Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Pneumonia vaccine cuts admissions by a fifth

  • 1 Comment

The number of children admitted to English hospitals with bacterial pneumonia decreased by a fifth in the two years following the introduction of a vaccine to combat the disease, according to a study.

In Europe, around one in ten deaths in children under five is caused by bacterial pneumonia.

The PCV7 vaccine was introduced into the childhood primary immunisation programme across the UK in September 2006 to protect against seven different strains of streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria.

The study, led by researchers from Imperial College London, shows that in the first two years following the introduction of this vaccine, hospital admissions for bacterial pneumonia decreased by 19 per cent amongst children aged under 15 years.

Admissions for empyema, a rare and serious complication of bacterial pneumonia, decreased by 22%. The pneumococcal vaccine is administered at two, three and 13 months of age. When it was first introduced there was a catch-up campaign for children up to two years.

Take-up of the vaccine over the study period was high. It was administered to an average of 84% of eligible children in England in the first year following its introduction and 91% the following year.

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • Hmm, interesting. Reading the abstract from the journal doesn't help at all with understanding the research itself. At no point do the authors mention any consideration of any other factors that might be influencing the apparent leap in connecting the decreased admissions for pneumonia and the new vaccine. Neither do they elaborate on the test population or the nature of that population. Neither do they discuss any epidemiological assessment of current admissions or accuracy of diagnosis.
    Disappointing. Can't tell much from an abstract I suppose anyway.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.