 1992; 11: 525–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Chui, L W-L.Marusyk, RG, Pabst, HF. Measles virus specific antibody in infants in a highly vaccinated society. J Med Virol 1991; 33: 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Ministries of Health of Brazil, Chile. Costa Rica, Ecuador, and the Pan American Health Organization. Seroconversion rates and measles antibody titres induced by measles vaccine in Latin American Children 6–12 months of age. Bull Pan Am Health Organization 1982; 16: 272–85.Google Scholar
24.Williams, BG, Dye, C. Maximum likelihood for parasitologists. Parasitol Today 1994; 10: 489–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.McLean, AR, Nokes, DJ, Anderson, RM. Model-based comparisons of measles immunization strategies using high dose Edmonston–Zagreb type vaccines. Intl J Epidemiol 1991; 20: 1107–?CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. ACIP. Measles prevention: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). M M W R 1989; 38 (S–9): 1–13.Google Scholar
27.Fine, PEM, Zell, ER. Outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations: implications for studies of vaccine performance. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 139: 77–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Reyes, MA, Franky de Borrero, M, Roa, J, Bergonzoli, G, Saravia, MG. Measles vaccine failure after documented seroconversion. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1987; 6: 848–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Mathias, R, Meekison, J, Arcan, T, Schechter, M. The role of secondary vaccine failures in measles outbreaks. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 475–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Deseda-Tous, J, Cherry, JD, Spencer, MJ et al. Measles revaccination. Persistence and degree of antibody titre by type of immune response. Am J Dis Child 1978; 132: 287–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Markowitz, LE, Albrecht, P, Orenstein, WA, Lett, SM, Pugliese, TJ, Farrell, D. Persistence of measles antibody after revaccination. J Infect Dis 1992; 166: 205–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Kendall, M, Stuart, A. The advanced theory of statistics. 4th edn. vol. 2. London: Charles Griffin. 1979; 96.Google Scholar