4.5 Review

Evaluation of a measles vaccine campaign in Ethiopia using oral-fluid antibody surveys

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 26, Issue 37, Pages 4769-4774

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.07.005

Keywords

measles campaign evaluation

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health
  2. Regional Health Bureau
  3. Zonal Health Departments
  4. Assela Health Centre
  5. Kebele Administration Offices
  6. National Ethical Committee of the Ethiopian Science and Technology Commission [RDHE/84-31/2000]
  7. Coventry Research Ethics Committee, UK
  8. The Council of Regional State of Oromia Health Bureau [QEFAIO/2-7/1745]
  9. World Health Organisation Department of Vaccines and Biologicals [V21/181/133]
  10. BASICS, USA
  11. British Council (Higher Education LINK)
  12. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We undertook a study to demonstrate the potential contribution of oral-fluid (OF) antibody prevalence surveys in evaluating measles vaccine campaigns. In Asela town, southern Ethiopia, oral fluids were collected from 1928 children aged 9 months to 5 years attending for campaign immunization in December 1999 and 6 months later, from 745 individuals aged 9 months to 19 years, in the same location. Measles antibody status was determined by microimmune measles specific IgG enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Antibody prevalence was estimated at 48% in children attending for vaccination (pre-campaign), and 85% post-campaign in the comparable age group. The estimated reduction in the susceptible proportion was 75%. In older children the proportion antibody negative post-campaign was 28% in 7-9 year olds, and 13% in 10-14 year olds levels of susceptibility which raise concern over continued measles transmission. This is the first evaluation of a measles vaccine campaign based on oral-fluid seroprevalence surveys and it demonstrates the merit of oral-fluid surveys in informing health authorities about vaccination strategy refinement. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available