Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (20)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garly, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Aaby, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Garly, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Aaby, P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 28, 347-352, Copyright © 1999 by International Epidemiological Association


ARTICLES

Early two-dose measles vaccination schedule in Guinea-Bissau: good protection and coverage in infancy

ML Garly, CL Martins, C Bale, F da Costa, F Dias, H Whittle and P Aaby
Projecto de Saude de Bandim, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies from Africa have suggested that there is little benefit to be gained from early two-dose measles vaccination schedules. Two-dose schedules have been associated with no improvement in coverage due to immunization of the same individuals on both occasions, low return rate, high refusal rate, low vaccine efficacy, and fear of blunting of the antibody response. Because of the poor results achieved previously with two-dose measles vaccination schedules, we studied patterns of participation, reasons for non- participation, vaccination coverage and relative efficacy of a one-dose versus a two-dose schedule in connection with the implementation of an early two-dose trial in Guinea-Bissau. METHODS: Children born from September 1994 to January 1996 were randomized into two groups receiving either two doses of measles vaccine at 6 and 9 months or one dose of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) at 6 months and measles vaccine at 9 months. RESULTS: At 6 months of age 86% (1869/2181) of the children participated, and at 9 months of age participation was 87% (1775/2035). The return rate for obtaining a second dose of vaccine was 93% (1647/1773). The main reason for not participating was travelling (78%). Around 50% of those who did not take part in one vaccination took part in the other. When only children participating the first time they were called for a measles vaccination were included, the measles vaccination coverage in the one-dose group was 59% versus 80% in the two-dose group, i.e. a 50% reduction in the risk of not being vaccinated (relative risk [RR] 0.50; confidence interval [CI]: 0.43- 0.57). Few measles cases have occurred in the study area since the implementation of the trial making precise estimation of the relative efficacy of the two vaccine strategies difficult, but all seven clinically diagnosed measles cases occurred in the one-dose group making the relative efficacy for the two-dose group compared with the one-dose group 100% (95% CI: 35%-100%; two-tailed P = 0.016). When including maternal reports, the relative efficacy was 90% (95% exact confidence interval; two-tailed P = 25%-97%, P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: In this study of a two-dose measles immunization schedule at 6 and 9 months of age there was no sign of low participation or poor return rates. The risk of not being vaccinated was lower in the two-dose group than in the one-dose group, and the relative efficacy of a two-dose versus a one-dose schedule was high. Although our results were obtained within a trial where dedicated personnel informed every participant personally about the study, we believe our results indicate that with thorough information about the population it may be possible to achieve a higher coverage with a two-dose measles vaccination schedule than a one-dose schedule. A two-dose schedule may be a feasible way to resolve the problems of low coverage and severe measles infection among infants.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
C. L Martins, M.-L. Garly, C. Bale, A. Rodrigues, H. Ravn, H. C Whittle, I. M Lisse, and P. Aaby
Protective efficacy of standard Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccination in infants aged 4.5 months: interim analysis of a randomised clinical trial
BMJ, July 24, 2008; 337(jul24_2): a661 - a661.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
M.-L. Garly, C. Bale, C. L. Martins, H. C Whittle, J. Nielsen, I. M Lisse, and P. Aaby
Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent pneumonia and other complications after measles: community based randomised double blind placebo controlled trial in Guinea-Bissau
BMJ, December 16, 2006; 333(7581): 1245 - 1245.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
P. Aaby, H. Jensen, A. Rodrigues, M.-L. Garly, C. S. Benn, I. M. Lisse, and F. Simondon
Divergent female-male mortality ratios associated with different routine vaccinations among female-male twin pairs
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2004; 33(2): 367 - 373.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
I. Kristensen, P. Aaby, H. Jensen, and P. Fine
Routine vaccinations and child survival: follow up study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa Commentary: an unexpected finding that needs confirmation or rejection
BMJ, December 9, 2000; 321(7274): 1435 - 1435.
[Abstract] [Full Text]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.