This is a case that deserves analysis. The description given by Eldin and co-workers regarding this case of tetanus lacks important information, such as the number of doses received by the patient before his last vaccination in 1999. This is relevant because our results [1] clearly show that the prevalence of subjects with an antibody titre below the threshold of protection (0·10 IU/ml) depends not only on the interval since the last dose, but above all on the number of doses of the vaccine received. According to these data, when a vaccine schedule includes five doses, the prevalence of unprotected subjects is only 3·1%; if the number of doses was >5, no one was found to be unprotected. Indeed, if we further analyse the 16·1% of unprotected subjects who had a gap of over 15 years since their last dose, only 4·5% had actually completed the five-dose schedule, and none had received any further vaccinations (Table 1). As further shown in Table 1, the prevalence of titres showing no protection is inversely related to the number of vaccine doses. Our conclusion is that we are correct in our belief that a sixth dose of the tetanus vaccine should be administered around 30 years of age (about 15 years after the fifth dose). According to our results, this should provide protection for a long period of time. In addition, each additional dose should be evaluated based on an antibody titre.
Tetanus vaccination, antibody persistence and decennial booster; Reply to 'New guidelines about tetanus vaccination schedules in Europe should be evaluated with caution' by Eldin and co-workers.
Borella-venturini MatteoMembro del Collaboration Group
;Frasson ClaraMembro del Collaboration Group
;PALUAN, FILIPPOMembro del Collaboration Group
;DE NUZZO, DAVIDEMembro del Collaboration Group
;DI MASI, GIACOMOMembro del Collaboration Group
;Giraldo MonicaMembro del Collaboration Group
;Chiara FedericaMembro del Collaboration Group
;Trevisan Andrea
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2017
Abstract
This is a case that deserves analysis. The description given by Eldin and co-workers regarding this case of tetanus lacks important information, such as the number of doses received by the patient before his last vaccination in 1999. This is relevant because our results [1] clearly show that the prevalence of subjects with an antibody titre below the threshold of protection (0·10 IU/ml) depends not only on the interval since the last dose, but above all on the number of doses of the vaccine received. According to these data, when a vaccine schedule includes five doses, the prevalence of unprotected subjects is only 3·1%; if the number of doses was >5, no one was found to be unprotected. Indeed, if we further analyse the 16·1% of unprotected subjects who had a gap of over 15 years since their last dose, only 4·5% had actually completed the five-dose schedule, and none had received any further vaccinations (Table 1). As further shown in Table 1, the prevalence of titres showing no protection is inversely related to the number of vaccine doses. Our conclusion is that we are correct in our belief that a sixth dose of the tetanus vaccine should be administered around 30 years of age (about 15 years after the fifth dose). According to our results, this should provide protection for a long period of time. In addition, each additional dose should be evaluated based on an antibody titre.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.