Vaccination of active component US military personnel against Salmonella Typhi

Home  /  North America  /  Vaccination of active component US military personnel against Salmonella Typhi

Vaccination of active component US military personnel against Salmonella Typhi

by admin March 8, 2017

AUTHORS

Porter CK, Sorrell T, Mitra I, Riddle MS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Vaccination against Salmonella Typhi is one of the leading public health interventions reducing the risk of typhoid fever. There are two available licensed vaccines, Vivotif, oral live-attenuated, and Typhim Vi, intramuscular Vi capsular polysaccharide. The US military is a high risk travel population commonly vaccinated for S. Typhi. We describe the use of S. Typhi vaccination in this population and the acute reactogenicity profile of these vaccines.

METHODS:

Data were obtained from the Defense Medical Surveillance System and vaccination identified between 1998 and 2011 from vaccination codes. Clinical outcomes were assessed for four weeks post vaccination. Adverse event rates and odds ratios were estimated across the two vaccine types.

RESULTS:

A total of 1.9million predominately male military personnel received 3.6 million S. Typhi vaccinations with 94.3% of vaccinees receiving the Vi capsule vaccine though variability in the vaccine administered was observed. Receipt of other vaccinations in the 6months surrounding the S. Typhi vaccine was common. Rates of nausea (195 per 100,000 vaccinations), headache (13 per 100,000 vaccinations) and fever (40 per 100,000 vaccinations) were significantly higher following Vi capsule vaccination compared to receipt of Vivotif (130, 2, 10 per 100,000 vaccinations, respectively). In contrast the rates of rash and non-infectious diarrhea (186 and 426 per 100,000 vaccinations, respectively) were increased in those receiving Vivotif compared to the Vi capsule vaccine.

DISCUSSION:

The US military is a major consumer of S. Typhi vaccines. The parenterally administered vaccine appears to be more amenable, though we were limited in our ability to assess the reasons for its higher usage. While we observed a higher rate of several adverse events in subjects receiving the intramuscular vaccination, the overall rate of these events was low. Future studies assessing more long-term health outcomes are warranted.

Click here to view the article, published in Vaccine

Top