• Mon, Mar 11 - 2:27 pm ET

The Whooping Cough Vaccine We Currently Have Isn’t All That Awesome At Preventing Whooping Cough After All

whooping cough vaccinesParents who are sticking to that recommended vaccine schedule (and therefore not inventing their own) are definitely doing their kids a service. But even if you’ve accrued mommy/daddy points for getting your kid the five recommended whooping cough vaccines on time, that immunity could very well wane a few years later. Nevertheless, doctors are still saying that you parents are doing what you’re supposed to.

Reuters reports that a study determined that protection against pertussis “starts to weaken” a few years after the final DTaP shot. And researchers are definitely seeing the effects:

“What has become apparent is there’s a fairly dramatic and startling increase in pertussis in children in the seven- to 10-year-old age group,” said Dr. H. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston who didn’t participate in the new research.

In the 1990s, a new pertussis vaccine reportedly came on the scene called an “acellular vaccine.” Said vaccine performs well in the short-term with less side effects. But on the flip side, the vaccine perhaps gives kids “less-complete” protection, some experts posit. (The newer whooping cough vaccine in Australia isn’t all that stellar either).

In determining the accellular vaccine’s flaws, Sara Tartof from Southern California Permanente Medical Group and her researchers used immunization records coupled with whooping cough data to study over 400,000 kids.

The children, all from Oregon and Minnesota, were born between 1998 and 2003, and received all five DTaP shots. The final vaccine was administered between the ages of four and six years old. Then they waited:

Over the following six years, 458 kids from Minnesota came down with whooping cough. The rate of new cases rose from 16 per 100,000 children in the first year after their most recent DTaP shot to 138 per 100,000 in year six.

In Oregon, there were 89 cases – six per 100,000 kids in the first year and 24 per 100,000 in the sixth.

Dr. Eugene Shapiro, a pediatrician and infectious diseases researcher from the Yale School of Medicine, says that a new vaccine is what is “ideally” needed. But don’t you dare  imply that these vaccines don’t work, nor assume that you can just cancel those doctor appointments — for you, your teens, our your baby brood:

“An important thing to remember is the kids who do receive all five doses on time generally have milder (whooping cough) than those who are under-vaccinated or unvaccinated,” Tartof told Reuters Health.

“Even though there is waning immunity… getting the five doses on time is still the best protection you can give your kid.”…

“It is so important that people do not interpret this as the vaccine doesn’t work, and then not get vaccinated at all,” Meissner said, “because then we would really have a problem.”

Yeah, this problem.

(photo:  jang14 / Shutterstock)

Share This Post:
  • Blueathena623

    Gah, I’m all for honesty so people can get all the facts but . . . Can we sweep this research under the rug, please? Because no matter what, this is going to be anti-vaccine fodder. People will skip the whole “milder version of whooping cough” part and just say it doesn’t work so its not worth the risks. I wonder if taking 6 shots boosts immunity? Or if no new vaccine is developed, will more booster shots be recommended?

    • Diana

      Yeah because nothing calms the paranoid like sweeping research under the rug. Sheesh! Part of the problem is that they feel the establishment isn’t transparent enough about shortcomings and they’re being lied to.

    • Blueathena623

      Of course I don’t actually suggest sweeping this under the rug, it was a joke. The research is valuable and will hopefully spur development of a longer-lasting, more potent vaccine while still keeping low-side effects, something that would be great. Also, its good information to have when people against vaccines say that the only kids they know who have ever had whopping cough are immunized ones (an argument I’ve seen too many times to count), because then one can discuss this research as a possible reason why they are seeing immunized kids get whooping cough, while also noting that the researchers find these kids are generally having milder cases. It’s also very important for parents with immunized children so hey know their children are still at somewhat of a risk. So no, I don’t seriously advocate pretending this research doesn’t exist.
      As for the establishment not being forthcoming, perhaps people aren’t looking in the right spots? I can’t imagine that the research behind this isn’t in PubMed. In fact, I’d say the media is pretty darn biased about reporting shortcomings, even at the expense of being accurate. There are articles all the time about some shocking health risk, people get all up in arms about why haven’t researchers informed us, but the article talks about preliminary findings and still analyzing the data, i.e. the research isn’t complete, hence no published papers yet.

  • http://twitter.com/babaloomaloo babaloo maloo

    I’d rather have less protection and fewer side effects.

    • CrazyFor Kate

      I’d rather not be at the mercy of kids whose parents didn’t get them the vaccine because of the tiny chance of side effects.

    • http://twitter.com/babaloomaloo babaloo maloo

      Defensive much? I was referring to:

      ” Said vaccine performs well in the short-term with less side effects. But on the flip side, the vaccine perhaps gives kids “less-complete” protection”

      Its in the article you obviously didn’t read. But nice knee jerk reaction.

    • http://www.facebook.com/courtney.wooten Courtney Lynn

      Same here. Vaccine is better than no protection at all, IMO.

  • Marge

    The doc wouldn’t give my brother and I this one as kids because we’re both very allergic to eggs. I wonder if the accellular vaccine is cultured on egg too? Not that it matters now I suppose.

  • CW

    This is what gets me so angry when the media and regular folks scapegoat the very small percentage of anti-vaxxers (in my state it’s around 2%) for the whooping cough epidemic. The biggest risk isn’t the tiny fraction of unvaccinated kids out there, but all the kids who were vaccinated but whose protection wore off.

    • CW

      FWIW, my kids do eventually receive most of the recommended vaccines, and all the ones for serious, easily communicable diseases.

    • lea

      Yes and no.

      Because the vaccine is relatively ineffective every single person who isn’t immunised or who’s immunity has waned contributes to the loss of herd immunity.

      The tiny fraction makes all the difference. The reason that the non-vaccinated are more likely to be scapegoats is because they haven’t even tried to protect themselves and others.

      At least those who have been immunised have a good chance of contributing to herd immunity (vaccinated kids are 8x less likely to get pertussis) and are, if they become infected, much less likely to get really sick and much less likely to pass the infection on to others (they are less infectious).