Diphtheria in Lao PDR: Insufficient Coverage or Ineffective Vaccine?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During late 2012 and early 2013 several outbreaks of diphtheria were notified in the North of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The aim of this study was to determine whether the re-emergence of this vaccine-preventable disease was due to insufficient vaccination coverage or reduction of vaccine effectiveness within the affected regions. METHODS: A serosurvey was conducted in the Huaphan Province on a cluster sampling of 132 children aged 12-59 months. Serum samples, socio-demographic data, nutritional status and vaccination history were collected when available. Anti-diphtheria and anti-tetanus IgG antibody levels were measured by ELISA. RESULTS: Overall, 63.6% of participants had detectable diphtheria antibodies and 71.2% tetanus antibodies. Factors independently associated with non-vaccination against diphtheria were the distance from the health centre (OR: 6.35 [95% CI: 1.4-28.8], p = 0.01), the Lao Theung ethnicity (OR: 12.2 [95% CI:1,74-85, 4], p = 0.01) and the lack of advice on vaccination given at birth (OR: 9.8 [95% CI: 1.5-63.8], (p = 0.01) while the level of maternal edu-cation was a protective factor (OR: 0.08 [95% CI: 0.008-0.81], p = 0.03). Most respondents claimed financial difficulties as the main reason for non-vaccination. Out of 55 children whose vaccination certificates stated that they were given all 3 doses of diphtheria-containing vaccine, 83.6% had diphtheria antibodies and 92.7% had tetanus antibodies. Furthermore, despite a high prevalence of stunted and underweight children (53% and 25.8%, respectively), the low levels of anti-diphtheria antibodies were not correlated to the nutritional status. CONCLUSIONS: Our data highlight a significant deficit in both the vaccination coverage and diphtheria vaccine effectiveness within the Huaphan Province. Technical deficiencies in the methods of storage and distribution of vaccines as well as unreliability of vaccination cards are discussed. Several hypotheses are advanced to explain such a decline in immunity against diphtheria and recommendations are provided to prevent future outbreaks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".