1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Seroprevalence of measles antibodies and factors associated with susceptibility: a national survey in Mexico using a plaque reduction neutralization test

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Measles continues to be one of the leading causes of child mortality worldwide, even though a highly effective vaccine has existed for more than 40 years. We aimed to describe the seroprevalence of measles antibodies in Mexico in 2012 and the risk factors associated with susceptibility. A total of 7,785 serum samples were analyzed from the National Health and Nutrition Survey in Mexico. This national survey is representative of the general population, including noninstitutionalized adult, adolescent, and child populations. Antibody titers were classified into protective (> 120 mIU/mL) or susceptible (≤ 120 mIU/mL) levels. The weighted seroprevalence and susceptibility of the overall population were 99.37% (95% CI 99.07–99.58) and 0.63% (95% CI 0.42–0.93), respectively. Among 1-to-4-year-old children, 2.18% (95% CI 1.36–3.48) were susceptible to measles. Among adolescents and young adults, the prevalence of susceptibility was as follows: those 15–19 years of age had a prevalence of 0.22% (95% CI 0.09–0.57), and those 30–39 years of age had a prevalence of 1.17% (95% CI 0.47–2.85). Susceptibility was associated with young age, living in Mexico City, living in crowded households and unknown or nonvaccinated status among 1- to 5-year-old children. Although the overall sample population seroprevalence for measles is above 95%, increased susceptibility among younger children signals the importance of the timely administration of the first vaccine dose at 12 months of age. Furthermore, increased susceptibility among specific subgroups indicates the need to reinforce current vaccination policies, including the immunization of unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated individuals from 10 to 39 years of age.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007-2012.

          Vaccine "hesitancy" is an emerging term in the literature and discourse on vaccine decision-making and determinants of vaccine acceptance. It recognizes a continuum between the domains of vaccine acceptance and vaccine refusal and de-polarizes previous characterization of individuals and groups as either anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine. The primary aims of this systematic review are to: 1) identify research on vaccine hesitancy; 2) identify determinants of vaccine hesitancy in different settings including its context-specific causes, its expression and its impact; and 3) inform the development of a model for assessing determinants of vaccine hesitancy in different settings as proposed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group (SAGE WG) for dealing with vaccine hesitancy. A broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy around vaccines, was applied across multiple databases. Peer-reviewed studies were selected for inclusion if they focused on childhood vaccines [≤ 7 years of age], used multivariate analyses, and were published between January 2007 and November 2012. Our results show a variety of factors as being associated with vaccine hesitancy but they do not allow for a complete classification and confirmation of their independent and relative strength of influence. Determinants of vaccine hesitancy are complex and context-specific - varying across time, place and vaccines. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio

            Background Cross-sectional studies with binary outcomes analyzed by logistic regression are frequent in the epidemiological literature. However, the odds ratio can importantly overestimate the prevalence ratio, the measure of choice in these studies. Also, controlling for confounding is not equivalent for the two measures. In this paper we explore alternatives for modeling data of such studies with techniques that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. Methods We compared Cox regression with constant time at risk, Poisson regression and log-binomial regression against the standard Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Models with robust variance estimators in Cox and Poisson regressions and variance corrected by the scale parameter in Poisson regression were also evaluated. Results Three outcomes, from a cross-sectional study carried out in Pelotas, Brazil, with different levels of prevalence were explored: weight-for-age deficit (4%), asthma (31%) and mother in a paid job (52%). Unadjusted Cox/Poisson regression and Poisson regression with scale parameter adjusted by deviance performed worst in terms of interval estimates. Poisson regression with scale parameter adjusted by χ2 showed variable performance depending on the outcome prevalence. Cox/Poisson regression with robust variance, and log-binomial regression performed equally well when the model was correctly specified. Conclusions Cox or Poisson regression with robust variance and log-binomial regression provide correct estimates and are a better alternative for the analysis of cross-sectional studies with binary outcomes than logistic regression, since the prevalence ratio is more interpretable and easier to communicate to non-specialists than the odds ratio. However, precautions are needed to avoid estimation problems in specific situations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measles antibody: reevaluation of protective titers.

              A school blood drive before a measles outbreak permitted correlation of preexposure measles antibody titers with clinical protection using the plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) test and an EIA. Of 9 donors with detectable preexposure PRN titer less than or equal to 120, 8 met the clinical criteria for measles (7 seroconfirmed) compared with none of 71 with preexposure PRN titers greater than 120 (P less than .0001). Seven of 11 donors with preexposure PRN titers of 216-874 had a greater than or equal to 4-fold rise in antibody titer (mean, 43-fold) compared with none of 7 with a preexposure PRN titer greater than or equal to 1052 (P less than .02). Of 37 noncases with preexposure PRN titer less than 1052, 26 (70%) reported one or more symptoms compared with 11 (31%) of 35 donors with preexposure PRN titers greater than or equal to 1052 (P less than .002). By EIA, no case had detectable preexposure antibody; the preexposure geometric mean titer of asymptomatic donors (220) was not significantly higher than that of symptomatic donors who did not meet the clinical criteria for measles (153) (P = .10). The study suggests that PRN titers less than or equal to 120 were not protective against measles disease and illness without rash due to measles may occur in persons with PRN titers above this level.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                garcigarml@gmail.com
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                15 October 2020
                15 October 2020
                2020
                : 10
                : 17488
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.415771.1, ISNI 0000 0004 1773 4764, Centro de Investigación Sobre Enfermedades Infecciosas, , Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, ; Av. Universidad # 655, Col. Sta. María Ahuacatitlán, C.P. 62100 Cuernavaca, Morelos México
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0149-591X
                Article
                73618
                10.1038/s41598-020-73618-8
                7562930
                33060627
                ac538a4c-94e2-4c82-94d2-d0c97ba7c46a
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 6 November 2018
                : 16 September 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONCYT) (National Council of Science and Technology, Mexico)
                Award ID: CONACYT SALUD-2012-01-182085
                Funded by: Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutrición, 2012 (ENSANUT 2012) Secretaría de Salud (Mexico)
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Uncategorized
                viral infection,preventive medicine,health policy,epidemiology
                Uncategorized
                viral infection, preventive medicine, health policy, epidemiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article