Comparison of the Immunological Response of Humans to Suckling Mouse Brain and Human Diploid Cell Vaccines
Suckling mouse brain vaccines (SMBV) are good immunizing antigens that have made possible the reduction of post-exposure vaccination schedules for man. The same is true of human diploid cell vaccines (HDCV), and immunization of exposed persons with five or six-dose schedules is accepted today.
The serological response of three groups of persons was studied. One group received 6 doses of HDCV (0, 3, 7, 14, 30 and 90 days), another group was immunized with SMB on the same days and a third received 10 doses of SMBV, according to the schedule developed and currently in use in Argentina (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 26, and 60 days).
The serological response of the HDCV group was higher than that of the SMBV groups and the differences were statistically significant. The differences between the serologic responses of both groups of SMBV vaccinees, however, were not significant.
Higher serum titers were obtained with HDCV than with SMBV and this could be related to the former’s higher potency. The antigenic value of HDCV by the NIH test was between 2 and 5 times greater than those of the SMB vaccines used.
The comparable responses obtained with 6 and 10 doses of SMBV might justify investigators to determine whether a further reduction of the post-exposure schedule presently used with this vaccine is appropriate.
This paper presents the results obtained in the comparison of two schedules for the post-exposure treatment of man with SMB and HDC vaccines.
KeywordsArgentina Aires Rabies
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anderson, L.J., W.G. Winkler, J.S. Smith, C. Costen and T.A. Swaitz. 1981. pp. 300–306. in: Kuwert, E.K., T.J. Wiktor and H. Koprowski (Eds.) Geneva. International Green Cross.Google Scholar
- Atanasiu, P. 1973. pp. 314–318. in: Kaplan, M.M. and H. Koprowski. Geneva. World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- Costy-Berger, F. 1978. Develop. Biol. Standard. 40:101–104.Google Scholar
- Diaz, A.M.O., G. González Resigno, A. Fernández Munilla, O.P. Larghi, N. Marchevsky and J.C. Arrossi. 1979. Rev. Arg. Microbiol. 11:42–44.Google Scholar
- Fábrega, F.P. and C.A. Sepülveda. 1981. Bol. Of. Sanit. Panamer. 90:211–217.Google Scholar
- Fuenzalida, E. and R. Palacios. 1955. Bol. Inst. Bacteriol. (Chile) 8:3–10.Google Scholar
- Held, J.R., E. Fuenzalida, H. Lopez Adaros, J.C. Arrossi, N.O.R. Poles and A. Scivetti. 1972. Bol. Of. Sanit. Panamer. 75:565–575.Google Scholar
- Kuwert, E.K., O. Thraenhart, I. Markus, J. Werner, P. Atanasiu, M. Bahmanyar, K. Bögel, J.H. Cox, L.G. Schneider, G. Turner, and T.J. Wiktor. 1978. Develop. Biol. Standard. 40:221–229.Google Scholar
- Larghi, O.P., V.L. Savy, A.E. Nebel, A. Rodriguez. 1979. Rev. Arg. Microbiol. 11:102–107.Google Scholar
- Larghi, O.P. 1981. pp. 283–287. in: Kuwert, E.K., T.J. Wiktor and H. Koprowski. Geneva. International Green Cross.Google Scholar
- Smith, J.S., P.A. Yager, and G.M. Baer. 1973. Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 45:1–11.Google Scholar
- Wiktor, T.J., P. Atanasiu, M. Bahmanyar, K. Bögel, J.H. Cox, A.M. Diaz, E.A. Fitzgerald, E. Kuwert, R. Netter, M. Selimov, G. Turner, G. van Steenis. 1978. Develop. Biol. Standard. 40:171–178.Google Scholar
- WHO Expert Committee on Rabies. Sixth Report. 1973. Tech. Rep. Series N° 253. Geneva. World Health Organization.Google Scholar