1
|
Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Marchione P, Debalini MG, Demicheli V. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 11:CD004407. [PMID: 34806766 PMCID: PMC8607336 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004407.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella, using a vaccine with the BRD2 strain which is only used in China, is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Di Pietrantonj
- Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI, Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL, Alessandria, Italy
| | - Alessandro Rivetti
- Dipartimento di Prevenzione - S.Pre.S.A.L, ASL CN2 Alba Bra, Alba, Italy
| | - Pasquale Marchione
- Signal Management Unit, Post-Marketing Surveillance Department, Italian Medicine Agency - AIFA, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Vittorio Demicheli
- Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI, Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL, Alessandria, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Marchione P, Debalini MG, Demicheli V. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 4:CD004407. [PMID: 32309885 PMCID: PMC7169657 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004407.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Di Pietrantonj
- Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL, Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI, Via Venezia 6, Alessandria, Italy, 15121
| | - Alessandro Rivetti
- ASL CN2 Alba Bra, Dipartimento di Prevenzione - S.Pre.S.A.L, Via Vida 10, Alba, Piemonte, Italy, 12051
| | - Pasquale Marchione
- Italian Medicine Agency - AIFA, Signal Management Unit, Post-Marketing Surveillance Department, Via del Tritone 181, Rome, Italy, 00187
| | | | - Vittorio Demicheli
- Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL, Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI, Via Venezia 6, Alessandria, Italy, 15121
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Westphal DW, Williams SA, Leeb A, Effler PV. Continuous active surveillance of adverse events following immunisation using SMS technology. Vaccine 2016; 34:3350-5. [PMID: 27206385 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2016] [Revised: 05/05/2016] [Accepted: 05/06/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION On-going post-licensure surveillance of adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) is critical to detecting and responding to potentially serious adverse events in a timely manner. SmartVax is a vaccine safety monitoring tool that uses automated data extraction from existing practice management software and short message service (SMS) technology to follow-up vaccinees in real-time. We report on childhood vaccine safety surveillance using SmartVax at a medical practice in Perth, Western Australia. METHODS Parents of all children under age five years who were vaccinated according to the Australian National Immunisation Schedule between November 2011 and June 2015 were sent an SMS three days post administration to enquire whether the child had experienced a suspected vaccine reaction. Affirmative replies triggered a follow-up SMS requesting details of the reaction(s) via a link to a survey that could be completed using a smartphone or the web. Rates of reported AEFI including fever, headache, fatigue, rash, vomiting, diarrhoea, rigours, seizures, and local reactions were calculated by vaccination time point. RESULTS Overall, 239 (8.2%; 95% CI 7.2-9.2%) possible vaccine reactions were reported for 2897 vaccination visits over the 44 month time period. The proportion of children experiencing a possible AEFI, mostly local reactions, was significantly greater following administration of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-poliomyelitis vaccine at 4 years of age (77/441; 17.5%; 95% CI 13.9-21.0%) compared to the vaccinations given at 2-18 months (p<0.001). Across all time points, local reactions and fatigue were the most frequently reported AEFI. CONCLUSION Automated SMS-based reporting can facilitate sustainable, real-time, monitoring of adverse reactions and contribute to early identification of potential vaccine safety issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Darren W Westphal
- Communicable Disease Control Directorate, Public Health Division, Western Australian Department of Health, Perth, WA, Australia; Westfarmer's Centre for Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia; National Centre of Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, ACT, Australia.
| | - Stephanie A Williams
- National Centre of Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, ACT, Australia
| | - Alan Leeb
- Illawarra Medical Centre, Ballajura, WA, Australia
| | - Paul V Effler
- Communicable Disease Control Directorate, Public Health Division, Western Australian Department of Health, Perth, WA, Australia; School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To assure the highest safety of immunization programs, detect adverse events following immunization (AEFIs), eliminate concerns, and reduce the risk of low vaccination coverage, authorities in industrialized countries have collected years of reports of suspected AEFIs and have systematically assessed their clinical importance. AREAS COVERED In this paper, the methods used to assess vaccine safety and the results obtained by the analysis of reports, studies, and meta-analyses are discussed. EXPERT OPINION Severe AEFIs are rare, and all evaluations of safety of vaccines recommended for both children and adults have demonstrated that the advantages of vaccines are always significantly higher than the problems that they cause, and there is no need to modify recommendations. However, the definition of AEFI is dependent on the vaccines themselves, complicating the definition of an AEFI and explaining why doubts and concerns have been raised. Presently, disease epidemiology data collected in healthy people and in subjects with underlying disease, general vaccine coverage, and the vaccination status of subjects with AEFIs are managed by many independent institutions. Only strict co-operation between these institutions will lead to the successful identification of AEFIs and to a reduction of the weight of anti-vaccine arguments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Principi
- a Pediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation , Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico , Milan , Italy
| | - Susanna Esposito
- a Pediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation , Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico , Milan , Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
The Vaccine Safety Datalink: successes and challenges monitoring vaccine safety. Vaccine 2014; 32:5390-8. [PMID: 25108215 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.07.073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 163] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2014] [Revised: 07/08/2014] [Accepted: 07/21/2014] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) is a collaborative project between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and 9 health care organizations. Established in 1990, VSD is a vital resource informing policy makers and the public about the safety of vaccines used in the United States. Large linked databases are used to identify and evaluate adverse events in over 9 million individuals annually. VSD generates rapid, important safety assessments for both routine vaccinations and emergency vaccination campaigns. VSD monitors safety of seasonal influenza vaccines in near-real time, and provided essential information on the safety of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine during the recent pandemic. VSD investigators have published important studies demonstrating that childhood vaccines are not associated with autism or other developmental disabilities. VSD prioritizes evaluation of new vaccines; searches for possible unusual health events after vaccination; monitors vaccine safety in pregnant women; and has pioneered development of biostatistical research methods.
Collapse
|
6
|
Maurer W, Seeber L, Rundblad G, Kochhar S, Trusko B, Kisler B, Kush R, Rath B. Standardization and simplification of vaccination records. Expert Rev Vaccines 2014; 13:545-59. [DOI: 10.1586/14760584.2014.892833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
7
|
Demicheli V, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2013. [DOI: 10.1002/ebch.1948] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
8
|
|
9
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) are serious diseases that can lead to potentially fatal illness, disability and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects associated with the MMR vaccine in children up to 15 years of age. SEARCH METHODS For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, PubMed (July 2004 to May week 2, 2011) and Embase.com (July 2004 to May 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA We used comparative prospective or retrospective trials assessing the effects of the MMR vaccine compared to placebo, do nothing or a combination of measles, mumps and rubella antigens on healthy individuals up to 15 years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of the included studies. One review author arbitrated in case of disagreement. MAIN RESULTS We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies, five time-series trials, one case cross-over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children and assessing effectiveness and safety of MMR vaccine. Based on the available evidence, one MMR vaccine dose is at least 95% effective in preventing clinical measles and 92% effective in preventing secondary cases among household contacts.Effectiveness of at least one dose of MMR in preventing clinical mumps in children is estimated to be between 69% and 81% for the vaccine prepared with Jeryl Lynn mumps strain and between 70% and 75% for the vaccine containing the Urabe strain. Vaccination with MMR containing the Urabe strain has demonstrated to be 73% effective in preventing secondary mumps cases. Effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR in preventing laboratory-confirmed mumps cases in children and adolescents was estimated to be between 64% to 66% for one dose and 83% to 88% for two vaccine doses. We did not identify any studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR in preventing rubella.The highest risk of association with aseptic meningitis was observed within the third week after immunisation with Urabe-containing MMR (risk ratio (RR) 14.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 7.93 to 25.71) and within the third (RR 22.5; 95% CI 11.8 to 42.9) or fifth (RR 15.6; 95% CI 10.3 to 24.2) weeks after immunisation with the vaccine prepared with the Leningrad-Zagreb strain. A significant risk of association with febrile seizures and MMR exposure during the two previous weeks (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) was assessed in one large person-time cohort study involving 537,171 children aged between three months and five year of age. Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine. An increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR immunisation in children aged 12 to 23 months was assessed in one case-control study (RR 6.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 30.1) and in one small self controlled case series (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 5.38; 95% CI 2.72 to 10.62). Increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR exposure was also assessed in one other case-control study involving 2311 children and adolescents between one month and 18 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7). Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vittorio Demicheli
- Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l’Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI - Cochrane Vaccines Field, Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL,Alessandria, Italy.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Baggs J, Gee J, Lewis E, Fowler G, Benson P, Lieu T, Naleway A, Klein NP, Baxter R, Belongia E, Glanz J, Hambidge SJ, Jacobsen SJ, Jackson L, Nordin J, Weintraub E. The Vaccine Safety Datalink: a model for monitoring immunization safety. Pediatrics 2011; 127 Suppl 1:S45-53. [PMID: 21502240 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-1722h] [Citation(s) in RCA: 218] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) project is a collaborative project between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 8 managed care organizations (MCOs) in the United States. Established in 1990 to conduct postmarketing evaluations of vaccine safety, the project has created an infrastructure that allows for high-quality research and surveillance. The 8 participating MCOs comprise a large population of 8.8 million members annually (3% of the US population), which enables researchers to conduct studies that assess adverse events after immunization. Each MCO prepares computerized data files by using a standardized data dictionary containing demographic and medical information on its members, such as age and gender, health plan enrollment, vaccinations, hospitalizations, outpatient clinic visits, emergency department visits, urgent care visits, and mortality data, as well as additional birth information (eg, birth weight) when available. Other information sources, such as medical chart review, member surveys, and pharmacy, laboratory, and radiology data, are often used in VSD studies to validate outcomes and vaccination data. Since 2000, the VSD has undergone significant changes including an increase in the number of participating MCOs and enrolled population, changes in data-collection procedures, the creation of near real-time data files, and the development of near real-time postmarketing surveillance for newly licensed vaccines or changes in vaccine recommendations. Recognized as an important resource in vaccine safety, the VSD is working toward increasing transparency through data-sharing and external input. With its recent enhancements, the VSD provides scientific expertise, continues to develop innovative approaches for vaccine-safety research, and may serve as a model for other patient safety collaborative research projects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Baggs
- Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Mail Stop D25, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Salmon DA, Pan WK, Omer SB, Navar AM, Orenstein W, Marcuse EK, Taylor J, deHart MP, Stokley S, Carter T, Halsey NA. Vaccine knowledge and practices of primary care providers of exempt vs. vaccinated children. HUMAN VACCINES 2008; 4:286-91. [PMID: 18424918 PMCID: PMC5833987 DOI: 10.4161/hv.4.4.5752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Compare vaccine knowledge, attitudes and practices of primary care providers for fully vaccinated children and children who are exempt from school immunization requirements. METHODS We conducted a mailed survey of parent-identified primary care providers from four states to measure perceived risks and benefits of vaccination and other key immunization beliefs. Frequencies of responses were stratified by type of provider, identified by exempt versus vaccinated children. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for responses by provider type. RESULTS 551 surveys were completed (84.3% response rate). Providers for exempt children had similar attitudes to providers for non-exempt children. However, there were statistically significant increased concerns among providers for exempt children regarding vaccine safety and lack of perceived individual and community benefits for vaccines compared to other providers. CONCLUSIONS The great majority of providers for exempt children had similar attitudes about vaccine safety, effectiveness and benefits as providers of non-exempt children. Although providers for exempt children were more likely to believe that multiple vaccines weaken a child's immune system and were concerned about vaccine safety and less likely to consider vaccines were beneficial, a substantial proportion of providers of both exempt and vaccinated children have concerns about vaccine safety and believe that CDC underestimates the frequency of vaccine side effects. Effective continuing education of providers about the risks and benefits of immunization and including in vaccine recommendations more information on pre and post licensing vaccine safety evaluations may help address these concerns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel A. Salmon
- Institute for Vaccine Safety; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Baltimore, Maryland USA
- Department of International Health; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Baltimore, Maryland USA
| | - William K.Y. Pan
- Department of International Health; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Baltimore, Maryland USA
| | - Saad B. Omer
- Institute for Vaccine Safety; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Baltimore, Maryland USA
- Department of International Health; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Baltimore, Maryland USA
| | - Ann Marie Navar
- Department of International Health; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Baltimore, Maryland USA
- Duke University; School of Medicine; Durham, North Carolina USA
| | | | | | - James Taylor
- University of Washington; Child Health Institute; Seattle, Washington USA
| | - M. Patricia deHart
- Washington State Department of Health; Immunization Program; Olympia, Washington USA
| | - Shannon Stokley
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; Atlanta, Georgia USA
| | - Terrell Carter
- The PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; Seattle, Washington USA
| | - Neal A. Halsey
- Institute for Vaccine Safety; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Baltimore, Maryland USA
- Department of International Health; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Baltimore, Maryland USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
|
13
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the dangers of vaccine-preventable infections and efforts by health care professionals to promote immunization, parents' resistance to routine childhood immunizations continues to grow. This phenomenon can give rise to frustration among health care providers, as well as create barriers in providing medical care to children in need. In response, we developed a CD-ROM-based tutorial that (1) explains the nature and origins of parents' concerns, (2) addresses clinical implications of resistance to immunization, (3) explores ethical and professional obligations that physicians have toward children and their parents, and (4) discusses how physicians can effectively address parents' concerns. OBJECTIVE Our goals were to evaluate the tutorial's effectiveness in improving physicians' (1) general knowledge about parents' resistance to childhood immunizations, (2) knowledge of adverse effects of immunization, and (3) attitudes toward parents' resistance to childhood immunization. DESIGN/METHODS After pretesting, expert review, and revision, the 45-minute Penn State Immunization Project tutorial was pilot tested with pediatric and family medicine residents at 7 training programs in 4 states (Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Iowa). Knowledge and attitudes were assessed by using a 26-item pretest/posttest, the results of which were then analyzed by using standard statistical methods. RESULTS A total of 122 residents completed the pretest/posttest. Statistically and clinically significant improvements were seen in residents' general knowledge, knowledge of adverse events, and all 5 attitudinal measures regarding childhood immunizations. CONCLUSIONS The tutorial Addressing Parents Concerns About Childhood Immunizations: A Tutorial for Primary Care Providers is effective in improving resident physicians' general knowledge, knowledge of adverse events, and attitudes. As such, this tutorial has the potential to enhance communication between parents and primary care providers and, more generally, improve clinicians' response to the growing resistance toward routine childhood immunizations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin H Levi
- Department of Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Dr, Room C1743, Hershey, PA 17033, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
Vaccine-related adverse events are uncommon and typically mild. Children may experience conditions such as rashes, fevers, syncope, protracted crying, or seizures shortly after receiving their routine immunizations. When children are brought to the emergency department or clinic to be evaluated for one of these conditions, the health care provider may be called upon to determine the likelihood that it was caused by a recently administered set of vaccines. This determination has substantial implications for medical care, including the safety of administering future vaccines. This article reviews the current understanding of vaccine-related adverse events. Using this information, clinicians should be able to identify those events likely to be related to vaccine administration and those that are not. The appropriate management of vaccine-related adverse events is also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Franz E Babl
- Emergency Department, Royal Children's Hospital and Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Public debate over the safety of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the resultant drop in vaccination rates in several countries, persists despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. OBJECTIVES We carried out a systematic review to assess the evidence of effectiveness and unintended effects associated with MMR. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2004), EMBASE (1974 to December 2004), Biological Abstracts (from 1985 to December 2004), and Science Citation Index (from 1980 to December 2004). Results from reviews, handsearching and from the consultation of manufacturers and authors were also used. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies were comparative prospective or retrospective trials testing the effects of MMR compared to placebo, do-nothing or a combination of measles, mumps and rubella antigens on healthy individuals up to 15 years of age. These studies were carried out or published by 2004. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We identified 139 articles possibly satisfying our inclusion criteria and included 31 in the review. MAIN RESULTS MMR was associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, and similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo. The vaccine was likely to be associated with benign thrombocytopenic purpura, parotitis, joint and limb complaints, febrile convulsions within two weeks of vaccination and aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Urabe strain-containing MMR). Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps) (Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR). We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been largely demonstrated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V Demicheli
- Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, ASL 20, Via Venezia 6, Alessandria, Piemonte, Italy 15100.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
|
17
|
Jefferson T, Price D, Demicheli V, Bianco E. Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine 2003; 21:3954-60. [PMID: 12922131 DOI: 10.1016/s0264-410x(03)00271-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
Public debate over the safety of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the drop in vaccination rates in several countries persists despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. We carried out a systematic review to assess the evidence of unintended effects (beneficial or harmful) associated with MMR and the applicability of systematic reviewing methods to the field of safety evaluation. Eligible studies were comparative prospective or retrospective on healthy individuals up to 15 years of age, carried out or published by 2003. We identified 120 articles satisfying our inclusion criteria and included 22. MMR is associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo and is likely to be associated with benign thrombocytopenic purpura (TP), parotitis, joint and limb complaints and aseptic meningitis (mumps Urabe strain-containing MMR). Exposure to MMR is unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing MMR). The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunization with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Jefferson
- Reparto Epidemiologia Clinica, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299-00161 Rome, Italy.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|