This abstract at PubMed came up in a discussion a few days ago.
"As previously noted among infants born to mothers with history of wild-type measles, antibody responses among children born to vaccinated mothers were reduced based on earlier administration of their first measles vaccine dose at ≤12 vs ≥15 months of age. Negative effects of earlier age at first measles vaccine dose persisted after the second dose. The measles elimination goal may require a careful balance between earlier infant protection and the risk of reduced antibody responses and secondary vaccine failure among successive birth cohorts systematically initiated to measles vaccination <15 months of age."
What is the clinical or epidemiological significance of this finding? How should one respond to someone's using this as evidence for the proposition that getting measles is in some sense a good thing?
"As previously noted among infants born to mothers with history of wild-type measles, antibody responses among children born to vaccinated mothers were reduced based on earlier administration of their first measles vaccine dose at ≤12 vs ≥15 months of age. Negative effects of earlier age at first measles vaccine dose persisted after the second dose. The measles elimination goal may require a careful balance between earlier infant protection and the risk of reduced antibody responses and secondary vaccine failure among successive birth cohorts systematically initiated to measles vaccination <15 months of age."
What is the clinical or epidemiological significance of this finding? How should one respond to someone's using this as evidence for the proposition that getting measles is in some sense a good thing?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2Ha1Yfq
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire