Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:51:43.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risks and Benefits of Vaccinations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Gerhard Wiedermann ,
Franz Ambrosch ,
Herwig Kollaritsch  and
Matthias Kundi
Gerhard Wiedermann*
Affiliation:
Institute for Specific Prophylaxis and Tropical Medicineand theInstitute for Environmental Medicine of the University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Franz Ambrosch
Affiliation:
Institute for Specific Prophylaxis and Tropical Medicineand theInstitute for Environmental Medicine of the University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Herwig Kollaritsch
Affiliation:
Institute for Specific Prophylaxis and Tropical Medicineand theInstitute for Environmental Medicine of the University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Matthias Kundi
Affiliation:
Institute for Specific Prophylaxis and Tropical Medicineand theInstitute for Environmental Medicine of the University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
*
Institute for Specific ProphylaxisandTropical Medicine of the University of Vienna, A-1095 Wien, Kinderspitalgasse 15
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Any medical intervention is expected to prevent sickness and complications of a disease rather than to induce them. This is true for therapy as well as prophylaxis. Special formulas have been developed to calculate the risks and benefits of vaccinations simply but with sufficient accuracy. The risk ratio (Q) tells how many times the risk of contracting certain complications or even death from a disease is greater in unvaccinated than in vaccinated individuals. The risk difference (D) directly expresses the number of complications or deaths that may be prevented by a certain vaccination. It is even possible to evaluate the epidemiologic trend of a disease and to calculate or estimate the point of time when the risks of disease and vaccination are just balanced, ie, when a vaccination has lost its beneficial effect. Vaccinations against measles, poliomyelitis and tick borne encephalitis in Austria are highly beneficial. BCG vaccination is still beneficial on a low level in Austria as far as protection against tuberculosis is concerned. This effect will persist for the rest of this century. The benefit of pertussis vaccination depends on the local epidemiologic situation. It has expired for non-risk groups in Austria since 1976 but continues to persist in the US.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 5 , Issue 9 , September 1984 , pp. 438 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Wiedermann, G, Ambrosch, F: Probleme bei Impfungen. Wr Klin Wschr 1974;124:161–165.Google Scholar
2.Ambrosch, F, Wiedermann, G: Mathematische Methoden zur Beurteilung des Nutzens von Schutzimpfungen. Immun Infekt 1975;3:24–31.Google Scholar
3.Wiedermann, G, Ambrosch, F: Methods for risk-benefit and cost-benefit analysis. Dev Biol Stand 1979;43:429–432.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Ambrosch, F, Wiedermann, G: Changes of risk and benefit in immunization against pertussis and tuberculosis. Dev Biol Stand 1979;43:85–90.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Ehrengut, W: Impffibel. Stuttgart, FK Schattauer, 1964, p 71.Google Scholar
6.Haas, R: Die Poliomyelitisimmunität und die Frage der Wiederimpfung, in Stickl, H (ed): Polio-Immunität morgen. München, JF Lehmanns, 1970, pp 9–19.Google Scholar
7.Spiess, H: Impfkompendium. Stuttgart, G Thieme, 1973, p 74.Google Scholar
8.Centers for Disease Control (CDC): Poliomyelitis prevention. MMWR 1982;31:22–34.Google Scholar
9.Ambrosch, F, Wiedermann, G: Epidemiologische Untersuchungen zur Masernimpfung. Wr Klin Wschr 1976;88:545–548.Google Scholar
10.Wiedermann, G: Phylakogene Immunphänomene, in Steffen, C (ed): Immunologie für die ärztliche Praxis. Köln-Lövenich, Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag GmbH, 1981, p 163.Google Scholar
11.Cherry, JD: Urban measles in the vaccine era: A clinical epidemiologic and serologic study. J Pediatr 1972;81:217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Spiess, H, Enders-Ruckle, G: Immunisierung gegen Masern, in Spiess, H (ed): Schutzimpfungen, ed 2. Stuttgart, G. Thieme, 1966, pp 223–248.Google Scholar
13.Foege, H: Results of measles immunizations in the United States and Africa. Read before Symposium on Measles Vaccine, Berlin, 1973.Google Scholar
14.Dick, G: Immunisation. London/New Jersey, Update, 1978, p 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Wiedermann, G, Kunz, C, Ambrosch, F: Effect, hazards and risks of the new vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) as calculated by special formulas. Zbl Bakt Hyg I Abt Orig A 1976;236:141–144.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Vogt, W: Die Tuberkuloseschutzimpfung, in Herrlich, A (ed): Handbuch der Schutzimpfungen. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, Springer, 1965, pp 313–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Junker, E: BCG-Impfung—Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den Gegebenheiten von heute. Mitt Österr Sanit Verw 1973;74:88–97.Google Scholar
18.British Medical Research Council: BCG and vole bacillus vaccines in the prevention of tuberculosis in adolescents. Br Med J 1956;1:413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.British Medical Research Council: BCG and vole bacillus vaccines in the prevention of tuberculosis in adolescence and early adult life. Br Med J 1963;1:973–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Spiess, H: Die Tuberkuloseschutzimpfung, in Spiess, H (ed): Schutzimpfungen, ed 2. Stuttgart, G Thieme, 1966, pp 86–114.Google Scholar
21.Ehrengut, W: Impffibel. Stuttgart, F K Schattauer, 1964, p 37.Google Scholar
22.Statistisches Zentralamt: Bericht über das Gesundheitswesen in Österreich. 1948-1981. Austrian Ministry of Health and Environmental Protection and Central Office of Statistics. Vienna, Überreuter.Google Scholar
23.Ehrengut, W: Kann die Pertussisimpfung noch empfohlen werden? Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1974;99:2307–2310.Google Scholar
24.Ehrengut, W: Über konvulsive Reaktionen nach Pertussis Schutzimpfung. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1974;99:2273–2279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.World Health Organization: Expanded programme on immunization. Adverse reactions to immunization. Wkly Epidem Rec 1983; 58(9):63.Google Scholar
26.British Medical Research Council: The prevention of whooping cough by vaccination. Br Med J 1951;1:1463–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.British Medical Research Council: Vaccination against whooping cough. Relation between protection in children and results of laboratory tests. Br Med J 1956;2:454–462.Google Scholar
28.British Medical Research Council: Vaccination against whooping cough. The final report to the whooping cough immunization committee of the Medical Research Council and the medical officers for Battersea and Wandsworth, Bradford, Liverpool and Newcastle. Br Med J 1959;1:994–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Bundesministerium Für Gesundheit und Umweltschutz: Übersicht über die angezeigten Fälle über tragbarer Erkrankungen: Mitt Osterr Sanit Verw, 1975–1982.Google Scholar
30.WHO: Public Health Rep 1961;8:47.Google Scholar
31.Ehrengut, W: Ist eine aktive Pertussisprophylaxe sinnvoll? Therapiewoche 1976;26:3504–3512.Google Scholar
32.Centers for Disease Control (CDC): Annual summary 1977. Reported morbidity and mortality in the United States. MMWR 1978;26:59.Google Scholar
33.WHO: Whooping cough surveillance. Wkly Epidem Rec 1983;17:130.Google Scholar
34.Stickl, H: First results of a new way of pertussis immunization. Read before the Symposium on Oral Vaccination, International Society of Standardization, Isle Man, Sept 28, 1975.Google Scholar
35.Höfler, KH, Binder, B, Koch, M: Vergleich der Wirksamkeit von parenteraler und enteraler Pertussisimmunisierung bei Kaninchen. Wr Klin Wschr 1977;89:386–389.Google Scholar
36.Maurer, H, Höfler, KH, Hilbe, W, et al: Erste Ergebnisse mit oraler Keuchhustenimpfung bei jungen Säuglingen. Wr Klin Wschr 1979;91:717–720.Google Scholar
37.Rosanelli, K, Falk, W, Höfler, KH, et al: Orale Pertussisimmunisierung bei Neugeborenen. Wr Klin Wschr 1979;91:720–722.Google Scholar
38.Kanai, K: Japan's experience in pertussis epidemiology and vaccination in the past thirty years. Jpn J Med Sci Biol 1980;33:107–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed