Brand-specific rates of pertussis disease among Wisconsin children given 1-4 doses of pertussis Vaccine, 2010-2014.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Acellular pertussis vaccines were initially licensed based on placebo-controlled efficacy trials, but such trials are no longer ethical. The effectiveness of current pertussis vaccines among properly vaccinated children <5 years is so high that a randomized trial is infeasible. Fluctuations in pertussis incidence and characteristics of the US vaccine marketplace make selection of suitable controls for a case-control study problematic. To satisfy an FDA requirement to evaluate rates of pertussis following licensure of Pentacel® vaccine, we used a case-cohort study design with a novel method for characterizing the cohort population.

METHODS:

This prospective, observational study was conducted in Wisconsin from 2010 to 2014 among Wisconsin residents <60 months of age who received ≤four doses of pertussis vaccine (surveillance population). Cases were identified by the Wisconsin Division of Public Health. Characteristics and pertussis vaccinations of the surveillance population were estimated by ongoing random telephonic survey. The primary objective was to determine rates of pertussis disease among those who received only Pentacel vaccine (Group 1) vs those who received a single brand of vaccine other than Pentacel vaccine (Group 2).

RESULTS:

1195 pertussis cases were identified. It was estimated that the surveillance population accrued a total of 1,133,403 person-years (Group 1, 39%; Group 2, 41%; Group 3 [those not in Group 1 or Group 2], 20%). Pertussis rates were similar in Group 1 (98.9/100,000) and Group 2 (96.2/100,000); rate ratios were 1.03 (unadjusted; 90% CI, 0.92-1.15) and 0.99 (adjusted; 90% CI, 0.89-1.12). Persons with one or more delayed vaccinations had a 66% higher risk of pertussis (90% CI, 39-96%).

DISCUSSION:

Pertussis protection was not found to differ for recipients of the newly licensed vs other available pertussis vaccines. Delayed vaccination substantially increased risk of pertussis. Sample survey methodology was able to characterize the study cohort and enable an otherwise-infeasible study. Clinical Trial Registry number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01129362.

• Authors: James H Conway, Jeffrey P Davis, Jens C Eickhoff, Vitali Pool, David P Greenberg, Michael D Decker
• Journal: Vaccine (Vaccine) Vol. 38 Issue 45 Pg. 7063-7069 (10 21 2020) ISSN: 1873-2518 [Electronic] Netherlands
• PMID: 32921507 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Observational Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)
• Copyright: Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Chemical References

• Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine
• Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis Vaccines
• Pertussis Vaccine

Topics

• Case-Control Studies
• Child
• Cohort Studies
• Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine
• Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis Vaccines
• Humans
• Infant
• Pertussis Vaccine
• Prospective Studies
• Whooping Cough (epidemiology, prevention & control)
• Wisconsin (epidemiology)