Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children
Citation: Zhang L., Prietsch S.O.M., Axelsson I., et al. Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD001478. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001478.pub6.
Acellular pertussis vaccines with three or more components are more effective than low‐efficacy whole‐cell vaccines, but may be less effective than the highest‐efficacy whole‐cell vaccines. Acellular vaccines have fewer side effects than whole‐cell vaccines.
Acellular pertussis (AP) vaccines, containing purified or recombinant Bordetella pertussis antigens, were developed in the hope that they would be as effective but less reactogenic than the whole-cell vaccines. The review evaluates the efficacy and safety of acellular pertussis vaccines in children and compares them with the whole-cell vaccines. Six trials with 46,283 participants evaluating the efficacy and 52 trials with 136,541 participants assessing the safety of pertussis vaccines met inclusion criteria. The efficacy of acellular vaccines with three or more components varied from 84% to 85% in preventing typical whooping cough and from 71% to 78% in preventing mild pertussis disease. In contrast, the efficacy vaccines with one and two components varied from 59% to 78% in protecting against typical whooping cough and from 41% to 58% against mild pertussis disease. Most systemic and local side effects were significantly less common with acellular vaccines than with whole‐cell vaccines for the first doses and booster dose. Implications of these findings in clinical practice could vary based on country income level. More research surrounding whole-cell vaccines used in low-income countries is needed.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on the health of refugees and asylum seekers but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about the health of refugees and asylum seekers on the basis of this summary alone.
If you have found this summary helpful, please consider making a donation. If everyone who looked at our COVID-19 resources gave us just £2 per month, it would fund Evidence Aid’s life-saving work.