4.5 Article

Efficacy of a Low-Cost, Inactivated Whole-Cell Oral Cholera Vaccine: Results from 3 Years of Follow-Up of a Randomized, Controlled Trial

Journal

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
Volume 5, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001289

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. Cholera Vaccine Initiative
  3. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
  4. government of Republic of Korea
  5. government of Kuwait

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Killed oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) have been licensed for use in developing countries, but protection conferred by licensed OCVs beyond two years of follow-up has not been demonstrated in randomized, clinical trials. Methods/Principal Findings: We conducted a cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a two-dose regimen of a low-cost killed whole cell OCV in residents 1 year of age and older living in 3,933 clusters in Kolkata, India. The primary endpoint was culture-proven Vibrio cholerae O1 diarrhea episodes severe enough to require treatment in a health care facility. Of the 66,900 fully dosed individuals (31,932 vaccinees and 34,968 placebo recipients), 38 vaccinees and 128 placebo-recipients developed cholera during three years of follow-up (protective efficacy 66%; one-sided 95%CI lower bound = 53%, p<0.001). Vaccine protection during the third year of follow-up was 65% (one-sided 95%CI lower bound = 44%, p<0.001). Significant protection was evident in the second year of follow-up in children vaccinated at ages 1-4 years and in the third year in older age groups. Conclusions/Significance: The killed whole-cell OCV conferred significant protection that was evident in the second year of follow-up in young children and was sustained for at least three years in older age groups. Continued follow-up will be important to establish the vaccine's duration of protection.

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