PLoS ONE (Jan 2018)

Acellular pertussis vaccines effectiveness over time: A systematic review, meta-analysis and modeling study.

  • Ayman Chit,
  • Hossein Zivaripiran,
  • Thomas Shin,
  • Jason K H Lee,
  • Antigona Tomovici,
  • Denis Macina,
  • David R Johnson,
  • Michael D Decker,
  • Jianhong Wu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197970
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 6
p. e0197970

Abstract

Read online

BACKGROUND:Acellular pertussis vaccine studies postulate that waning protection, particularly after the adolescent booster, is a major contributor to the increasing US pertussis incidence. However, these studies reported relative (ie, vs a population given prior doses of pertussis vaccine), not absolute (ie, vs a pertussis vaccine naïve population) efficacy following the adolescent booster. We aim to estimate the absolute protection offered by acellular pertussis vaccines. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of acellular pertussis vaccine effectiveness (VE) publications. Studies had to comply with the US schedule, evaluate clinical outcomes, and report VE over discrete time points. VE after the 5-dose childhood series and after the adolescent sixth-dose booster were extracted separately and pooled. All relative VE estimates were transformed to absolute estimates. VE waning was estimated using meta-regression modeling. FINDINGS:Three studies reported VE after the childhood series and four after the adolescent booster. All booster studies reported relative VE (vs acellular pertussis vaccine-primed population). We estimate initial childhood series absolute VE is 91% (95% CI: 87% to 95%) and declines at 9.6% annually. Initial relative VE after adolescent boosting is 70% (95% CI: 54% to 86%) and declines at 45.3% annually. Initial absolute VE after adolescent boosting is 85% (95% CI: 84% to 86%) and declines at 11.7% (95% CI: 11.1% to 12.3%) annually. INTERPRETATION:Acellular pertussis vaccine efficacy is initially high and wanes over time. Observational VE studies of boosting failed to recognize that they were measuring relative, not absolute, VE and the absolute VE in the boosted population is better than appreciated.