Prevention of varicella: time for two-dose vaccination

Explore the optimal timing for administering the second dose of the varicella vaccine in China

The prevalence of varicella in China has been increasing annually, with a relatively high incidence rate of breakthrough cases. Administering two doses of the varicella vaccine (Varv) proves to be the most effective measure. The objective of this study is to assess the immunogenicity of two doses of the Varv at varying intervals and explore the optimal timing for administering the second dose of the Varv. Utilizing a prospective cohort study design, the quantification of varicella immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies' geometric mean concentrations (GMC) is conducted through glycoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA). A total of 903 infants were included in the per-protocol population. After completing the first dose of the Varv, the GMC of antibody after 1 month (Group A) was 463.8 (447.6-480.1) mIU/mL. There was a statistically significant difference in GMC and seroconversion rates among the groups (B/C/D) that received the second dose of the Varv (p < 0.05). Multiple comparisons revealed that the group with a 3-year interval between the two vaccine doses had a higher GMC of 665.2 (622.6-707.8) mIU/mL compared to the group with a 1-year interval of 611.1 (577.1-645.3) mIU/mL and the group with a 5-year interval of 564.7 (540.1-589.4) mIU/mL. To effectively prevent and control the varicella epidemic in Jiangsu Province, two dose Varv vaccination is recommended, the optimal time point for the second dose Varv is 3 years after the first vaccination.

Post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent varicella in immunocompromised children

Background

Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) infection can cause life-threatening events in immunocompromised patients. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is required to prevent secondary VZV infection. Limited evidence is available for the use of acyclovir (ACV)/valacyclovir (VCV) as PEP.

Methods

Herein, we retrospectively analyzed immunocompromised paediatric patients with significant exposure to VZV. Patients administered PEP were categorized into four groups: 1) ACV/VCV group; 2) intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) group; 3) ACV/VCV/IVIG group; 4) vaccine group.

Results

Among 69 exposure events, 107 patients were administered PEP (91, ACV/VCV; 16, ACV/VCV/IVIG) and 10 patients did not receive PEP (non-PEP group). The index case was diagnosed based on clinical symptoms in 55 cases (79.7%). Fourteen cases (20.3%) were confirmed using direct virological diagnostic procedures. In the PEP group, only 2 patients (2.2%) developed secondary VZV infections. Additionally, 2 patients in the non-PEP group (20.0%) developed secondary VZV infection. The incidence of secondary VZV infection was significantly lower in the PEP group than in the non-PEP group (P=0.036). Among patients administered PEP, no antiviral drug-induced side effects were detected.

Conclusions

Antiviral agents administered as PEP are effective and safe for preventing VZV infections in immunocompromised patients. Rapid virological diagnosis of index cases might allow efficient administration of PEP after significant exposure to VZV infection.

A randomized trial assessing the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of vaccination with live attenuated varicella zoster virus-containing vaccines: ten-year follow-up in Russian children

In Russia, a universal varicella vaccination (UVV) program has not been implemented, and varicella vaccination coverage is low. We assessed the efficacy, antibody persistence, and safety of one- and two-dose varicella vaccination schedules in Russian children with a ten-year follow-up period, as part of an international phase IIIB, observer-blind, randomized, controlled trial (NCT00226499). Children aged 12-22 months were randomized (3:3:1) to receive two doses of tetravalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine (V2 group), one dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and one dose of varicella vaccine (V1 group), or two doses of MMR vaccine (V0 [control] group), 42 days apart. Main study outcomes were: vaccine efficacy (VE) against confirmed varicella cases, anti-varicella zoster virus (VZV) seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations, and reporting of (serious) adverse events ([S]AEs). The total vaccinated cohort in Russia comprised 1000 children; 900 were followed up until study end (year [Y] 10). VE estimates against confirmed varicella (Y10) were 92.4% in the V2 group and 74.7% in the V1 group. Anti-VZV seropositivity rates remained ≥99.4% in the V2 group and ≥89.7% in the V1 group from day 42 post-vaccination 2 until Y10. Occurrence of (un)solicited AEs and SAEs was similar across groups and confirmed the safety profile of the vaccines. No vaccination-related SAEs or deaths were reported. These results are consistent with the global trial results, i.e., the highest VE estimates observed following the two-dose schedule compared to the one-dose schedule. These data may inform decision-making related to potential implementation of a UVV program.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with breakthrough varicella during varicella outbreaks

BACKGROUND

Although a varicella vaccine has been available in China since 1998 in the private sector, varicella outbreaks and breakthrough varicella (BV) still occur. In 2018, four varicella outbreaks with high BV rate sequentially occurred in four schools in Lu'an, sparking local public health authority's concerns on the varicella vaccine. Therefore, we conducted this investigation to evaluate varicella vaccine effectiveness (VE), characterize BV, and detect potential risk factors associated with BV.

METHODS

This was a three-stage study. First, a retrospective cohort study was done in each school to estimate the VEs of varicella vaccine  during outbreaks. Second, a descriptive epidemiological method was used to describe the characteristics of the four outbreaks and to compare the clinical characteristics between the BV cases and unvaccinated varicella cases. To identify the risk factors associated with BV, we conducted an unmatched case-control study in the third stage of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 199 cases were identified among four outbreaks, and the overall attack rate was 14%. Of 1203 students with available vaccination information, 822 (68%) were vaccinated at least once. The overall VEs among four outbreaks ranged from 19% to 69%, whereas the VE against moderate or severe varicella ranged from 74% to 90%. Compared with unvaccinated varicella cases, the moderate or severe varicella (p < .001) and fever (p = .029) in the BV group were less common. Besides, BV cases had a shorter duration of disease (p = .007). Children vaccinated more than six years before the outbreak had a higher risk of developing BV compared with those vaccinated within the past six years (OR = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.2-4.8). The risk of developing BV differed by the exposure intensity. Compared with the presence of three or fewer varicella cases in the same class, the OR was 7.8 (95% CI: 3.6-16.9) for four to nine cases in the same class and 25.2 (95% CI: 13.5 -47.2) for that of 10 or more cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall VE was insufficient to protect varicella infection, and the VE for moderate or severe varicella was only moderate. The manifestations of BV cases were generally milder than those seen in natural varicella infection. The time since vaccination and the intensity of exposure are risk factors for developing BV during an outbreak.

Varicella vaccine effectiveness over 10 years in Australia; moderate protection from 1-dose program

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of Australia's single dose infant varicella vaccination program, we assessed single dose varicella vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing hospitalised disease using two methods.

METHODS

Clinically confirmed varicella cases from the Paediatric Active Enhanced Disease Surveillance (PAEDS) sentinel network were age-matched to 20 controls obtained from the Australian Immunisation Register. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate VE and compared with estimates obtained using our second approach.

RESULTS

There were 78 hospitalised varicella cases during the post vaccine introduction period from January 2008 to December 2015, who were eligible for funded varicella vaccination. Median age at onset was 4.5 years and more than half (59%) were vaccinated. The majority of children received one vaccine brand (Varilrix, GSK). The estimated case-control VE for one dose of vaccine against hospitalised varicella was 64.7% (95% CI: 43.3-78.0%); estimates using the screening method were not significantly different. Exclusion of children who were immunocompromised did not significantly alter VE estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Australia's program has impacted on the burden of varicella disease, single dose VE against varicella hospitalisation is only moderate. Greater reductions in varicella disease could potentially be achieved by incorporation of a second vaccine dose into the program to minimise breakthrough disease and interrupt virus circulation.

Immunogenicity and safety of different schedules of 2-dose varicella vaccination in China

We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of different time intervals for a second dose of varicella vaccine in children in Zhejiang Province, China. Participants had all received a first dose of varicella vaccine and were assigned to 4 groups according to age (2-7 years). A second dose of live attenuated varicella vaccine was administered 1 month, 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years after the first. A serology assay was conducted and fluorescent-antibody-to-membrane-antigen test performed to measure the antibody titers against varicella before and approximately 30 days after the second dose. Of 1,078 participants, most tolerated the second dose well. Age at first dose did not affect the response to vaccination. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) significantly differed between group 1 and all other groups, both before and after the second vaccination. The GMT for group 1 was higher than those for the other 3 groups prior to the second vaccination (GMT = 20.52, 14.68, 12.49, 12.29, respectively, p < 0.001 for all), while the opposite was true after the second vaccination (GMT = 51.14, 83.37, 85.01, 81.83, respectively, p < 0.001 for all). There was no significant difference in seropositive rate among the 4 groups prior to the second vaccination (p = 0.093), and these rates were all 100% after the second vaccination. The vaccine was well tolerated in healthy children, regardless of the timing of the second dose. GMTs showed a particularly high boost after the second dose when the interval between doses was more than 1 year.

An evaluation of voluntary 2-dose varicella vaccination coverage in New York City public schools

OBJECTIVES

We assessed coverage for 2-dose varicella vaccination, which is not required for school entry, among New York City public school students and examined characteristics associated with receipt of 2 doses.

METHODS

We measured receipt of either at least 1 or 2 doses of varicella vaccine among students aged 4 years and older in a sample of 336 public schools (n = 223 864 students) during the 2010 to 2011 school year. Data came from merged student vaccination records from 2 administrative data systems. We conducted multivariable regression to assess associations of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and school location with 2-dose prevalence.

RESULTS

Coverage with at least 1 varicella dose was 96.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 96.2%, 96.3%); coverage with at least 2 doses was 64.8% (95% CI = 64.6%, 64.9%). Increasing student age, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, and attendance at school in Staten Island were associated with lower 2-dose coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-dose varicella vaccine requirement for school entry would likely improve 2-dose coverage, eliminate coverage disparities, and prevent disease.