Table 2.

Comparison of immune responses to ETEC induced by natural disease and vaccination of adult Bangladeshi subjects

Immune parameterMediana(25th–75th percentile) (n) for:Fold increasebStatistical significancec
PatientsVacinees, day 21Day 3Day 9Day 3Day 9
Day 3Day 9
CFA-specific
 Gut ASCd 3,300 (400–11,000) (n = 8)2,500 (600–4,000)e (n = 4)1,200 (400–1,600) (n = 13)2.82.1NSNS
 Blood ASCd 1,800 (230–4,800) (n = 10)380 (320–430) (n = 6)38 (16–99) (n = 27)4810 P = 0.0006 P = 0.028
 Fecal Abf 0.92 (0.28–2.5) (n = 6)18 (8–160) (n = 5)3.4 (1.0–6.6) (n = 18)(3.4)5.2NS P = 0.005
CTB-specific
 Gut ASC5,400 (750–24,000) (n = 12)5,100 (3,300–9,200) (n = 9)1,400 (0–7,000) (n = 13)3.73.5NSNS
 Blood ASC110 (50–180) (n = 13)150 (80–280) (n = 10)420 (190–660) (n = 27)(3.7)(2.8) P = 0.028NS
 Fecal Ab7.2 (2.5–20) (n = 8)33 (9–600) (n = 8)35 (11–66) (n = 18)(5)1NSNS
  • a Values are numbers of ASC or titers of antibody (Ab).

  • b How many times higher the immune response was in patients than in vaccinees. Parentheses indicate that the immune response was higher in vaccinees.

  • c Calculated by the Mann-Whitney test. AP value of <0.05 was considered significant. NS, not significant.

  • d CFA/I.

  • e The 25th to 75th percentile could not be calculated due to the paucity of patients; instead, the lowest and highest values are given.

  • f CS5.