Skip to main content

Table 1 Vaccine effectiveness and measles risk ratio by age at first vaccination

From: Effect of age at vaccination on the measles vaccine effectiveness and immunogenicity: systematic review and meta-analysis

A. ONE-DOSE ANALYSIS
A-1. VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS [95% Confidence Intervals]
Author, year of epidemic (ref)Casesa Age at first vaccination
< 9910–111213–1415> 15
McIntyre, 1977 [31]65    100% [−]75.2% [47, 96]93.3% [87, 97]
Aaby, 1980 [32]49 54.1% [5, 78]48.6% [0, 76]69.8% [49, 82]
Hull, 1981 [33]61 41.9% [0, 76]85.5% [56, 95]85.9% [45, 96]90.2% [78, 96]
Anonymus, 1983 [34]264 43.0% [NC]83.0% [NC]
Nkowane, 1984 [35]18 33.3% [0, 83]98.0% [82, 100]93.2% [78, 98]
McCombie, 1985 [36]83 −87.9% [− 438, 34]33.0% [0, 73]51.0% [0, 79]
Davis, 1985 [37]25 100% [−]97.5% [91, 99]96.8% [83, 99]
Roberston, 1986 [38]40 70.2% [22, 80]84.0% [63, 93]95.1% [88, 98]
George, 1986 [39]67 50.3% [22, 68]59.0% [36, 74]    
Sharma 1987 [40]132  49.7% [22, 68]52.7% [23, 71]71.0% [0–96]73.4% [0, 96]
Hersh, 1987 [41]46 80.8% [39, 94]80.5% [51, 92]93.7% [84, 97]
Lee, 1988 [42]52 79.5% [0–97]75.4% [3, 94]78.9 [61, 88]
Chawla, 1989 [3]176  77.3% [53, 89]87.7% [67, 95]100% [−]
Rivest, 1989 [4]138   87.2% [0, 99]91.5%[0, 100]96.5% [37, 100]97.8% [60, 100]
De la Puente,1990 [43]50    58.5% [13, 80]70.5% [59, 79]
Malfait, 1990 [44]94  25.9% [8, 41]94.4% [93, 96]
Murray, 1990 [5]74 40.1% [0, 81]75.5% [47, 89]86.9% [66, 95]92.0% [75, 97]
Coetzee, 1992 [45]17 74.7% [13, 93]81.4% [51–93]
McDonnell,1993 [46]40 96.6% [66, 100]95.7% [84, 99]95.0% [84, 98]
Lee, 1994 [47]6 30.0% [0, 87]72.0% [0, 95]100% [−]
Kaninda, 1995 [48]1295 86.9% [81, 91]94.2% [93, 95]
Kotb, 1995 [49]230  25.6%[0, 53]72.3% [55, 83]
Hennessey, 1996 [50]167 91.5% [67, 98]87.9% [83–92]91.0% [87, 94]90.0 [84, 94]
John, 1999 [51]67 24.0% [0, 55]62.2% [0, 87]
A-2. MEASLES RISK RATIO / ODDS RATIO [95% Confidence Intervals]
Author, year of epidemic (ref)CasesaRR/ORbAge at first vaccination
< 9910–111213–1415> 15
Shelton, 1976 [52]21OR1.00 [0.2, 4.7]1.00 (ref)0.05 [0.01, 0.3]
Judelsohn, 1978 [53]58RR1.92 [0.7, 5.3]0.49 [0.2, 1.1]1.00 (ref)0.34 [0.1, 0.8]0.48 [0.3, 0.9]
Faust, 1978 [54]63RR0.92 [0.5, 1.6]1.00 (ref)0.26 [0.1, 0.6]0.44 [0.1, 1.4]0.25 [0.1, 0.7]
Lopes, ≈1979 [55]14RR1.62 [0.7, 3.6]1.00 (ref)
Aaby, 1980 [32]49RR1.52 [0.6, 3.6]1.70 [0.7, 4.2]1.00 (ref)
Hull, 1981 [33]61RR4.13 [0.8, 20.2]1.03 [0.2, 5.8]1.00 (ref)0.69 [0.2, 3.3]
Wassilak, 1981 [56]18OR1.00 [0.1, 8.4]1.00 (ref)0.20 [0.02, 2.0]0.11 [0.03, 0.4]
Hull, 1984 [57]21ORNC1.00 (ref)0.21 [0.1, 0.9]
Nkowane, 1984 [35]18RR32.92 [3.8, 283.5]1.00 (ref)3.31 [0.4, 25.7]
McCombie, 1985 [36]83RR2.80 [1.2, 6.4]1.00 (ref)0.73 [0.4, 1.2]
Davis, 1985 [37]25RR01.00 (ref)1.30 [0.4, 4.4]
Chen, 1985 [58]16OR1.20 [0.2, 7.3]1.00 (ref)0.14 [0.03, 0.6]
Mast, 1986 [59]170OR3.09 [0.9, 1.08]1.00 (ref)0.15 [0.1, 0.3]
Roberston, 1986 [38]40RR1.86 [0.9, 3.9]1.00 (ref)0.31 [0.2, 0.7]
Sharma 1987 [40]132RR 1.06 [0.6, 2.0]1.00 (ref)0.61[0.1, 4.2]0.56 [0.1, 3.9]
Hutchins, 1987 [60]30RR   1.00 (ref)0.49 [0.1, 1.8]0.60 [0.3, 1.3]
Hersh, 1987 [41]46RR0.99 [0.4, 2.6]1.00 (ref)0.32 [0.2, 0.6]
Agocs, 1988 [61]79RR1.00 (ref)0.92 [0.6, 1.4]
Lee, 1988 [42]52RR1.00 (ref)1.20 [0.1, 12.4]1.03 [0.1, 7.5]
Paunio, 1988 [10]153cOR1.00 (ref)0.37 [0.1, 1.0]
Chawla, 1989 [3]176RR 1.84 [0.6, 6.1]1.00 (ref)0.00
Ng, 1989 [62]16RR1.70 [0.4, 7.2]1.00 (ref)0.41 [0.1, 3.1]
De Serres, 1989 [63]525OR0.98 [0.7, 1.4]1.00 (ref)0.50 [0.4, 0.7]0.29 [0.2, 0.4]
Rivest, 1989 [4]138OR  1.56 [0.5, 4.5]1.00 (ref)0.40 [0.2, 0.8]0.26 [0.2, 0.5]
De la Puente, 1990 [43]50RR   1.00 (ref)0.71 [0.3, 1.7]
Malfait, 1990 [44]94RR 13.23 [6.4, 26.5]1.00 (ref)
De Serres, 1990 [64]5514OR  1.40 [1.2, 1.6]1.00 (ref)0.59 [0.5, 0.6]0.38 [0.3, 0.4]0.38 [0.3, 0.4]
Murray, 1990 [5]74RR4.58 [1.1, 20.0]1.88 [0.6, 6.2]1.00 (ref)0.62 [0.1, 2.6]
Coetzee, 1992 [45]17RR1.00 (ref)0.73 [0.2, 2.8]
McDonnell, 1993 [46]40OR0.79 [0.1, 7.6]1.00 (ref)1.16 [0.4, 3.4]
Patel, 1994 [65]7RR0.003.6[0.4,29.3]1.72[0.1, 25.9]1.00 (ref)
Lee, 1994 [47]6RR2.50 [0.4, 15.4]1.00 (ref)0.00
Sutcliffe, 1995 [66]82RR   1.00 (ref)0.28 [0.2, 0.4]
Kaninda, 1995 [48]1295RR2.27 [1.5, 3.3]1.00 (ref)
Kotb, 1995 [49]230OR 2.69[1.9,3.9]1.00 (ref)
Hennessey, 1996 [50]167RR0.91 [0.2, 3.7]1.30 [0.8, 2.1]1.00 (ref)1.08 [0.6, 1.9]
John, 1999 [51]67RR2.01 [0.8, 5.4]1.00 (ref)
B. TWO-DOSE ANALYSIS
B-1. VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS [95% Confidence Intervals]
Author, year of epidemic (ref)Casesa Age at first vaccination
< 9910–111213–1415> 15
McCombie, 1985 [36]22 63.3% [0, 88]55.1% [0, 89]37.6% [0, 79]
Roberston, 1986 [38]4 72.2% [0, 96]100% faf[−]
Hersh, 1987 [41]4 88.9% [12, 99]100% [−]
De Serres, 2011 [67]d52  93.0% [90, 95]94.7% [90, 97]97.5% [94, 99]
B-2. MEASLES RISK RATIO / ODDS RATIO [95% Confidence Intervals]
Author, year of epidemic (ref)CasesaRR/ORbAge at first vaccination
< 9910–111213–1415> 15
McCombie, 1985 [36]22RR0.82 [0.2, 3.2]1.00 (ref)1.39 [0.4, 5.3]
Paunio 1988 [10]153cOR1.00 (ref)0.29 [0.04, 2.0]
De Serres, 1990 [64]28OR  3.48 [1.4, 8.4]1.00 (ref)1.27 [0.4, 4.0]
Defay, 2011 [11]99OR   1.00 (ref)1.04 [0.7, 1.7]0.000.17[0.04,0.7]
  1. Abbreviations: NC not calculable, RR relative risk, OR odds ratio
  2. a Number of cases included in the calculation of the age effect
  3. b Risk ratios comparing attack rates by age in months of administration of the first dose of measles vaccine (reference age category is the one containing 12 months, specified according to the paper). Odds ratios have been calculated for case-control studies
  4. c Number of cases in the study, not specified the number in the one and two dose analysis
  5. d Effectiveness assessed in a school outbreak during the epidemic reported in Defay, 2011