Search

Background: Febrile seizures are associated with the first dose of measles-containing vaccines and the risk increases with chronologic age during the second year of life. We used the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) to determine if the relative increase in risk of seizures following receipt of measles-containing vaccine differs by gestational age at birth., Methods: Children were eligible if they received their first dose of measles-containing vaccine at age 12 through 23 months from January 2003 through September 2015. Children were excluded if they had a history of seizure or conditions strongly related to seizure prior to 12 months of age. Seizures were identified by diagnostic codes in the inpatient or emergency department settings. Using risk-interval analysis, we estimated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for seizures in the 7 through 10 days (risk period) vs 15 through 42 days (control period) following receipt of measles-containing vaccines in children born preterm (<37 weeks gestation age) and those born full-term (≥37 weeks)., Results: There were 532,375 children (45,343 preterm and 487,032 full-term) who received their first dose of measles-containing vaccine at age 12 through 23 months. The IRRs of febrile seizures 7 through 10 days compared with 15 through 42 days after receipt of measles-containing vaccine were 3.9 (95% CI: 2.5-6.0) in preterm children and 3.2 (2.7-3.7) in full-term children; the ratio of IRRs: was 1.2 (0.76-1.9), p = 0.41. IRRs were also similar across gestational age groups, by vaccine type received (measles-mumps-rubella [MMR] or measles-mumps-rubella-varicella [MMRV]) and age at vaccination (12-15 or 16-23 months)., Conclusion: Vaccination with a measles-containing vaccine in the second year of life is associated with a similar relative risk of a first seizure in children born preterm as in those who were born full-term., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Vaccines are an essential tool for the prevention of infectious diseases. However, false ideas and rumours with no scientific foundation about their possible negative effects may dissuade people from being vaccinated, with the consequent risks for the health of the population. The objective of this article is to evaluate the origin and the arguments of some of the most frequent mistaken ideas and rumours about the possible adverse effects of vaccines. Some clearly established adverse effects are presented, as well as false beliefs about various vaccines and potential harm to health. Vaccines, like any drug, can cause adverse effects, but the possible adverse effects of vaccination programs are clearly lower than their individual (vaccinated) and collective benefits (those vaccinated and those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons). The possible adverse effects attributable to vaccines should be detected by powerful and well-structured pharmacovigilance systems., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Vaccination is the most effective public health intervention of all times, reducing the death and morbidity rates derived from multiple infectious diseases. In many cases, the administration and reception of vaccines is delayed due to the fear of allergic reactions; this is frequent among patients with allergy to egg who need the triple viral vaccine. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of reactions after the administration of triple viral vaccine (Measles, Mumps and Rubella, MMR) in an egg-allergic population. Materials and methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective study (2014-2016) including patients with egg allergy who visited an allergology center and required the administration of the triple viral vaccine. Results: A total of 94 patients met the selection criteria. From these patients, 68.2% had cutaneous symptoms, 22.3% had an anaphylactic reaction, 5.3% had gastrointestinal symptoms, and 4.2% had respiratory egg-related symptoms. Regardless of the severity of their reaction to egg, all patients received the triple viral vaccine and in 100% of the cases, it was well tolerated. Conclusion: Although egg allergy is common in childhood, the risk of allergic reactions during the MMR vaccination in this population was similar to that in the general population, therefore, its use should not be deferred even in patients with a history of severe egg-related allergic reactions.

Background: People's intentions to use vaccines are influenced by their beliefs about both the specific vaccine and the disease it prevents. In the absence of firm beliefs about Zika virus (ZIKV), individuals may base their intentions to vaccinate against it on beliefs about other vaccines, and specifically the misbelief that MMR causes autism., Methods: A survey of 3337 Americans, using a random-digit-dialing sample of landline telephone households and cell-phones., Results: Intentions to use a Zika vaccine were influenced by beliefs about Zika, science in general, and MMR. Intentions were positively influenced by perceived severity of and vulnerability to Zika, as well as belief in science's efficacy. However, intentions were negatively influenced by the belief that MMR causes autism in children., Conclusion: The misbelief about MMR and autism may reduce people's intentions to use a new Zika vaccine. However, perceptions of severity of and vulnerability to Zika may increase intentions. Implications for science educators and public health officials are discussed.

This post-hoc analysis of data from a matched cohort study investigated the risk of febrile convulsions (FC) 5-12 days post-first dose of measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine (MMRV) in a low-risk population, compared to measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella (V) vaccines administered separately. The low-risk population excluded children with personal history of FC (Scenario 1) and children with personal or/and family history (≥1 parent/sibling) of FC (Scenario 2). Incidence of FC post-MMRV in Scenario 2 (excluding at risk children) (36.3-49.5/100,000) and post-MMR+V in the whole cohort including children with personal/family history of FC (43.6/100,000) were similar. The risk difference of FC increased by 0.2 case/100,000 in Scenario 1 and decreased by 5.3-8.6 cases/100,000 of vaccinated children in Scenario 2, compared to the whole cohort. The overall risk of FC post-first dose MMRV vaccination could be lowered by administering MMRV only to children with no personal or family history of FC., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The potency of live viral vaccines decreases over time. We compared the immunogenicity and safety of GSK measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR-RIT) formulations at two different potencies with that of the commercially-available MMR II formulation., Methods: In this phase III observer-blind clinical study (NCT01681992), 4516 healthy children aged 12-15 months were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive one dose of MMR-RIT at the minimum potency used for this study (MMR-RIT-Min) or MMR-RIT at the second lowest potency used for this study (MMR-RIT-Med), or control MMR II vaccine. A second dose (MMR-RIT or MMR II) was administered 42 days after the first. The study had 10 co-primary objectives to evaluate MMR-RIT versus MMR II immunogenicity via a hierarchical procedure. Anti-measles and anti-rubella antibodies were measured by ELISA and anti-mumps antibodies by ELISA and unenhanced plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT)., Results: Each formulation induced immune responses to all vaccine antigens after each MMR dose. While the primary objectives for MMR-RIT-Min were not met, MMR-RIT-Med induced immune responses as measured by ELISA against the three vaccine antigens that met pre-specified non-inferiority criteria. The immune response following MMR-RIT-Med against mumps measured by PRNT failed the non-inferiority criterion for seroresponse rate: the 97.5% confidence interval lower limit (-10.94%) was beyond the pre-defined limit of -10%. Immune responses were comparable among groups post-dose 2. No safety concerns were identified, and MMR-RIT and MMR II vaccines had similar reactogenicity and safety profiles., Conclusions: One dose of MMR-RIT formulation with lower potency (MMR-RIT-Med) induced a non-inferior immune response compared to commercial MMR II vaccine, measured by ELISA in one-year-old children. Non-inferiority was not demonstrated in terms of immune response against mumps virus measured by unenhanced PRNT, although the difference was of uncertain clinical relevance. After the second dose, immune responses were comparable among the MMR-RIT and MMR II groups., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In the wake of strong, although later refuted, claims of a link between autism and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, I examine whether fewer parents immunized or delayed vaccinations for their children and if there was a differential response by mother's education level. Using various controls and a differencing strategy that compares in MMR take-up with other vaccines, I find that the MMR-autism controversy led to a decline in the immediate years and that there were negative spillovers onto other vaccines. I also find evidence that more highly educated mothers responded more strongly to the controversy either by not immunizing their children altogether or, to a lesser degree, delaying vaccination. Moreover, the educational gap was greater in states where there was greater media attention devoted to the controversy. This is consistent with the health allocative efficiency hypothesis whereby part of the education gradient in health outcomes is due to more-educated individuals absorbing and responding to health information more quickly. However, unlike in the United Kingdom, where previous studies find that the gap was eliminated after the link was refuted, the evidence for the United States suggests that the educational gap persisted., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccines have greatly reduced the incidence of these four childhood diseases, which in the past caused a considerable burden of morbidity and lethality to the population. Vaccines against MMR, varicella and a tetravalent MMRV vaccine are currently available on the market to provide immunization against measles-mumps-rubella and varicella. A recently passed Italian Law (L 119/2017) on vaccinations increased the number of free of charge but compulsory vaccinations from four to ten, including MMR and varicella, as a requirement for admission to nursery schools and kindergartens; fines may be levied for non compliance, in the attempt to increase vaccination coverage. The Italian National Immunization Program 2017-19 allows immunization to be administered either by: the trivalent anti-measles-mumps-rubella plus the monovalent anti-varicella vaccine, administered in different anatomic sites at the same session, or by a quadrivalent MMRV combined vaccine.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes immune dysregulation, potentially affecting response to vaccines in infected persons. We investigated if unexpected adverse events (AEs) or unusual patterns of AEs after vaccination were reported among HIV-positive persons. We searched for domestic reports among HIV-positive persons to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) during 1990-2016. We analyzed reports by age group (<19 and ≥19 years), sex, serious or non-serious status, live vaccine type (live versus inactivated), AEs reported, and CD4 counts. Of 532,235 reports received, 353 (0.07%) described HIV-positive persons, of whom 67% were aged ≥19 years, and 57% were male; most reports (75%) were non-serious. The most commonly reported inactivated vaccines were pneumococcal polysaccharide (27%) and inactivated influenza (27%); the mostly reported common live virus vaccines were combination measles, mumps, and rubella (8%) and varicella (6%). Injection site reactions were commonly reported (39%). Of 67 reports with CD4 counts available, 41 (61%) described persons immunocompromised at time of vaccination (CD4 count <500 cells/mm3), and differed from overall reports only in that varicella was the most common live virus vaccine (4 reports). Of 22 reports describing failure to protect against infection, 6 described persons immunocompromised at time of vaccination, among whom varicella vaccine was most common (3 reports). Of 66 reports describing live virus vaccines, 7 described persons with disseminated infection: 6 had disseminated varicella, 3 of whom had vaccine strain varicella-zoster virus. Of 18 reported deaths, 7 resulted from disseminated infection: 6 were among immunocompromised persons, 1 of whom had vaccine strain varicella-zoster virus. We identified no unexpected or unusual patterns of AEs among HIV-positive persons. These data reinforce current vaccine recommendations for this risk group. However, healthcare providers should know their HIV-positive patients' immune status because immunocompromising conditions can potentially increase the risk of rare, but severe, AEs following vaccination with live virus vaccines., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Aim: To evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a reduced antigen diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-inactivated poliovirus (dTap-IPV B ) vaccine (Boostrix-IPV, GSK) as a pre-school booster in 3-4 year old children as compared to dTap-IPV R (Repevax, Sanofi Pasteur), when co-administered with mumps-measles-rubella vaccine (MMRV)., Methods: This phase III, open label, randomised study was conducted in the UK between April 2011 and April 2012. Children due their pre-school dTap-IPV booster vaccination were randomised 2:1 to receive one of two different dTap-IPV vaccines (dTap-IPV B or dTap-IPV R ) with blood sample for immunogenicity assessment just prior and one month after vaccination. Immune responses to diphtheria, tetanus and polio antigens were compared between the study vaccines (inferential comparison). In the absence of an accepted pertussis correlate of protection, the immunogenicity of dTap-IPV B vaccine against pertussis was compared with historical pertussis efficacy data (inferential comparison). Safety and reactogenicity of both study vaccines were evaluated., Results: 387 children were randomised and 385 vaccinated: 255 in the dTap-IPV B group and 130 in the dTap-IPV R group. Prior to vaccination, ≥76.8% of children had anti-diphtheria and ≥65.5% had anti-tetanus titres above the protection threshold; for pertussis, the pre-vaccination seropositivity rate ranged between 18.1 and 70.6%. Both vaccines were immunogenic with 99.2-100% of children achieving titres above the pre-specified seroprotection/seropositivity thresholds. One serious adverse event not considered as causally related to the study vaccination by the study investigator was reported in the dTap-IPV B group., Conclusion: Non-inferiority of dTap-IPV B to dTap-IPV R was demonstrated. Both vaccines had a clinically acceptable safety and reactogenicity profile when co-administered with MMRV to children 3-4 years old., Trial Registration: NCT01245049 (ClinicalTrials.gov)., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The need to develop methods for studying the safety of childhood immunization schedules has been recognized by the Institute of Medicine and Department of Health and Human Services. The recommended childhood immunization schedule includes multiple vaccines in a visit. A key concern is safety of concomitant (same day) versus separate day vaccination. This paper addresses a methodological challenge for observational studies using a self-controlled design to investigate the safety of concomitant vaccination., Methods: We propose a process for distinguishing which of several concomitantly administered vaccines is responsible for increased risk of an adverse event while adjusting for confounding due to relationships between effect modifying risk factors and concomitant vaccine combinations. We illustrate the approach by re-examining the known increase in risk of seizure 7 to 10 days after measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination and evaluating potential independent or modifying effects of other vaccines., Results: Initial analyses suggested that DTaP had both an independent and potentiating effect on seizure. After accounting for the relationship between age at vaccination and vaccine combination, there was little evidence for increased risk of seizure with same day administration of DTaP and MMR; incidence rate ratio, 95% confidence interval 1.2 (0.9-1.6), P value = θ.226., Conclusion: We have shown that when using a self-controlled design to investigate safety of concomitant vaccination, it can be critically important to adjust for time-invariant effect modifying risk factors, such as age at time of vaccination, which are structurally related to vaccination patterns due to recommended immunization schedules., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The study aimed to describe cases and verify the frequency of anaphylaxis related to measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine produced by manufacturer A and to assess associated risk factors. This was a case-control study (1:4) in Santa Catarina State, Brazil, from July 14, 2014, to January 12, 2015, in children from one year to less than five years of age, vaccinated with MMR and reported with anaphylaxis, while the controls were without anaphylaxis. The measure of association was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI), using the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Anaphylaxis rates were calculated per doses distributed/administered. Fifteen cases and 60 controls were interviewed in 12 municipalities (counties). Anaphylaxis rates were 2.46 and 5.05 cases per 100,000 doses distributed and administered, respectively. Among the cases of anaphylaxis, eight (53.4%) were males, and among the controls, 36 (60%), with p = 0.64. The bivariate analysis of anaphylaxis and cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) showed OR = 51.62, with p = 0.00002 and 95%CI: 5.59-476.11. The variables family food allergy, breastfeeding, previous post-vaccine adverse event (PVAE), and simultaneous vaccination were not statistically significant (p = 0.48; p = 1.00; p = 0.49; p = 0.61). Anaphylaxis rates per doses distributed/administered exceeded 1/100,000 doses administered (expected rate). Anaphylaxis and CMPA showed a statistically significant association. No statistically significant associations were found with simultaneous vaccination, breastfeeding, family food allergy, or history of PVAE., Recommendations: the manufacturer should specify the product's components in the package insert, and children with a history of CMPA should not be vaccinated with this vaccine.

Background: We conducted a randomized, non-inferiority, clinical study of MMR vaccine by a disposable-syringe jet injector (DSJI) in toddlers in India in comparison with the conventional administration., Methods: MMR vaccine was administered subcutaneously by DSJI or needle-syringe (N-S) to toddlers (15-18 months) who had received a measles vaccine at 9 months. Seropositivity to measles, mumps, and rubella serum IgG antibodies was assessed 35 days after vaccination. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference in the percent of seropositive between groups was less than 10%. Solicited reactions were collected for 14 days after vaccination by using structured diaries., Results: In each study group, 170 subjects received MMR vaccine. On day 35, seropositivity for measles was 97.5% [95% CI (93.8%, 99.3%)] in the DSJI group and 98.7% [95% CI (95.5%, 99.8%)] in the N-S group; for mumps, 98.8% [95% CI (95.6%, 99.8%)] and 98.7% [95% CI (95.5%, 99.8%)]; and for rubella, 98.8% [95% CI (95.6%, 99.8%)] and 100% [95% CI (97.7%, 100.0%)]; none of the differences were significant. The day 35 post-vaccination GMTs in DSJI and N-S groups were measles: 5.48 IU/ml [95% CI (3.71, 8.11)] and 5.94 IU/ml [95% CI (3.92, 9.01)], mumps: 3.83 ISR [95% CI (3.53, 4.14)] and 3.66 ISR [95% CI (3.39, 3.95)] and rubella: 95.27 IU/ml [95% CI (70.39, 128.95)] and 107.06 IU/ml [95% CI (79.02, 145.06)]; none of the differences were significant. The DSJI group reported 173 solicited local reactions and the N-S group reported 112; most were mild grade. Of the total of 156 solicited systemic adverse events, most were mild, and incidence between the two groups was similar., Conclusions: MMR vaccination via DSJI is as immunogenic as vaccination by N-S. Safety profile of DSJI method is similar to N-S except for injection site reactions which are more with DSJI and are well-tolerated. Registration US National Institutes of Health clinical trials identifier - NCT02253407. Clinical trial registry of India identifier - CTRI/2013/05/003702., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We describe some simple techniques for investigating 2 key assumptions of the self-controlled case series (SCCS) method, namely, that events do not influence subsequent exposures and that events do not influence the length of observation periods. For each assumption, we propose some simple tests based on the standard SCCS model, along with associated graphical displays. The methods also enable the user to investigate the robustness of the results obtained using the standard SCCS model to failure of assumptions. The proposed methods are investigated by simulations and applied to data on measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, and antipsychotics., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Mumps is a Paramyxoviridae virus. This disease was rampant prior to introduction of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, resulting in decreased incidence. This disease has demonstrated several outbreaks., Objective: This review provides a focused evaluation of mumps, an update on outbreaks, management recommendations, and ways to decrease transmission., Discussion: Clusters of mumps outbreaks continue to occur. The virus is a paramyxovirus, a single-stranded RNA virus. The vaccine can provide lifelong immunity if administered properly, though prior to 1967 and introduction of the vaccine, the virus was common. In the past decade, there have been several notable outbreaks. Humans are the only known hosts, with disease spread through exposure to droplets and saliva. Factors affecting transmission include age, compromised immunity, time of year, travel, and vaccination status. Upper respiratory symptoms, fever, and headache are common, with unilateral or bilateral parotitis, and the virus may spread to other systems. Diagnosis is clinical, though polymerase chain reaction and immunoglobulin testing are available. This review provides several recommendations for vaccine in pregnancy, patients living in close quarters, health care personnel, and those immunocompromised. Treatment is generally supportive, with emphasis on proper isolation to prevent widespread outbreaks. Although reporting regulations and procedures vary by state, mumps is reportable in most states., Conclusions: Mumps is an easily spread virus. Although vaccination is the most effective way to prevent transmission, early recognition of the disease is crucial. As an emergency physician, it is important to recognize the clinical presentation, recommended testing, treatment, and isolation procedures., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

MMR vaccination in 6-9 month olds Vaccination against measles using the MMR vaccine is licensed from 9 months of age, but is used off-label from 6 months of age during or when travelling to areas with an ongoing measles outbreak. In this review of the published literature, studies on MMR vaccination in this age group are limited and small in size. Immunogenicity studies indicate that infants under 9 months respond with lower antibody titres but comparable T cell responses against measles. The safety profile of the vaccine does not appear to differ between infants vaccinated earlier or later. Vaccination from 6 months of age should be recommended if the risk of being infected with measles is considered greater than the risk of not attaining full vaccination protection.

New vaccines designed to prevent diseases endemic in low and middle-income countries are being introduced without prior utilization in countries with robust vaccine pharmacovigilance systems. Our aim was to build capacity for active surveillance of vaccine adverse events in the Americas. We describe the implementation of a proof-of-concept study for the feasibility of an international collaborative hospital-based active surveillance system for vaccine safety. The study was developed and implemented in 15 sentinel sites located in seven countries of the region of the Americas, under the umbrella of the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Vaccine Safety Initiative. The study evaluated the associations between measles-mumps-rubella vaccines and two well-recognized adverse events: Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) and aseptic meningitis. The regional network contributed 63 confirmed ITP and 16 confirmed aseptic meningitis eligible cases to the global study, representing, respectively, 33% and 19% of the total cases. To ensure long-term sustainability and usefulness to investigate adverse events following new vaccine introductions in low and middle-income countries, the network needs to be strengthened with additional sites and integrated into national health systems., (Copyright © 2017 Pan American Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The introduction of vaccination programs against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) led to significant global reduction in morbidity and mortality from these diseases. The currently recommended MMR vaccination schedule in the United States of America comprises 2 vaccine doses typically administered at 12-15 months and 4-6 years, respectively. Considering recent outbreaks in the USA, catch-up vaccination with an additional dose of MMR vaccine could contribute to outbreak control and community protection. This phase III, observer-blind, randomized controlled trial (NCT02058563) assessed the immunogenicity and safety of a dose of the MMR-RIT vaccine (Priorix, GSK) compared to MMR II vaccine (control; M-M-R II, Merck&Co Inc.) in ≥7-year-olds who had received ≥1 previous dose of MMR vaccine. We assessed anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti-rubella antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs; primary endpoint) and seroresponse rates (SRRs) at day 42 post-vaccination. Solicited, unsolicited, and serious adverse events (AEs) were recorded. The according-to-protocol cohort for immunogenicity included 869 participants (MMR-RIT: N = 433; MMR II: N = 436). We observed anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti-rubella antibody GMCs of 1790.2 mIU/mL, 113.5 EU/mL, and 76.1 IU/mL, respectively, and SRRs of 98.8%, 98.4%, and 99.5%, respectively, after a dose of MMR-RIT; non-inferiority compared to MMR II was demonstrated. Both vaccines showed comparable reactogenicity profiles; the most common solicited AEs were injection site redness and pain, and fever (MMR-RIT: 12.2%, 11.8%, and 3.0%; MMR II: 11.7%, 11.5%, and 5.2%, respectively). The dose of MMR-RIT induced robust immune responses that were not inferior to those of MMR II, and was well tolerated.

Background: Patients increasingly benefit from immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medications for a range of conditions allowing them a lifestyle similar to healthy individuals, including travel. However, the administration of live vaccines to immunodeficient patients bears the risk of replication of the attenuated vaccine microorganism. Therefore, live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppression. Data on live vaccinations on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory medication are scarce. We identified all travellers seeking pre-travel advice in three Swiss travel clinics with a live vaccine during immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy to ascertain experienced side effects. A retrospective and multi-centre study design was chosen to increase the sample size., Methods: This study was conducted in the travel clinics of the University of Zurich; the Swiss TPH, Basel; and Geneva University Hospitals. Travellers on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy who received live vaccines [yellow fever vaccination (YFV), measles/mumps/rubella (MMR), varicella and/ or oral typhoid vaccination (OTV)] between 2008 and 2015 were identified and interviewed. A total of 60 age- and sex-matched controls (matched to Basel/Zurich travel clinics travellers) were included., Results: Overall, 197 patients were identified. And 116 patients (59%) and 60 controls were interviewed. YFV was administered 92 times, MMR 21 times, varicella 4 times and OTV 6 times to patients on immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy. Most common medications were corticosteroids (n = 45), mesalazine (n = 28) and methotrexate (n = 19). Live vaccines were also administered on biological treatment, e.g. TNF-alpha inhibitors (n = 8). Systemic reactions were observed in 12.2% of the immunosuppressed vs 13.3% of controls; local reactions in 7.8% of the immunosuppressed vs 11.7% of controls. In controls, all reactions were mild/moderate. In the immunosuppressed, 2/21 severe reactions occurred: severe local pain on interferon-beta and severe muscle/joint pain on sulfasalazine., Conclusion: Safety of live vaccines given to immunosuppressed patients cannot be concluded. However, it is re-assuring that in the examined patient groups no serious side effects or infections by the attenuated vaccine strain occurred., (© International Society of Travel Medicine, 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

A quadrivalent MMRV (measles-mumps-rubella-varicella) combination vaccine has recently been launched in India. This vaccine is highly immunogenic, with seroconversion rates against all antigens reaching 96.6-100% at 42 to 56 days after the second vaccine dose in unvaccinated children or in those previously vaccinated with MMR+/-V. Two doses efficacy, against all varicella is 94.1% and effectiveness reaches 91%. The most frequent solicited local adverse event after MMRV vaccine is redness, and fever is the most common solicited general symptom. Higher rates of fever and febrile convulsions compared to MMR+/-V have been reported when used as first dose but not when used as the second of a measles containing vaccine, irrespective of age of the second dose.

Introduction: Near real-time vaccine safety surveillance (NRTVSS) using electronic health records is increasingly used to rapidly detect vaccine safety signals. NRTVSS has not been fully implemented in the UK. We assessed the feasibility of implementing this surveillance using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)., Methods: We selected seasonal influenza vaccine/Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as an example of a rare outcome and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine/febrile seizures as a positive control. For influenza/GBS we implemented a system for the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 influenza seasons; for MMR/seizures the surveillance period was July 2014-June 2015. We used the continuous Poisson-based maximized sequential probability ratio test (PMaxSPRT), comparing observed-to-expected events, for both pairs. We calculated an age-sex-adjusted rate using 5years of historic data and used this rate to calculate the expected number of events in pre-specified post-vaccination risk-window (GBS: 0-42days, seizures: 6-21days). For MMR/seizures we also implemented the system using the Binominal-based maximized sequential probability ratio test (BMaxSPRT). For this, we compared seizures in the risk-window (6-21days) to a control window (0-5 and 22-32days). Delays in recording outcomes influence the data available, so we adjusted the expected number of events using a historical distribution of delays in recording GBS/febrile seizures. Analyses were run using data up to each CPRD monthly release. We also performed power calculations for detecting increases in relative risk (RR) from 1.5 to 10., Results: For influenza/GBS we implemented a system in both seasons with no signal. Power to detect a signal was >80% for RR≥4. For MMR/seizures we were able to identify a signal with PMaxSPRT but not with BMaxSPRT. Power≥80% for RR≥2.5 for both tests., Conclusion: CPRD is a potential data source to implement NRTVSS to exclude large increases in the risk of rare outcomes after seasonal influenza and lower increases in risk for more frequent outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Researchers are trying to build evidence for mhealth effectiveness in various fields. However, no evidence yet is showing the effectiveness of mhealth on parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to recommended vaccination of their children. The aim of this study was to look into the effects of 2 smartphone-based interventions targeting MMR vaccination knowledge and psychological empowerment respectively. The interventions used gamification features and videos in combination with text messages. We conducted a 2x2 between-subject factorial randomized controlled trial (absence/presence of knowledge intervention X absence/presence of empowerment intervention) with parents of young children in Italy. We randomly allocated 201 eligible participants to one of the 4 conditions. Data were collected by questionnaires at baseline and posttest. Primary outcomes were MMR vaccination knowledge, psychological empowerment, risk perception, and preferred decisional role; secondary outcomes included MMR vaccination intention, attitude, confidence, and recommendation intention. A significant gain in vaccination knowledge was reported by all experimental groups compared with the control (F(3,179) = 48.58, p < .000), while only those receiving both interventions reported a significant increase in their psychological empowerment (t(179) = -2.79, p = .006). Participants receiving the intervention targeting knowledge reported significantly higher intention to vaccinate (t(179) = 2.111; p = .03) and higher confidence in the decision (t(179) = 2.76; p = .006) compared with the control group. Parent-centered, gamified mobile interventions aimed at providing parents with vaccination-related information can be used to increase their knowledge, their intention to vaccinate as well as their confidence in the vaccination decision.

Purpose: The risk of post-vaccination adverse events (AEs) is a primary public health concern. Among the AEs, pain is a significant source of anxiety for both children and their parents. This review describes and assesses the intensity of pain experienced by children post-vaccination with widely used Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccines., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane to identify publications describing immediate pain at injection site (primary objective) or pain within days (secondary objective) after 2 specific MMR vaccines. Immediate pain ('acute pain' according to the Brighton Collaboration case definition) was defined as pain occurring at the time or within 5min of injection., Results: Four studies, which compared the intensity of immediate injection site pain experienced by children after MMR vaccination, were identified. Various pain assessment tools and methods were used to quantify the intensity of pain, including the median difference in Visual Analog Scale scores between vaccine groups. All four studies showed significantly less immediate pain caused by Priorix (GSK Vaccines) compared with M-M-R II (Merck & Co., Inc.)., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this review summarizes for the first time the available scientific evidence on the intensity of pain following different MMR vaccines. It highlights that MMR vaccines can differ in terms of immediate pain. Further research may be needed to better understand the underlying reason for this observation. In this context, it is very important to understand which physicochemical properties are most relevant for the immediate pain profile of a vaccine to thereby support the development of vaccines with the best possible immediate pain profile., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Importance: Incorporating combination vaccines, such as the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine, into immunization schedules should be evaluated from a benefit-risk perspective. Use of MMRV vaccine poses challenges due to a recognized increased risk of febrile seizures (FSs) when used as the first dose in the second year of life. Conversely, completion by age 2 years of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella immunization may offer improved disease control., Objective: To evaluate the effect on safety and coverage of earlier (age 18 months) scheduling of MMRV vaccine as the second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) in Australia., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective active sentinel safety surveillance comparing the relative incidence (RI) of FSs in toddlers given MMRV and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and a national cohort study of vaccine coverage rates and timeliness before and after MMRV vaccine introduction were conducted. All Australian children aged 11 to 72 months were included in the coverage analysis, and 1471 Australian children aged 11 to 59 months were included in the FS analysis, with a focus on those aged 11 to 23 months., Main Outcomes and Measures: MMRV vaccine safety, specifically, the RI of FSs after MMRV vaccine at age 18 months, compared with risk following MMR vaccine and vaccine uptake for 2-dose MCV and single-dose varicella vaccine, focusing on timeliness., Results: Of the 1471 children, the median age at first FS was 21 months (interquartile range [IQR], 14-31 months). Three hundred ninety-one children were aged 11 to 23 months and had at least 1 FS included in the analysis; of these, 207 (52.9%) were male. A total of 278 children (71.1%) had received MMR followed by MMRV vaccine, 97 (24.8%) had received MMR vaccine only, and 16 (4.1%) had received neither vaccine. There was no increased risk of FSs (RI, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.55-2.13) in the 5 to 12 days following MMRV vaccine given as the second MCV to toddlers. Febrile seizures occurred after dose 1 of MMR vaccine at a known low increased risk (RI, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.71- 4.29). Following program implementation, 2-dose MCV coverage at age 36 months exceeded that obtained at age 60 months in historical cohorts recommended to receive MMR vaccine before school entry, and on-time vaccination increased by 13.5% (from 58.9% to 72.4%). Despite no change in the scheduled age of varicella vaccine, use of MMRV vaccine was associated with a 4.0% increase in 1-dose varicella vaccine coverage., Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide evidence of the absence of an association between use of MMRV vaccine as the second dose of MCV in toddlers and an increased risk of FSs. Incorporation of MMRV vaccine has facilitated improvements in vaccine coverage that will potentially improve disease control.

1 patient with SSPE at 4 y. He had had measles and measles encephalitis at 7.5 months. In China, the first and the second measles immunizations are recommended at 8 months and at 18-24 months, respectively. We recommend above immunizations should be given separately at 6 months and at 12-15 months.

One combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine without Human Serum Albumin (HSA) is currently licensed in the USA (M-M-R II; Merck, USA) and another has been developed (Priorix™ [MMR-RIT, GSK, Belgium]). In this follow-up study, children from USA or Puerto Rico, who had received one dose of M-M-R II or MMR-RIT at 12-15 months of age in the primary study (NCT00861744), were followed-up for 2 y post-vaccination. Anti-measles and anti-rubella antibodies were measured using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), and anti-mumps antibodies using ELISA and plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) assays. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded during the entire follow-up. The according-to-protocol (ATP) persistence cohort included 752 children (M-M-R II = 186, MMR-RIT = 566), who received primary vaccination at a mean age of 12.3 ( ± 0.67) months. 104 children were revaccinated with MMR-containing vaccines; therefore, serology results for timepoints after revaccination were excluded from the analysis. Seropositivity for measles (Year 1≥ 98.3%; Year 2≥ 99.4%) and rubella (Year 1≥ 98.9%; Year 2 = 100%) remained as high at Year 2 as at Day 42. Similarly, seropositivity for mumps determined by ELISA (Year 1≥ 90.1%; Year 2≥ 94.1%) and PRN assays (Year 1≥ 87.5%; Year 2≥ 91.7%) persisted. Thirty-three SAEs were recorded in 23 children; 2 SAEs (inguinal adenitis and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura) and one SAE (febrile convulsion) were considered as potentially related to MMR-RIT and M-M-R II, respectively. This study showed that antibodies against measles, mumps and rubella persisted for up to 2 y post-vaccination with either MMR vaccine in children aged 12-15 months, and that both vaccines were well-tolerated during the follow-up period.

This phase III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the single-dose and multi-dose formulations of a novel MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) developed by M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited, India (Cadila MMR vaccine), containing the Hoshino mumps strain, compared to that of an existing MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) developed by M/s Serum Institute of India Limited, India (Serum MMR vaccine). These two vaccines have similar measles and rubella strains, but different mumps strains (Hoshino in Cadila MMR vaccine, and L-Zagreb in Serum MMR vaccine). Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects of either sex, aged 15-18 months, were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the Cadila or Serum MMR vaccine. Immunogenicity assessments (IgG antibodies against measles, mumps, and rubella viruses) were done at baseline and 42 d after vaccination. Solicited (local and systemic) and unsolicited adverse events were recorded for up to 42 d following vaccination. The Cadila MMR vaccine was found to be non-inferior to the Serum MMR vaccine in terms of end-of-study proportion of subjects seropositive for anti-measles antibodies (100.0% in both groups), anti-mumps antibodies (94.5% vs. 94.0%), and anti-rubella antibodies (95.5% vs. 91.0%). Both vaccines were well tolerated by all study participants; the most common adverse event reported in both groups was fever, followed by rash. The results of this phase III clinical trial show that the novel Cadila MMR vaccine is non-inferior to the Serum MMR vaccine.

Vaccines are one of the most successful medical advances in modern times. Most vaccine-preventable illnesses are unfamiliar to modern parents. Because of this, parents are increasingly questioning the necessity of immunizing their children, especially because no vaccine is completely free of adverse effects or the risk of complications. Family physicians should be aware of the risks and benefits of recommended immunizations. Thimerosal is currently used only in multidose vials of influenza vaccine, and exposure through vaccines is not associated with adverse neurologic outcomes. The measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine is not associated with autism. Vaccines are associated with local reactions, such as pain and erythema. The rotavirus vaccine minimally increases the rate of intussusception, whereas other vaccines minimally increase the risk of syncope. Although immunization with the human papillomavirus vaccine is recommended for all boys and girls, vaccination rates remain low. Physicians should guide parents to credible resources if they are considering vaccine refusal. If a recommended vaccine is refused, proper documentation is essential. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program track adverse events and allow compensation for documented harms from vaccinations.

Importance: In a previous study on booster vaccination, we reported that two aerosolized MMR vaccines were as safe and immunogenic as injectable vaccines containing the same antigens. We now present results of antibody persistence one year after immunization., Objective: To assess the antibody persistence for measles, mumps, and rubella one year following booster immunization., Methods: We performed clinical and serological follow-up of participants in a previous study of Mexican children aged 6-7years, in which participants were randomized to four groups receiving, by aerosolized or by injection, the MMR SII vaccine (Serum Institute of India), or the MMR II (Merck Sharp & Dhome). We evaluated the antibody persistence by PRN test for measles and by ELISA for rubella and mumps. The occurrence of clinical events was evaluated via periodic visits of a nurse team to children's schools and homes., Results: Of the 260 initial participants, 241 completed one-year follow-up. There were only statistically significant differences in baseline seropositivity for mumps. One year after immunization, seropositivity in all groups was 100% for measles and rubella. The seropositivity rank for mumps was from 90.3% for the injected vaccine MMR II to 96.6% for vaccine MMR SII applied by aerosol; these differences were not statistically significant. With exception of the aerosolized vaccine MMR SII for the geometric mean titer (GMT) for measles, all study groups presented declination of GMT for the three viruses. The difference between the aerosolized vaccines MMR SII and MMR RII was statistically significant for mumps antibodies. Only mild clinical events were identified., Conclusion: Under conditions of no endemic transmission for measles and rubella, and of low circulation of mumps virus, school-aged children remained seropositive to the three viruses one year following booster immunization. The study was registered under CMN 2010-005 number at COFEPRIS (National Regulatory Authority)., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Post-authorisation safety studies (PASS) of vaccines assess or quantify the risk of adverse events following immunisation that were not identified or could not be estimated pre-licensure. The aim of this perspective paper is to describe the authors' experience in the design and conduct of twelve PASS that contributed to the evaluation of the benefit-risk of vaccines in real-world settings. We describe challenges and learnings from selected PASS of rotavirus, malaria, influenza, human papillomavirus and measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccines that assessed or identified potential or theoretical risks, which may lead to changes to risk management plans and/or to label updates. Study settings include the use of large healthcare databases and de novo data collection. PASS methodology is influenced by the background incidence of the outcome of interest, vaccine uptake, availability and quality of data sources, identification of the at-risk population and of suitable comparators, availability of validated case definitions, and the frequent need for case ascertainment in large databases. Challenges include the requirement for valid exposure and outcome data, identification of, and access to, adequate data sources, and mitigating limitations including bias and confounding. Assessing feasibility is becoming a key step to confirm that study objectives can be met in a timely manner. PASS provide critical information for regulators, public health agencies, vaccine manufacturers and ultimately, individuals. Collaborative approaches and synergistic efforts between vaccine manufacturers and key stakeholders, such as regulatory and public health agencies, are needed to facilitate access to data, and to drive optimal study design and implementation, with the aim of generating robust evidence., (Copyright © 2017 GSK Biologicals SA. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to assess whether rubella vaccination immediately after delivery could expose seronegative women to specific untoward effects., Methods: 163 rubella-seronegative women received Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine in the immediate postpartum period; they were evaluated at one month and at three months thereafter through telephone interviews. As controls, we matched 163 rubella-seropositive women, who might experience similar symptoms for any reason in the same timeframe., Results: No relevant difference was still observed in the frequency of arthralgia and myalgia at one and three months. Instead, a statistically significant difference in the frequency of cervical lymphadenopathy and cutaneous rash at one month (p = 0.028 and p = 0.005, respectively), was observed between cases and controls. However, no statistical differences were reported at three months for the same symptoms., Conclusions: Postpartum rubella vaccination with MMR is safe and advisable to avoid congenital rubella syndrome.

Egg allergy is one of the most common food allergies during childhood along with cow's milk allergy. The measles-mumpsrubella (MMR) vaccine is included in the pediatric immunization schedule and contains egg protein. The currently accepted opinion is that the MMR vaccination should be done in a single dose under medical observation in patients with egg allergy. Although it is reported that the MMR vaccine is safe for that patients, there are some patients who developed anaphylaxis. Generally, the development of anaphylaxis after the previous vaccination is reported as a contraindication. We present a successful administration of MMR vaccine by gradually increased doses for a patient who developed anaphylaxis after the previous vaccination., (Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría.)

Background: Live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppressive therapy due to safety concerns. However, data are limited to corroborate this practice., Objectives: To estimate the safety of live vaccinations in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) or solid organ transplantation (SOT) on immunosuppressive treatment and in patients after bone-marrow transplantation (BMT)., Data Sources: A search was conducted in electronic databases (Cochrane, Pubmed, Embase) and additional literature was identified by targeted searches., Eligibility Criteria: Randomized trials, observational studies and case reports., Population: Patients with IMID or SOT on immunosuppressive treatment and BMT patients <2years after transplantation., Intervention/vaccinations Looked at: Live vaccinations: mumps, measles, rubella (MMR), yellow fever (YF), varicella vaccine (VV), herpes zoster (HZ), oral typhoid, oral polio, rotavirus, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), smallpox., Data Extraction: One author performed the data extraction using predefined data fields. It was cross-checked by two other authors., Results: 7305 articles were identified and 64 articles were included: 40 on IMID, 16 on SOT and 8 on BMT patients. In most studies, the administration of live vaccines was safe. However, some serious vaccine-related adverse events occurred. 32 participants developed an infection with the vaccine strain; in most cases the infection was mild. However, in two patients fatal infections were reported: a patient with RA/SLE overlap who started MTX/dexamethasone treatment four days after the YFV developed a yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease (YEL-AVD) and died. The particular vaccine lot was found to be associated with a more than 20 times risk of YEL-AVD. One infant whose mother was under infliximab treatment during pregnancy received the BCG vaccine at the age of three months and developed disseminated BCG infection and died. An immunogenicity assessment was performed in 43 studies. In most cases the patients developed satisfactory seroprotection rates. In the IMID group, YFV and VV demonstrated high seroconversion rates. MTX and tumor necrosis factor inhibitory therapy appeared to reduce immune responses to VV and HZ vaccine, but not to MMR and YF-revaccination. Seroconversion in SOT and BMT patients showed mostly higher rates for rubella than for measles, mumps and varicella., Limitations: Risk of bias was high in the majority of studies since 39 of them were observational and 17 were case series/case reports. Only eight studies were randomized trials. BMT patient numbers included in this review were low., Conclusions: Although live vaccinations were safe and sufficiently immunogenic in most studies, some serious reactions and vaccine-related infections were reported in immunosuppressed IMID and SOT patients. Apart from mild vaccine-related infections MMR and VV vaccines were safe when administered less than two years after BMT., Implications of Key Findings: Until further data are available, live vaccinations under most immunosuppressive treatments should only be administered after a careful risk benefit assessment of medications and dosages., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Institute of Medicine, in a 2013 report, recommended that the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) expand collaborations to include more diversity in the study population. Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO), an established VSD site, partnered with Denver Health (DH), an integrated safety net healthcare system, to demonstrate the feasibility of integrating DH data within the VSD. Prior to incorporating the data, we examined the identification of specific vaccine associated adverse events (VAEs) in these two distinct healthcare systems., Methods: We conducted retrospective cohort analyses within KPCO and DH to compare select VAEs between the two populations. We examined the following associations between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013: Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and febrile seizures in children 2years and younger, intussusception after rotavirus vaccine in infants 4-34weeks, syncope after adolescent vaccines (Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis; Meningococcal and Human Papillomavirus) in adolescents 13-17years and medically attended local reactions after pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPSV23) vaccine in adults 65years and older. Both sites used similar data procurement methods and chart review processes., Results: For seizures after MMR vaccine (KPCO - 3.15vs. DH - 2.97/10,000 doses) and syncope after all adolescent vaccines (KPCO - 3.0vs. DH - 2.37/10,000 doses), the chart confirmed rates were comparable at the two sites. However, for medically attended local reactions after PPSV23, there were differences in chart confirmed rates between the sites (KPCO - 31.65vs. DH - 14.90/10,000 doses). For intussusception after rotavirus vaccine, the number of cases was too low to make a valid comparison (KPCO - 0vs. DH - 0.13/10,000 doses)., Conclusion: We demonstrated that data on important targeted VAEs can be captured at DH and rates appear similar to those at KPCO. Work is ongoing on the optimal approach to assimilate DH data as a potential safety net healthcare system in the VSD., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Question Parents of a 12-month-old boy are bringing their son in to my family practice clinic for his well-baby visit. As the infant is due for his 12-month vaccine series, the parents are concerned after hearing about the association between certain vaccinations and an increased risk of febrile seizures, and are wondering if they should administer prophylactic antipyretics to decrease the risk of febrile seizure. What vaccinations are associated with increased risk of febrile seizure, and is there evidence supporting prophylactic administration of antipyretics to prevent febrile seizures? Answer Vaccinations associated with increased risk of febrile seizure include the following: the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine; the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine; the combined diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, polio, and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine; the whole-cell pertussis vaccine; the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; and concomitant administration of the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine with either the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine. Despite being a higher-risk group, children receiving these vaccinations should not receive prophylactic antipyretics, as no statistically significant reduction in the rate of febrile seizures has been documented, and prophylactic antipyretic use potentially decreases the immune response to certain vaccines., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

There is no published data regarding immunologic response to vaccinations in children with PFAPA syndrome (periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis and cervical adenitis). The aim of this study was to evaluate mumps, measles and rubella immunity in children with PFAPA. 31 children with PFAPA syndrome and 22 healthy children (control group - CG) were recruited to the study. All children were previously vaccinated with one dose of MMR vaccine according to the Polish obligatory vaccination schedule. The patients from both groups were evaluated for anti-measles, anti-mumps and anti-rubella IgG antibodies concentrations (ELISA tests; the reference values for protective antibody levels were 150IU/L, 16RU/L and 11IU/ml respectively). The percentage of patients with protective antibodies levels was as follows: measles - 93.55% of PFAPA and 95.45% of CG patients (p=0.77); mumps - 74.19% of PFAPA and 95.45% of CG patients (p=0.02); rubella - 80.65% of PFAPA and 90.9% of CG patients (p=0.30)., Conclusions: Children with PFAPA syndrome present a good response to the measles and rubella component of the MMR vaccine, however immunity against mumps after one dose of MMR may not be sufficient. Further investigation concerning immunity against vaccine-preventable diseases and the safety of vaccinations in children with periodic fever syndromes is required., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine, whether or not intramuscular injection of diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DwPT) vaccine should be given first and subcutaneous injection of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) thereafter or vice versa and can this cause less pain of DwPT vaccine injection., Methods: In a randomized parallel group clinical trial, seventy 18-mo-old healthy children who were referred for routine vaccination to Akbari Health Care Center, Yazd, Iran from September 2014 through March 2015 were randomly allocated to two groups to receive DwPT and then MMR vaccines or MMR first, and then DwPT. Primary outcomes included pain score during DwPT injection, pain score during MMR injection, overall pain score of vaccination and obtaining a pain score of less than three during DwPT injection. Pain scores were assessed based on Modified Behavioral Pain Scale. Secondary outcome was crying duration during DwPT injection., Results: Thirty seven girls and 33 boys were evaluated in two groups. Pain scores of DwPT and MMR injections, the frequency of pain score obtained to be less than three during DwPT injection and the crying duration were not different in both groups. But, overall pain score of vaccination was lower when subcutaneous injection of MMR vaccine was given before intramuscular injection of DwPT vaccine. (14.23 ± 1.35 vs. 15.61 ± 2.65; P = 0.04)., Conclusions: Overall pain score of vaccination in multiple vaccine injection at the same visit might be reduced if subcutaneous vaccine is injected before intramuscular one.

Background: M-M-RII, a combination measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, was licensed in the United States in 1978 based on data from several clinical trials that demonstrated that the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine were comparable to the component monovalent vaccines and to the previous trivalent combination vaccine., Methods: Safety and immunogenicity data from 23 postlicensure clinical trials conducted with M-M-RII between 1988 and 2009 were summarized. A total of 12,901 children who received only a first dose, 920 children who received a first and second dose and 400 children who received only a second dose were evaluated., Results: The vaccine was generally well tolerated among children who received a first and/or second dose of M-M-RII. During the 28-42-day follow-up after dose 1 and dose 2, the median rate of temperatures ≥102°F (oral equivalent) was 24.8% and 13.0% and the median rate of measles/rubella-like rash was 3.2% and 0.5%, respectively. The median rate of injection-site reactions during the first 5 days postdose 1 and postdose 2 was 17.3% and 42.7%, respectively. The seroconversion rates (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) after dose 1 were remarkably consistent from study to study between 1988 and 2009 (92.8%-100% for measles, 97.7%-100% for mumps and 92.8%-100% for rubella). A trend test showed that there was no change in the immunogenicity of the vaccine over the 21-year period., Conclusions: The results of this analysis demonstrate that M-M-RII is well tolerated and immunogenic. The vaccine performed consistently over 21 years of evaluation in clinical trials.

Introduction: Multiple vaccination visits and administrations can be stressful for infants, parents and healthcare providers. Multivalent combination vaccines can deliver the required number of antigens in fewer injections and clinic visits, while vaccine co-administration can also reduce the number of visits. This non-inferiority study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility of co-administering a combined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine with conjugated meningococcal C (MenC) vaccine in a large cohort of healthy Italian toddlers., Methods: Healthy subjects aged 13-15months were randomized (2:1:1) to receive single doses of either: co-administered MMRV+MenC at the same visit (MMRV+MenC group); or MMRV followed 42days later by MenC (MMRV group); or MenC followed 42days later by MMRV (MenC group). Blood samples were collected before and 43days after vaccination. Antibody titers against MMRV were measured using ELISA. Functional-anti-meningococcal-serogroup activity (rSBAMenC) was assessed using a serum bactericidal test. Solicited local and general reactions were recorded for up to 4 and 42days post-vaccination, respectively. Non-inferiority of MMRV+MenC to MMRV (post-dose-1 seroconversion rates) and MMRV+MenC to MenC (post-dose-1 seroprotection rates) was achieved if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference was ⩾-10% for each antigen., Results: 716 subjects were enrolled in the study. At 42days post-vaccination, the MMRV seroconversion rates were 99.3% (measles), 94.5% (mumps), 100% (rubella) and 99.7% (varicella) in the MMRV+MenC group, and 99.4%, 93.2%, 100% and 100%, respectively, in the MMRV group. The seroprotection rates against rSBA-MenC were 98.3% in the MMRV+MenC group and 99.3% in the MenC group. Non-inferiority was reached for all the vaccine antigens. The safety profiles were as expected for these vaccines., Conclusion: The immune responses elicited by co-administered MMRV+MenC were non-inferior to those elicited by MMRV or MenC alone and support vaccination of children with both vaccines at a single visit., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01506193., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Vaccination against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella is recommended for all children in the US. Limitations manufacturing Oka/Merck strain varicella-zoster virus have hampered the availability of the combination vaccine (MMRV) against these 4 viruses, which drove the need to investigate an alternative manufacturing process. Healthy children 12-to-23 months of age at 71 US sites were randomized (1:1) to receive MMRV manufactured using an alternative process (MMRV AMP ) or the currently licensed MMRV. Subjects received 2 0.5 mL doses 3 months apart. Sera were collected before and 6 weeks after Dose-1. Adverse experiences (AEs) were collected for 42 d after each dose and serious AEs and events of special interest for 180 d after Dose-2. Overall, 706 subjects were randomized to MMRV AMP and 706 to MMRV and 698 and 702 received at least 1 dose of study vaccine, respectively. The risk difference in response rates and geometric mean concentrations of antibody to measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella viruses 6 weeks after Dose-1 met non-inferiority criteria for MMRV AMP versus, MMRV. Response rates met acceptability criteria for each virus, and the seroconversion rate to varicella-zoster virus was 99.5% in both groups. Vaccine-related AEs were mostly mild-to-moderate in intensity and somewhat more common after MMRV AMP . Febrile seizures occurred at similar rates in both groups during the first 42 d after each vaccine dose. MMRV AMP is non-inferior to MMRV and represents an important advancement in maintaining an adequate supply of vaccines against these diseases.

Although there is considerable interest in adverse events observed in clinical trials, projecting adverse event incidence rates in an extended period can be of interest when the trial duration is limited compared to clinical practice. A naïve method for making projections might involve modeling the observed rates into the future for each adverse event. However, such an approach overlooks the information that can be borrowed across all the adverse event data. We propose a method that weights each projection using a shrinkage factor; the adverse event-specific shrinkage is a probability, based on empirical Bayes methodology, estimated from all the adverse event data, reflecting evidence in support of the null or non-null hypotheses. Also proposed is a technique to estimate the proportion of true nulls, called the common area under the density curves, which is a critical step in arriving at the shrinkage factor. The performance of the method is evaluated by projecting from interim data and then comparing the projected results with observed results. The method is illustrated on two data sets., (© The Author(s) 2013.)

An article published in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield in The Lancet (volume 351, pages 637-641) led to concerns surrounding the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, by associating it with an increased risk of autism. The paper was later retracted after multiple epidemiological studies failed to find any association, but a substantial decrease in UK vaccination rates was observed in the years following publication. This paper proposes a novel spatio-temporal Bayesian hierarchical model with accompanying software (the R package CARBayesST) to simultaneously address three key epidemiological questions about vaccination rates: (i) what impact did the controversy have on the overall temporal trend in vaccination rates in Scotland; (ii) did the magnitude of the spatial inequality in measles susceptibility in Scotland increase due to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination scare; and (iii) are there any covariate effects, such as deprivation, that impacted on measles susceptibility in Scotland. The efficacy of the model is tested by simulation, before being applied to measles susceptibility data in Scotland among a series of cohorts of children who were aged 2.5-4.5, in September of the years 1998 to 2014., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Background: In the United States, measles is resurging, with more than 700 confirmed cases since January 2014. During measles outbreaks, vaccination as early as at 6 months of age is sometimes recommended for infants who are at risk for exposure., Methods: We searched the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for reports of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine combined or measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine combined vaccination in children less than 9 months of age. We performed a clinical assessment of each report and summarized the frequency, range, onset time and severity of adverse events., Results: After excluding 346 reports because they were duplicates or because they contained insufficient information about the child's age or vaccine(s), we retained 204 reports in the analysis, including 35 (17%) that were serious. Among the 169 nonserious reports, more than half (88; 52%) described a vaccination error without any adverse event per se. Other nonserious reports described fever, injection reactions and gastrointestinal symptoms. Serious adverse events included developmental disorders, fever and fussiness. There were 44 reports of fever, but only 4 cases began 5-12 days after immunization, the peak risk window. The vast majority of fever reports listed concomitant vaccines, such as diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, acellular or whole-cell pertussis vaccine., Conclusions: This review did not identify any major safety concerns. These findings may facilitate discussions about the risks and benefits of vaccinating infants who are potentially exposed to this life-threatening disease.

Background: Henoch-Schönlein purpura (HSP) is the most common vasculitis in childhood; nevertheless, its etiology and pathogenesis remain unknown despite the fact that a variety of factors, mainly infectious agents, drugs and vaccines have been suggested as triggers for the disease. The aim of this study was to estimate the association of HSP with drug and vaccine administration in a pediatric population., Methods: An active surveillance on drug and vaccine safety in children is ongoing in 11 clinical centers in Italy. All children hospitalized through the local Paediatric Emergency Department for selected acute clinical conditions of interest were enrolled in the study. Data on drug and vaccine use in children before the onset of symptoms leading to hospitalization were collected by parents interview. A case-control design was applied for risk estimates: exposure in children with HSP, included as cases, was compared with similar exposure in children with gastroduodenal lesions, enrolled as controls. HSP cases were validated according to EULAR/PRINTO/PRES criteria. Validation was conducted retrieving data from individual patient clinical record., Results: During the study period (November 1999-April 2013), 288 cases and 617 controls were included. No increased risk of HSP was estimated for any drug. Among vaccines, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine showed an increased risk of HSP (OR 3.4; 95 % CI 1.2-10.0)., Conclusions: This study provides further evidence on the possible role of MMR vaccine in HSP occurrence.

Background: In 2013-2014, a measles outbreak spread through the Netherlands. To protect young infants, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination was offered to those aged 6-14 months in municipalities with routine first-dose MMR vaccine coverage of <90%. We assessed the tolerability of this early administration of MMR vaccine., Methods: After study entry (n = 1866), parents of eligible infants (n = 10 097) completed a questionnaire (n = 1304). For infants who received an early MMR vaccine dose (n = 962), we asked for information about adverse events (AEs) associated with the dose. AE frequencies were compared between infants aged 6-8, 9-11, and 12-14 months. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed the association between the risk of AEs and age at early MMR vaccination., Results: The response rate was 13%. Parents of 59 infants (6.1%) and 350 infants (36.4%) who received early MMR vaccination reported local and systemic AEs, respectively. Parents of infants vaccinated at 6-8 months of age reported systemic AEs less frequently (32%) than parents of children vaccinated at 9-11 months (45%) and 12-14 months (43%) of age (P= <.001). For local AEs, there were no differences (5%, 7%, and 10%, respectively;P= .08). Compared with vaccination at 6 months, all older infants except those aged 14 months showed an increased risk for any AE and for systemic AEs starting 5-12 days after vaccination., Conclusions: Early MMR vaccination is well tolerated, with the lowest AE frequencies found in infants aged 6-8 months. It is a safe intervention for protecting young infants against measles., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: After the global implementation of national immunization programs for prevention of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), the prevalences of protective antibodies to these viruses are high in general population. However, there are limited data among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 infected individuals. This study aimed to determine the seroprevalence of antibodies to these viruses, and the serologic responses after vaccination among HIV-infected adults in Northern Thailand., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 500 HIV-infected adults, aged 20-59 years, receiving combination antiretroviral therapy, CD4 cell count ≥200 cells/mm(3), and plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL, and 132 HIV-uninfected controls, aged 20-59 years, at Chiang Mai University Hospital during July and August 2011. Prevalences of protective antibodies to these viruses as well as serologic responses after MMR vaccination in those without protective antibody to at least one of the three viruses were compared between groups., Results: The prevalences of protective antibodies to measles, mumps, and rubella were 94.2, 55.0, and 84.6 % among HIV-infected adults, and 97.7, 67.5, and 89.4 % among HIV-uninfected controls, respectively. The prevalence of protective antibody to mumps was significantly lower in HIV-infected adults (p-value = 0.010). MMR vaccination was done in 249 HIV-infected and 46 HIV-uninfected controls; at week 8 to 12 after vaccination, the seroprotective rates against measles, mumps, and rubella in HIV-infected adults were 96.4, 70.7, and 98.0 %, respectively, whereas those in HIV-uninfected controls were 100, 87, and 100 %, respectively. No serious adverse effects were observed., Conclusions: In contrast to measles and rubella, the prevalence of protective antibody to mumps was low in both HIV-infected adults and HIV-uninfected controls in northern Thailand. The seroprotective rates after MMR vaccination in both groups were considerably high, except only for mumps. Therefore, MMR vaccination should be considered in all HIV-infected adults receiving antiretroviral therapy with undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count ≥200 cells/mm(3)., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02724852 , registered on March 31, 2016.

Vaccines and extended vaccination programs have had an extensive impact on morbidity and mortality rates due to infectious diseases. Because of the continuous and extensive use of vaccines in industrialized countries, many infectious diseases such as poliomyelitis, diphtheria and measles have been reduced to near-extinction. However, in recent years, many countries including the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Belgium, have been confronted with a resurgence of mumps and pertussis, despite high vaccination coverage for both vaccines. In this commentary, possible causes of this resurgence will be discussed, such as the occurrence of adapted microbes, failure to vaccinate and primary and secondary vaccine failure. Additional research of the immunological mechanisms is clearly needed to support the development of possible new and more immunogenic vaccines against mumps and pertussis. Meanwhile, extensive vaccination campaigns with both vaccines remain necessary.