Evaluation of a measles vaccine campaign by oral-fluid surveys in a rural Kenyan district: interpretation of antibody prevalence data using mixture models
Ohuma, E. O., Okiro, E. A., Bett, A., Abwao, John, Were, S., Samuel, Dhan, Vyse, A. J., Gay, N. J., Brown, D. W. G. and Nokes, D. James. (2009) Evaluation of a measles vaccine campaign by oral-fluid surveys in a rural Kenyan district: interpretation of antibody prevalence data using mixture models. Epidemiology and Infection, Vol.13 (No.2). pp. 227-233. ISSN 0950-2688
WRAP_Nokes_Evaluating_Measles.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268808000848
We evaluated the effectiveness of a measles vaccine campaign in rural Kenya, based on oral-fluid surveys and mixture-modelling analysis. Specimens were collected from 886 children aged 9 months to 14 years pre-campaign and from a comparison sample of 598 children aged 6 months post-campaign. Quantitative measles-specific antibody data were obtained by commercial kit. The estimated proportions of measles-specific antibody negative in children aged 0–4, 5–9 and 10–14 years were 51%, 42% and 27%, respectively, pre- campaign and 18%, 14% and 6%, respectively, post-campaign. We estimate a reduction in the proportion susceptible of 65–78%, with ~85% of the population recorded to have received vaccine. The proportion of ‘weak’ positive individuals rose from 35% pre-campaign to 54% post-campaign. Our results confirm the effectiveness of the campaign in reducing susceptibility to measles and demonstrate the potential of oral-fluid studies to monitor the impact of measles vaccination campaigns.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Science > Life Sciences (2010- ) > Biological Sciences ( -2010)|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Vaccination of children -- Kenya, Communicable diseases -- Prevention, Measles -- Vaccination -- Kenya, Immunoglobulins|
|Journal or Publication Title:||Epidemiology and Infection|
|Publisher:||Cambridge University Press|
|Official Date:||February 2009|
|Page Range:||pp. 227-233|
|Access rights to Published version:||Open Access|
|Funder:||Wellcome Trust (London, England)|
|Grant number:||061584 (Wellcome)|
1. Gay, NJ, et al. Improving sensitivity of oral fluid testing in IgG prevalence studies: application of mixture models to a rubella antibody survey. Epidemiology and Infection 2003; 130: 285–291.
2. Vyse, AJ, Cohen, BJ, Ramsay, ME. A comparison of oral fluid collection devices for use in the surveillance of virus diseases in children. Public Health 2001; 115: 201–207.
3. Nokes, DJ, et al. Has oral fluid the potential to replace serum for the evaluation of population immunity levels? A study of measles, rubella and hepatitis B in rural Ethiopia. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2001; 79: 588–595.
4. Nokes, DJ, et al. An evaluation of oral-fluid collection devices for the determination of rubella antibody status in a rural Ethiopian community. Transactions of the Royal Socity of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1998; 92: 679–685.
5. Nokes, DJ, et al. A comparison of oral fluid and serum for the detection of rubella-specific antibodies in a community study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Tropical Medicine & International Health 1998; 3: 258–267.
6. Vyse, AJ, et al. Detection of antibody to Epstein–Barr virus viral capsid antigen in saliva by antibody capture radioimmunoassay. Journal of Virological Methods 1997; 63: 93–101.
7. Vyse, AJ, et al. Detection of rubella virus-specific immunoglobulin G in saliva by an amplification-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using monoclonal antibody to fluorescein isothiocyanate. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1999; 37: 391–395.
8. Vyse, AJ, et al. Interpreting serological surveys using mixture models: the seroepidemiology of measles, mumps and rubella in England and Wales at the beginning of the 21st century. Epidemiology and Infection 2006; 134: 1303–1312.
9. Nigatu, W, et al. Detection of measles specific IgG in oral fluid using an FITC/anti-FITC IgG capture enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (GACELISA). Journal of Virological Methods 1999; 83: 135–44.
10. Hesketh, L, et al. An evaluation of nine commercial EIA kits for the detection of measles specific IgG. Journal of Virological Methods 1997; 66: 51–59.
11. Kremer, JR, Muller, CP. Evaluation of commercial assay detecting specific immunoglobulin g in oral fluid for determining measles immunity in vaccinees. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 2005; 12: 668–670.
12. Mossong, J, et al. Modeling the impact of subclinical measles transmission in vaccinated populations with waning immunity. American Journal of Epidemiology 1999; 150: 1238–1249.
13. CDC. Progress in measles control – Kenya 2002–2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2007; 56: 969–972.
14. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Population distribution by province/district and sex: 1979–1999 Censuses, 1999.
15. Cutts, FT, et al. Prevalence of measles antibody among children under 15 years of age in Santa Cruz, Bolivia: implications for vaccination strategies. Transactions of the Royal Socity of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1995; 89: 119–122.
16. Cox, MJ, et al. Measles antibody levels in a vaccinated population in Brazil. Transactions of the Royal Socity of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1998; 92: 227–230.
17. Enquselassie, F, et al. Seroepidemiology of measles in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: implications for control through vaccination. Epidemiology and Infection 2003; 130: 507–519.
18. WHO. Vaccine Preventable Disease unit of WHO/African Region, Vaccine Preventable Diseases Bulletin WHO/AFRO. AFRO EPI-Newsletter, October, 2001(016).
19. WHO. Report on the 1st Consultation of the Technical Advisory Group on Measles and Rubella Control in the African Region. Harare, Zimbabwe: World Health Organisation Regional Office for Africa, 2005.
20. CDC. Effects of measles-control activities – African region, 1999–2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2006; 55: 1017–1021.
Actions (login required)