No evidence of an increase of bacterial and viral infections following Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine

Immunisation against COVID-19 in Pregnancy and of Women Planning Pregnancy

Following reports of the first human SARS-CoV2 infection in December 2019 from Wuhan Province, China, there was such rapid spread that by March 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) had declared a pandemic. Over 6.5 million people have died from this infection worldwide, although this is most likely an underestimate. Until vaccines became available, mortality and severe morbidity were costly in terms of life lost as well as the cost of supporting the severely and acutely ill. Vaccination changed the landscape, and following worldwide adoption, life has gradually been returning to normal. The speed of production of the vaccines was unprecedented and undoubtedly ushered in a new era in the science of fighting infections. The developed vaccines were on the already known platforms for vaccine delivery: inactivated virus, virus vector, virus-like particles (VLP) subunit, DNA and mRNA. The mRNA platform was used for the first time to deliver vaccines to humans. An understanding of these platforms and the pros and cons of each are important for clinicians who are often challenged by the recipients on the advantages and risks of these vaccines. These vaccines have so far and reassuringly been shown to be safe in reproduction (with no effect on gametes) and pregnancy (not associated with congenital malformations). However, safety remains paramount and continuing vigilance is critical, especially against rare fatal complications such as vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and myocarditis. Finally, the waning immunity months after vaccination means repeated immunisation is likely to be ongoing, but just how often and how many such revaccinations should be recommended remains uncertain. Research into other vaccines and alternate delivery methods should continue as this infection is likely to be around for a long time.

Lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic: Vaccine platform is a key player

The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and emergence of COVID-19 resulted in the development of different vaccines based on various platforms to combat the disease. While the conventional platforms of inactivated/live attenuated, subunit proteins and virus-like particles (VLPs) have provided efficient and safe vaccines, novel platforms of viral vector- and nucleic acid-based vaccines opened up new horizons for vaccine development. The emergence of COVID-19 pandemic showed that the availability of platforms with high possibility of quick translation from bench to bedside is a prerequisite step in vaccine development in pandemics. Moreover, parallel development of different platforms as well as considering the shipping, storage condition, distribution infrastructure and route of administration are key players for successful and robust response. This review highlights the lessons learned from the current COVID-19 pandemic in terms of vaccine development to provide quick response to future outbreaks of infectious diseases and the importance of vaccine platform in its storage condition and shipping. Finally, the potential application of current COVID-19 vaccine platforms in the treatment of non-infectious diseases has been discussed.

Health economic analyses of secondary vaccine effects: a systematic review and policy insights

INTRODUCTION

: Numerous analyses demonstrate substantial health economic impacts of primary vaccine effects (preventing or mitigating clinical manifestations of the diseases they target), but vaccines may also be associated with secondary effects, previously known as non-specific, heterologous, or off-target effects.

AREAS COVERED

: We define key concepts to distinguish primary and secondary vaccine effects for health economic analyses, summarized terminology used in different fields, and perform a systematic review of health economic analyses focused on secondary vaccine effects (SVEs).

EXPERT OPINION

: Health economists integrate evidence from multiple fields, which often use incomplete or inconsistent definitions. Like regulators and policy makers, health economists require high-quality evidence of specific effects. Consistent with the limited evidence on mechanisms of action for SVEs, the associated health economic literature remains highly limited, with 4 studies identified by our systematic review. The lack of specific and well-controlled evidence that supports quantification of specific SVEs limits the consideration of these effects in vaccine research, development, regulatory, and recommendation decisions and health economic analyses.

Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children

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.

COVID-19 vaccine platforms: Delivering on a promise?

The emergence of the novel SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has brought into sharp focus the need for a vaccine to prevent this disease. Vaccines have saved millions of lives since their introduction to the public over 200 years ago. The potential for vaccination reached new heights in the mid-20th century with the development of technologies that expanded the ability to create novel vaccines. Since then, there has been continued technological advancement in vaccine development. The resulting platforms provide the promise for solutions for many infectious diseases, including those that have been with us for decades as well as those just now emerging. Each vaccine platform represents a different technology with a unique set of advantages and challenges, especially when considering manufacturing. Therefore, it is essential to understand each platform as a separate product and process with its specific quality considerations. This review outlines the relevant platforms for developing a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Methodological frontiers in vaccine safety: qualifying available evidence for rare events, use of distributed data networks to monitor vaccine safety issues, and monitoring the safety of pregnancy interventions

While vaccines are rigorously tested for safety and efficacy in clinical trials, these trials do not include enough subjects to detect rare adverse events, and they generally exclude special populations such as pregnant women. It is therefore necessary to conduct postmarketing vaccine safety assessments using observational data sources. The study of rare events has been enabled in through large linked databases and distributed data networks, in combination with development of case-centred methods. Distributed data networks necessitate common protocols, definitions, data models and analytics and the processes of developing and employing these tools are rapidly evolving. Assessment of vaccine safety in pregnancy is complicated by physiological changes, the challenges of mother-child linkage and the need for long-term infant follow-up. Potential sources of bias including differential access to and utilisation of antenatal care, immortal time bias, seasonal timing of pregnancy and unmeasured determinants of pregnancy outcomes have yet to be fully explored. Available tools for assessment of evidence generated in postmarketing studies may downgrade evidence from observational data and prioritise evidence from randomised controlled trials. However, real-world evidence based on real-world data is increasingly being used for safety assessments, and new tools for evaluating real-world evidence have been developed. The future of vaccine safety surveillance, particularly for rare events and in special populations, comprises the use of big data in single countries as well as in collaborative networks. This move towards the use of real-world data requires continued development of methodologies to generate and assess real world evidence.

A guide to vaccinology: from basic principles to new developments

Immunization is a cornerstone of public health policy and is demonstrably highly cost-effective when used to protect child health. Although it could be argued that immunology has not thus far contributed much to vaccine development, in that most of the vaccines we use today were developed and tested empirically, it is clear that there are major challenges ahead to develop new vaccines for difficult-to-target pathogens, for which we urgently need a better understanding of protective immunity. Moreover, recognition of the huge potential and challenges for vaccines to control disease outbreaks and protect the older population, together with the availability of an array of new technologies, make it the perfect time for immunologists to be involved in designing the next generation of powerful immunogens. This Review provides an introductory overview of vaccines, immunization and related issues and thereby aims to inform a broad scientific audience about the underlying immunological concepts.

This Review, aimed at a broad scientific audience, provides an introductory guide to the history, development and immunological basis of vaccines, immunization and related issues to provide insight into the challenges facing immunologists who are designing the next generation of vaccines.

Infant vaccine co-administration: review of 18 years of experience with GSK's hexavalent vaccine co-administered with routine childhood vaccines

INTRODUCTION

The benefits of vaccine co-administration include improved vaccine acceptance and uptake resulting in an increased coverage and protection against multiple childhood diseases, with minimal medical visits. The diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-hepatitis B-poliomyelitis-Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (DTaP-HBV-IPV/Hib) has been available for more than 19 years and is recommended for co-administration with several other infant vaccines.

AREAS COVERED

This is a comprehensive review (34 studies, 21,000 participants) describing the immunogenicity and safety of DTaP-HBV-IPV/Hib when co-administered with 12 different vaccines in infants including pneumococcal, meningococcal, rotavirus or measles-mumps-rubella-varicella.

EXPERT OPINION

Interactions among co-administered vaccines are complex. Therefore, co-administration data are critical before a vaccination regimen can be recommended. Co-administration of DTaP-HBV-IPV/Hib with other routinely administered vaccines was associated with high percentages of children achieving seroprotection/vaccine response against DTaP-HBV-IPV/Hib antigens. In addition, co-administration was not associated with clinically significant interference in immune responses to co-administered vaccines and was well tolerated. Increased systemic reactions observed with some combinations (DTaP-HBV-IPV/Hib + pneumococcal conjugate or meningococcal serogroup B vaccines) were mitigated by prophylactic paracetamol administration. The data reported here, which represent the most frequently used co-administrations of DTaP-HBV-IPV/Hib worldwide, support the concomitant administration of DTaP-HBV-IPV/Hib with other routinely recommended infant vaccines.

Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children

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.

Biological considerations of plasma-derived and recombinant factor VIII immunogenicity

In hemophilia A, the most severe complication of factor VIII (FVIII) replacement therapy involves the formation of FVIII neutralizing antibodies, also known as inhibitors, in 25% to 30% of patients. This adverse event is associated with a significant increase in morbidity and economic burden, thus highlighting the need to identify methods to limit FVIII immunogenicity. Inhibitor development is regulated by a complex balance of genetic factors, such as FVIII genotype, and environmental variables, such as coexistent inflammation. One of the hypothesized risk factors of inhibitor development is the source of the FVIII concentrate, which could be either recombinant or plasma derived. Differential immunogenicity of these concentrates has been documented in several recent epidemiologic studies, thus generating significant debate within the hemophilia treatment community. To date, these discussions have been unable to reach a consensus regarding how these outcomes might be integrated into enhancing clinical care. Moreover, the biological mechanistic explanations for the observed differences are poorly understood. In this article, we complement the existing epidemiologic investigations with an overview of the range of possible biochemical and immunologic mechanisms that may contribute to the different immune outcomes observed with plasma-derived and recombinant FVIII products.

Concurrent influenza vaccination reduces anti-FVIII antibody responses in murine hemophilia A

Vaccination against influenza, with and without the adjuvant MF59, decreases the risk of inhibitor development in HA mice. Decreased FVIII immunogenicity may be attributed to antigenic competition via T-cell chemotaxis toward the site of vaccination.

Immune overload: Parental attitudes toward combination and single antigen vaccines

Parental concerns have led to a recent decline in immunization coverage, resulting in outbreaks of diseases that were once under control in the US. As the CDC vaccination schedule continues to increase in complexity, the number of required injections per office visit increases as well. Some parents perceive that there is trauma associated with the administration of multiple injections, and research shows that having multiple vaccines due in a single visit is associated with delays and lower immunization rates. Combination vaccines make vaccination more efficient by incorporating the antigens of several different diseases into a single injection, but many parents worry that they may overload the child's developing immune system and leave him or her susceptible to secondary infections. This literature review synthesizes current evidence regarding the parental fear of vaccine-induced immune system overload and the fear of vaccine-associated trauma, in an attempt to understand the scope and nature of these fears. Despite the wealth of knowledge about each of these fears individually, it is still unknown which is of greater concern and how this affects parental decision-making.

Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospital contact

•

MMR vaccination is given to protect against measles, mumps and rubella.

•

RSV is an important cause of acute lower respiratory infections in young children.

•

MMR vaccination was associated with 22% lower rate of RSV hospital contacts.

•

MMR vaccination may reduce the rate or severity of RSV infection.

Background

The live measles vaccine has been associated with lower non-measles mortality and admissions in low-income countries. The live measles–mumps–rubella vaccine has also been associated with lower rate of admissions with any type of infection in Danish children; the association was strongest for admissions with lower respiratory infections.

Objective

To examine whether measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination was associated with reduced rate of hospital contact related to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in a high-income country.

Methods

Nationwide cohort study of laboratory-confirmed RSV hospital contacts at age 14–23 months in all children born in Denmark 1997–2002 who had already received the vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (acellular), polio, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib) at the recommended ages of 3, 5, and 12 months.

Results

The study included 888 RSV hospital contacts in 128,588 person years of follow up (rate 6.8/1000 person years). Having MMR as the most recent vaccine was associated with a reduced rate of RSV hospital contacts compared with having DTaP-IPV-Hib as the most recent vaccine (Incidence rate ratio (IRR), 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63–0.89). After adjustment for potential confounders including exact age in days the IRR was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66–0.93). The adjusted IRR was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60–0.92) in males and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.66–1.06) in females (P Interaction, 0.42). There was no association in the first month after MMR vaccination (adjusted IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76–1.24) but the adjusted IRR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58–0.85) from one month after MMR vaccination.

Conclusions

MMR vaccination was associated with reduced rate of hospital contacts related to laboratory-confirmed RSV infection. Further research on the association between MMR vaccination and other unrelated pathogens are warranted.

Accelerating control of pertussis in England and Wales

Pertussis incidence among infants can be reduced by early completion of the primary vaccination schedule.

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children

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.

Risk of convulsions in children after monovalent H1N1 (2009) and trivalent influenza vaccines: a database study

The monovalent H1N1 (2009) pandemic influenza vaccine used predominantly in the UK in 2009/10 was a split virion vaccine with a novel oil-in-water adjuvant (ASO3). While this was highly immunogenic it was also reactogenic especially for fever in children. There is a paucity of comparative data on reactogenicity of trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). Using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) we investigated whether there was an increased risk of convulsions in children vaccinated with monovalent H1N1 influenza vaccine in the 2009/10 season and also the risk after vaccination with the seasonal TIVs using the self-controlled case-series method. A total of 2366 children aged under 10 years with at least one convulsion recorded in the GPRD and who had received at least one influenza vaccine at anytime (2858 doses of TIV and 1895 doses of the monovalent H1N1 influenza vaccine) were identified between May 2000 and April 2010. Over this period these 2366 children had a total of 3846 convulsion episodes. There was no increase in the incidence rate ratio (IRR) in the week after vaccination for either the monovalent H1N1 influenza vaccine (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.61-1.60) or the first dose of TIV (IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53-1.52). A signal of an elevated risk in the first few days after the second dose of monovalent H1N1 influenza vaccine was seen with an IRR for days 1-3 post vaccination of 3.48 (95% CI 0.86-14.07). This is consistent with findings of increased fever in a clinical trial. These results neither provide evidence of an increased risk of convulsions following TIV over a 10-year surveillance period nor following a single dose of the ASO3 adjuvanted monovalent H1N1 vaccine in 2009/10.

Use of the self-controlled case-series method in vaccine safety studies: review and recommendations for best practice

The self-controlled case-series method was originally developed to investigate potential associations between vaccines and adverse events, and is now commonly used for this purpose. This study reviews applications of the method to vaccine safety investigations in the period 1995–2010. In total, 40 studies were reviewed. The application of the self-controlled case-series method in these studies is critically examined, with particular reference to the definition of observation and risk periods, control of confounders, assumptions and potential biases, methodological and presentation issues, power and sample size, and software. Comparisons with other study designs undertaken in the papers reviewed are also highlighted. Some recommendations are presented, with the emphasis on promoting good practice.

How to communicate with vaccine-hesitant parents

Development of safe and effective vaccines is one the greatest medical triumphs. However, despite high immunization rates in the United States, 85% of health care providers (HCPs) will have a parent refuse a vaccine for his or her child each year. HCPs have the greatest influence on a parent's decision to vaccinate his or her child. To effectively communicate with vaccine-hesitant parents, HCPs must first understand the concerns of parents regarding immunization and understand influences that can lead to misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. HCPs should establish an open, nonconfrontational dialogue with vaccine-hesitant parents at an early stage and provide unambiguous, easily comprehensible answers about known vaccine adverse events and provide accurate information about vaccination. Personal stories and visual images of patients and parents affected by vaccine-preventable diseases and reports of disease outbreaks serve as useful reminders of the need to maintain high immunization rates. Ongoing dialogue including provider recommendations may successfully reassure vaccine-hesitant parents that immunization is the best and safest option for their child.

Safety and immunogenicity of coadministering a combined meningococcal serogroup C and Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine with 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at 12 months of age

The coadministration of the combined meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC)/Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 months of age was investigated to assess the safety and immunogenicity of this regimen compared with separate administration of the conjugate vaccines. Children were randomized to receive MCC/Hib vaccine alone followed 1 month later by PCV7 with MMR vaccine or to receive all three vaccines concomitantly. Immunogenicity endpoints were MCC serum bactericidal antibody (SBA) titers of ≥8, Hib-polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) IgG antibody concentrations of ≥0.15 μg/ml, PCV serotype-specific IgG concentrations of ≥0.35 μg/ml, measles and mumps IgG concentrations of >120 arbitrary units (AU)/ml, and rubella IgG concentrations of ≥11 AU/ml. For safety assessment, the proportions of children with erythema, swelling, or tenderness at site of injection or fever or other systemic symptoms for 7 days after immunization were compared between regimens. No adverse consequences for either safety or immunogenicity were demonstrated when MCC/Hib vaccine was given concomitantly with PCV and MMR vaccine at 12 months of age or separately at 12 and 13 months of age. Any small differences in immunogenicity were largely in the direction of a higher response when all three vaccines were given concomitantly. For systemic symptoms, there was no evidence of an additive effect; rather, any differences between schedules showed benefit from the concomitant administration of all three vaccines, such as lower overall proportions with postvaccination fevers. The United Kingdom infant immunization schedule now recommends that these three vaccines may be offered at one visit at between 12 and 13 months of age.

Meningococcal C conjugate vaccine: the experience in England and Wales

Meningococcal C conjugate vaccine was introduced in the UK in November 1999 together with a comprehensive meningococcal surveillance strategy to support and inform the vaccine programme. These surveillance data have provided important information on the long-term effectiveness of the programme, through direct and indirect protection, and on the prevalent serotypes and serosubtypes causing invasive meningococcal infection subsequent to vaccine introduction. The MCC immunization programme has been extremely successful in controlling serogroup C disease and continues to be evaluated. The aim of this paper is to review the experiences in England and Wales over the past 9 years.