Immunogenicity and safety of combined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine using new measles and rubella working seeds in healthy children in Taiwan and Singapore: a phase II, randomized, double-blind trial

Immunogenicity, duration of protection, effectiveness and safety of rubella containing vaccines: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rubella containing vaccines (RCV) prevent rubella virus infection and subsequent congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). To update the evidence on immunogenicity, duration of protection, effectiveness and safety of RCV, we conducted a systematic literature review.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE and SCOPUS, using keywords for rubella vaccine in combination with immunogenicity (seroconversion and seropositivity), duration of protection, efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Original research papers involving at least one dose of RCV (at any age), published between 1-1-2010 and 17-5-2019 were included. Where appropriate, meta-analyses were performed. Quality of included studies was assessed using GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

We included 36 papers (32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 observational studies) on immunogenicity (RA27/3 strain) in children and adolescent girls, 14 papers (5 RCTs and 9 observational studies) on duration of protection, one paper on vaccine effectiveness (VE) (BRDII strain), and 74 studies on safety, including three on safety in pregnancy. Meta-analysis of immunogenicity data showed 99% seroconversion (95% CI: 98-99%) after a single dose of RCV in children, independent of co-administration with other vaccines. Seroconversion after RCV1 below 9 months of age (BRDII strain, at 8 months) was 93% (95% CI: 92-95%). For duration of protection, the included studies showed a seropositivity of 88%-100% measured 1-20 years after one or two RCV doses. The single study on VE of BRDII strain, reported 100% VE after one and two doses. Among 34,332 individuals participating in the RCTs, 140 severe adverse events (SAEs) were reported as possibly related to RCV. Among the case reports on SAEs, the association with RCV was confirmed in one report (on fulminant encephalitis). Among 3,000 pregnant women who were inadvertently vaccinated, no SAEs were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

One and two doses of RCV are highly immunogenic for a long period of time, effective in preventing rubella and CRS, and safe.

Short-term immunogenicity and safety of hepatitis-A and varicella vaccines in HIV-exposed uninfected and HIV-unexposed South African children

BACKGROUND

HIV-exposed uninfected (HEU) children have increased risk of infectious morbidity during early childhood. We evaluated the short-term immunogenicity and safety of single dose inactivated hepatitis-A virus (HAV) vaccine and live attenuated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine in South African children.

METHODS

195 HIV-unexposed and 64 HEU children received either one dose of HAV or VZV vaccine at 18 months of age. Blood samples were tested for hepatitis-A or VZV antibodies before and one month after vaccination by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. All children were evaluated for solicited adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

One-month post-vaccination, a similar percentage of HIV-unexposed (91.8%) and HEU (82.9%) children were seropositive for hepatitis-A (p = 0.144). VZV antibody geometric mean fold-rise was also similar in HIV-unexposed (5.6; 95%CI: 4.6-6.7) and HEU children (5.1; 95%CI: 3.7-7.2); however, only 44% HIV-unexposed and HEU seroconverted (titers > 50 mIU/ml). AEs occurred with similar frequency and severity between groups, except for more systemic AEs after VZV vaccination in HEU than HIV-unexposed children.

CONCLUSIONS

Single dose HAV and VZV vaccine was similarly immunogenic in HIV-unexposed and HEU children. We did not identify differences in short-term humoral immunity after administration of either a live attenuated or inactivated vaccine. Seroconversion rates after a single dose of VZV vaccine were, however, lower compared to reports from previous studies (85-89%).

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT03330171.

Immunogenicity and safety of the combined vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella isolated or combined with the varicella component administered at 3-month intervals: randomised study

BACKGROUND

Field testing required to license the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine must take into account the current recommendation of the vaccine in Brazil: first dose at 12 months and second dose at 15 months of age in combination with a varicella vaccine.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical consistency, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of three batches of MMR vaccine prepared with active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) from Bio-Manguinhos, Fiocruz (MMR-Bio), and compare it to a vaccine (MMR produced by GlaxoSmithKline) with different API.

METHODS

This was a phase III, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority study of the MMR-Bio administered in infants immunised at health care units in Pará, Brazil, from February 2015 to January 2016. Antibody levels were titrated by immunoenzymatic assays. Adverse events were recorded in diaries.

FINDINGS

Seropositivity levels after MMR-Bio were 97.6% for measles, 84.7% for mumps, and 98.0% for rubella. After the MMRV vaccine, seroconversion rates and GMT increased substantially for mumps. In contrast, approximately 35% of the children had no detectable antibodies to varicella. Systemic adverse events were more frequent than local events.

CONCLUSION

The demonstration of batch consistency and non-inferiority of the Bio-MMR vaccine completed the technology transfer. This is a significant technological achievement with implications for immunisation programs.

Rubella outbreak in a Rural Kenyan District, 2014: documenting the need for routine rubella immunization in Kenya

Background

Rubella infection has been identified as a leading cause of birth defects commonly known as Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS). Kenya does not currently have a rubella immunization program nor a CRS surveillance system. In 2014, a rubella outbreak was reported in a rural district in Kenya. We investigated the outbreak to determine its magnitude and describe the outbreak in time, place and person. We also analyzed the laboratory-confirmed rubella cases from 2010 to 2014 to understand the burden of the disease in the country.

Methods

The Rubella outbreak was detected using the case-based measles surveillance system. A suspected case was a person with generalized rash and fever while a confirmed case was a person who tested positive for rubella IgM. All laboratory-confirmed and epidemiologically linked cases were line listed. The measles case-based surveillance database was used to identify rubella cases from 2010 to 2014.

Results

A total of 125 rubella cases were line listed. Fifty four percent of cases were female. Case age ranged from 3 months to 32 years with a median of 4 years. Fifty-one percent were aged less than 5 years, while 82 % were aged less than 10 years. Six percent of the cases were women of reproductive age. All cases were treated as outpatients and there were no deaths. The number of confirmed rubella cases was 473 in 2010, 604 in 2011, 300 in 2012, 336 in 2013 and 646 in 2014.

Conclusions

Analysis of Kenya rubella data shows that rubella is endemic throughout the country, and many outbreaks may be underestimated or undocumented. Six percent of all the cases in this outbreak were women of reproductive age indicating that the threat of CRS is real. The country should consider initiating a CRS surveillance system to quantify the burden with the goal of introducing rubella vaccine in the future.

Risk of febrile seizure after measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the febrile seizure rate, there is no longer a clear preference for use of measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine over separate measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella (V) vaccine. This work was undertaken to assess the risk of febrile seizure after MMRV vaccine in children.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and other databases through 12 December 2014. Meta-analysis was conducted using R version 3.1.2 and Stata version 12.0.

RESULTS

A total of thirty-nine studies were included. Thirty-one published or unpublished clinical trials involving about 40,000 subjects did not show significant differences in incidence of febrile seizure or vaccine related febrile seizure between MMRV and MMR with or without varicella vaccine after any doses, in the risk windows of 0-28, 0-42 or 0-56 days and 7-10 days. In addition, these studies showed that the receipt of concomitant use of MMRV and other pediatric vaccines was not a significant predictor of febrile seizure. Eight post-marketing observations involving more than 3,200,000 subjects were included. No evidence suggested elevated risk of febrile seizure associated with MMRV vaccine among children aged 4-6 years old during 7-10 days or 0-42 days after vaccination. However, an approximately 2-fold increase in risk of seizure or febrile seizure during 7-10 days or 5-12 days after MMRV vaccination was found among children aged 10-24 months, although the highest incidence of seizure was still lower than 2.95‰.

CONCLUSIONS

First MMRV vaccine dose in children aged 10-24 months was associated with an elevated risk of seizure or febrile seizure. Further post-marketing restudies based on more rigorous study design are needed to confirm the findings.

Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults

BACKGROUND

The prevention of varicella (chickenpox) using live attenuated varicella vaccines has been demonstrated both in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in population-based immunisation programmes in countries such as the United States and Australia. Many countries do not routinely immunise children against varicella and exposures continue to occur. Although the disease is often mild, complications such as secondary bacterial infection, pneumonitis and encephalitis occur in about 1% of cases, usually leading to hospitalisation. The use of varicella vaccine in persons who have recently been exposed to the varicella zoster virus has been studied as a form of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of vaccines for use as PEP for the prevention of varicella in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March week 1, 2014), EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2014) and LILACS (1982 to March 2014). We searched for unpublished trials registered on the clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs of varicella vaccine for PEP compared with placebo or no intervention. The outcome measures were efficacy in prevention of clinical cases and/or laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and adverse events following vaccination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three trials involving 110 healthy children who were siblings of household contacts. The included trials varied in study quality, vaccine used, length of follow-up and outcomes measured and, as such, were not suitable for meta-analysis. We identified high or unclear risk of bias in two of the three included studies. Overall, 13 out of 56 vaccine recipients (23%) developed varicella compared with 42 out of 54 placebo (or no vaccine) recipients (78%). Of the vaccine recipients who developed varicella, the majority only had mild disease (with fewer than 50 skin lesions). In the three trials, most participants received PEP within three days following exposure; too few participants were vaccinated four to five days post-exposure to ascertain the efficacy of vaccine given more than three days after exposure. No included trial reported on adverse events following immunisation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These small trials suggest varicella vaccine administered within three days to children following household contact with a varicella case reduces infection rates and severity of cases. We identified no RCTs for adolescents or adults. Safety was not adequately addressed.