Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:14:09.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Promise of New Technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2009

John R. La Montagne
Affiliation:
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
N. Regina Rabinovich
Affiliation:
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Efforts to provide the benefits of immunization to the world's children have reached an important crossroad. While remarkable progress has been achieved in successfully administering six important childhood vaccines (diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, measles, and tuberculosis), the benefits of new vaccines, such as hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type B glycoconjugate vaccines, have not been realized except in the most developed countries. The three reasons often cited to explain this problem include poor access to immunization services, the evolution of complex primary immunization schedules, and the additional expense associated with new vaccines, potentially depleting scarce resources. The establishment of the Children's Vaccine Initiative is an organized effort to improve immunization by both technological and organizational innovation. Simplification of the vaccination process can be achieved by developing new combination vaccines or reducing the number of immunizations with vaccines that stimulate protective immune responses. Improvements in the organization of efforts to immunize children will also enhance the prospects of protecting the world's children from infectious diseases. To achieve the goals articulated in the Declaration of New York, the issues of transition from the old to the new vaccines must be addressed. Research on vaccines and technological innovation at all levels will be required to achieve these goals.

Type
Special Section: Vaccines and Public Health: Assessing Technologies and Public Policies
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

REFERENCES

1.Batson, A., & Evans, P. Plotting a solution to the world's vaccine supply problems. In CVI Forum. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992, 3.Google Scholar
2.Centers for Disease Control. Retrospective assessment of vaccination coverage among school-aged children-Selected U.S. cities, 1991. Mortality and Morbidity World Report, 1992, 41, 103107.Google Scholar
3.Davis, R. M., Markowitz, L. E., Preblud, S. R., et al. A cost effectiveness analysis of measles outbreak control strategies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1987, 126, 450–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Henderson, D. A. Smallpox and vaccinia. In Plotkin, S. A. & Mortimer, E. A. (eds.), Vaccines. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1988, 8.Google Scholar
5.National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine. New vaccine development: Establishing priorities. Diseases of importance in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
6.National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine. New vaccine development: Establishing priorities. Diseases of importance in the developing countries. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986.Google Scholar
7.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Potential cost savings from biomedical research: Two examples from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 1991.Google Scholar
8.Simpson, K. N., & Biddle, A. K. A model for estimating the impact of research investment choices for the Children's Vaccine Initiative. First project report to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, phase II. June 14, 1993.Google Scholar
9.Storsaeter, J., & Olin, P.Relative efficacy of two acellular pertussis vaccines during three years of passive surveillance. Vaccine, 1992, 10, 142–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed