Efficacy of Intralesional Candida Antigen Versus Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Versus Topical Podophyllin in Treatment of Resistant Genital Warts.

BACKGROUND: No single treatment is ideal for genital warts with high rate of resistance using conventional modalities as topical podophyllin; however, several intralesional immunotherapies are being tested nowadays, with variable results. In this study, we compared the safety and efficacy of treating resistant and recurrent genital warts by 2 intralesional immunotherapies [Candida antigen and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine] and compared them with topical podophyllin. PATIENTS/METHODS: A total of 45 patients with resistant or recurrent genital warts were enrolled in this study. Size and number of warts were detected in each patient, patients were divided into 3 groups. Group A injected with intralesional Candida antigen. Group B with intralesional MMR vaccine. Group C were treated with topical 25% podophyllin. Patients received a session every 2 weeks for 3 treatment sessions. RESULTS: With regard to the reduction in size and number of all warts, the best response was obtained in Candida antigen group where 46.7% showed complete clearance and 40% showed partial response followed by MMR group and the last was the podophyllin group, with no significant difference between them. Complete clearance of mother warts was noticed in 86.7% of Candida group, 53.3% in MMR group, and last 40% in podophyllin group, with a significantly better response in the Candida group (P = .027). CONCLUSION: Both intralesional Candida antigen and MMR vaccine are simple, safe, and effective treatment options with comparable results and better response than topical podophyllin.

Understanding the health system barriers and enablers to childhood MMR and HPV vaccination among disadvantaged, minority or underserved populations in middle- and high-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Child vaccinations are among the most effective public health interventions. However, wide gaps in child vaccination remain among different groups with uptake in most minorities or ethnic communities in Europe substantially lower compared to the general population. A systematic review was conducted to understand health system barriers and enablers to measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and human papilloma virus (HPV) child vaccination among disadvantaged, minority populations in middle- and high-income countries. METHODS: We searched Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, ProQuest and EMBASE for articles published from 2010 to 2021. Following title and abstract screening, full texts were assessed for relevance. Study quality was appraised using Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklists. Data extraction and analysis were performed. Health system barriers and enablers to vaccination were mapped to the World Health Organization health system building blocks. RESULTS: A total of 1658 search results were identified from five databases and 24 from reference lists. After removing duplicates, 1556 titles were screened and 496 were eligible. Eighty-six full texts were assessed for eligibility, 28 articles met all inclusion criteria. Factors that affected MMR and HPV vaccination among disadvantaged populations included service delivery (limited time, geographic distance, lack of culturally appropriate translated materials, difficulties navigating healthcare system), healthcare workforce (language and poor communication skills), financial costs and feelings of discrimination. CONCLUSION: Policymakers must consider health system barriers to vaccination faced by disadvantaged, minority populations while recognizing specific cultural contexts of each population. To ensure maximum policy impact, approaches to encourage vaccinations should be tailored to the unique population's needs. A one-size-fits-all approach is not effective.

Measles, mumps, and rubella revaccination in children after completion of chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a single-center prospective efficacy and safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) can damage the immune system, and may result in a loss of protection from infectious diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of these treatments on the decrease in antibody titers of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and seroconversion post-revaccination of MMR. METHODS: After completion of treatment for primary diseases, participants received an MMR revaccination. Antibody titers for MMR before revaccination were analyzed for all 110 children. After revaccination, 68 participants received a follow-up evaluation of  antibody titer and adverse reaction. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis showed that therapeutic schedules were the only factor correlated with lack of antibody titers for measles after completing treatment (P = 0.008), while for mumps and rubella, no statistically significant difference was observed. Importantly, our study clearly demonstrated positive seroconversion rates for measles (97.5%), mumps (81.0%), and rubella (93.2%), with antibody levels rising across the board and peaking at around 6 months following revaccination. However, 6 months after revaccination, a downtrend of antibody titer levels was observed, which is comparatively earlier than the waning immunity observed in healthy children. Furthermore, we found MMR revaccination to be safe, with only a single adverse reaction (local pain at the injection site) reported. CONCLUSIONS: MMR revaccination is immunogenic for the population. We suggest periodic monitoring of antibody titers, in addition to a booster vaccination, although the optimal timing of booster vaccination remains to be investigated further.

Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine 12 months after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is usually recommended from 24 months after a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Some authors have demonstrated that the MMR vaccination can be safe from 12 months post-HSCT in non-immunosuppressed patients, as recommended by the Brazilian National Immunization Program/Ministry of Health, since 2006. The objectives of this study were to evaluate when patients received MMR vaccine after an HSCT in our care service and if there were reports of any side effects. We retrospectively reviewed the records of HSCT recipients who received at least one MMR dose in our care service, a quaternary teaching hospital in Sao Paulo city, Brazil, from 2017 to 2021. We identified 82 patients: 75.6% (90.1% in the autologous group and 45.1% in the allogeneic group) were vaccinated before 23 months post-transplantation. None reported side effects following the vaccination. Our data support that the MMR vaccination is safe from 12 to 23 months after HSCT.

Successful restoration of protective immunity against measles, mumps, and rubella following MMR vaccination in adult hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal number of doses as well as the role for measurement of postvaccination titers after measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccination in adult hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients remains unknown. METHODS: In the present study, we assessed humoral immunity against measles, mumps and rubella before and after MMR vaccination in 187 adults who received at least one dose of the MMR vaccine after HCT. RESULTS: Among those with baseline titers, posttransplant prevaccination seroprotection rates were 56%, 30%, and 54% for measles, mumps, and rubella, respectively; and significantly lower in allogeneic versus autologous HCT recipients for measles (39% vs. 80%, p = .0001), mumps (22% vs. 41%; p = .02) and rubella (48% vs. 62%, p = .12). Among those who were seronegative at baseline, seroconversion rates after one dose of MMR were 69%, 56%, and 97% for measles, mumps, and rubella, respectively. Seronegative patients after one dose of MMR (i.e., nonresponders) seroconverted for measles and mumps after a second MMR vaccine dose. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate successful restoration of protective immunity against measles, mumps, and rubella after vaccination in adult HCT recipients; one dose of MMR elicited protective titers in the majority of patients, and a second vaccine dose was immunogenic in nonresponders.

Reduced antiviral seropositivity among patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with immunosuppressive agents.

BACKGROUND: Although live-attenuated vaccines are contraindicated under immunosuppression, the immune status of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been fully assessed prior to immunosuppressive therapy. AIMS: To investigate antiviral serostatus against viruses requiring live vaccines for prevention in IBD patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy. METHODS: This multicenter study included IBD patients who were aged <40 years and were treated with thiopurine monotherapy, molecular-targeted monotherapy, or combination therapy. Gender- and age-matched healthy subjects (HS) living in the same areas were included as control group. Antibody titers against measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. RESULTS: A total of 437 IBD patients (163 ulcerative colitis [UC] and 274 Crohn's disease [CD]) and 225 HS were included in the final analysis. Compared with HS, IBD patients had lower seropositivity rates for measles (IBD vs. HS = 83.91% vs. 85.33%), rubella (77.55% vs. 84.89%), mumps (37.50% vs. 37.78%), and varicella (91.26% vs. 96.44%). Gender- and age-adjusted seropositivity rates were lower in UC patients than in both CD patients and HS for measles (UC, CD, and HS = 81.60%, 85.29%, and 85.33%), rubella (76.40%, 78.23%, and 84.89%), mumps (27.16%, 43.70%, and 37.78%), and varicella (90.80%, 91.54%, and 96.44%); the difference was significant for all viruses except measles. Divided by the degree of immunosuppression, there were no significant differences in seropositivity rates among IBD patients. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients, especially those with UC, exhibit reduced seropositivity rates and may benefit from screening prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Neurologic Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines: Lessons From the Past to Inform the Present.

The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has triggered a global effort to rapidly develop and deploy effective and safe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations. Vaccination has been one of the most effective medical interventions in human history, although potential safety risks of novel vaccines must be monitored, identified, and quantified. Adverse events must be carefully assessed to define whether they are causally associated with vaccination or coincidence. Neurologic adverse events following immunizations are overall rare but with significant morbidity and mortality when they occur. Here, we review neurologic conditions seen in the context of prior vaccinations and the current data to date on select COVID-19 vaccines including mRNA vaccines and the adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines, ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2.S Johnson & Johnson (Janssen/J&J).

Intralesional Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Versus Intralesional Candida Antigen in the Treatment of Common and Plantar Warts.

BACKGROUND: Intralesional immunotherapy has been effectively used in the treatment of warts; however, comparative studies between different antigens are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intralesional measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine compared with intralesional Candida antigen for the treatment of multiple common and plantar warts. METHODS: Sixty-eight adult patients with multiple common and plantar warts were randomly assigned into two groups, each containing 34 patients. The first group received intralesional MMR vaccine, while the second group received intralesional Candida antigen. Each treatment was injected into the largest wart at 2-week intervals until complete clearance or for a maximum of 5 sessions. RESULTS: The overall therapeutic response was higher in the Candida antigen group (73.5%) compared with the MMR group (67.7%); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Complete clearance of common warts was higher in the Candida antigen group, while that of plantar warts was higher in the MMR group. Adverse effects were transient and well tolerated in both groups. No recurrence was detected during the 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Intralesional MMR and intralesional Candida antigen showed comparable efficacy and safety in the treatment of common and plantar warts.

Management of Difficult-to-Treat Warts: Traditional and New Approaches.

Warts are regularly treated by dermatologists, and while many respond readily to first-line treatments, others may represent a therapeutic challenge. Large, deep, numerous, and extensive warts; treatment-resistant lesions with higher risk for side effects, such as hypopigmentation; or patients unable to tolerate or comply with our treatment regimen, may need alternative treatment options. In this work we review the characteristics of select modalities that should be considered for difficult-to-treat warts. We discuss efficacy and tolerability data as well as practical features that can guide us to select the best treatment for every scenario. Novel approaches, still in an investigational phase, are also discussed to illustrate potential future directions of wart treatment.

Intralesional Antigen Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Periungual Warts.

BACKGROUND: Intralesional immunotherapy using different types of antigens is considered an effective and safe treatment option for different types of warts. However, there are few studies that illustrate the use of these antigens in the treatment of periungual warts as a distinct type of warts. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of three antigens: measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, Candida antigen, and purified protein derivative (PPD) in the treatment of periungual warts. METHODS: The study included 150 patients who were randomly assigned to 3 groups with 50 patients in each. Each agent was injected intralesionally at a dose of 0.1 mL into the largest wart at 2-week intervals until complete clearance or for a maximum of 5 sessions. RESULTS: Complete clearance of warts was observed in 70%, 80%, and 74% in PPD, Candida antigen, and MMR vaccine groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the therapeutic response between the 3 studied groups. Adverse effects were transient and insignificant in the 3 groups. No recurrence of the lesions was reported in any of the studied groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intralesional antigen immunotherapy seems to be an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of periungual warts.

Post Vaccine Rubella During a Measles Outbreak: Clinical Case.

Rubella is a vaccine preventable infection, and congenital rubella the most feared complication of this disease. Although young adult women are at greatest risk of post-vaccine rubella, this is also the group who potentially benefits the most from vaccine protection. Since post-vaccine disease has a mild and self-limited course, the benefit clearly exceeds the risk. During a measles outbreak in the north of Portugal, a 38-year-old woman presented with cervical posterior lymphadenopathies, fever and a maculo-papular rash one week after the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Measles was discarded and rubella viremia was demonstrated. Symptoms of rubella are non-specific and laboratory confirmation is essential. This is particularly relevant during a measles outbreak.

A rubéola é uma infeção prevenível por vacina, sendo a rubéola congénita a apresentação mais grave da doença. Apesar de serem o grupo que mais beneficia dela, as mulheres em idade fértil são também o grupo com maior risco de doença associada à vacina. Uma vez que as manifestações clínicas são ligeiras e transitórias, o benefício compensa largamente o risco. Durante o surto de sarampo que ocorreu no Porto em 2018, uma mulher de 38 anos recebeu a primeira dose da vacina contra o sarampo, rubéola e papeira. Uma semana depois, recorreu ao Serviço de Urgência por febre, exantema maculo-papular e adenopatias cervicais posteriores. Foi excluído sarampo e demonstrada viremia pelo vírus da rubéola. Os sintomas da rubéola são inespecíficos pelo que a confirmação laboratorial é essencial. Isto é ainda mais relevante em contexto de surto de sarampo.

Efectividad y seguridad de la vacuna Sarampión-Paperas-Rubéola (SPR) en mayores de cinco años / Effectiveness and safety of the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine (SPR) in over five years

ANTECEDENTES: La inmunización es una de las intervenciones en salud pública más costo efectivas y rentables. Sarampión, parotiditis y rubeola (SPR) son enfermedades virales, que pueden causar complicaciones y consecuencias graves, especialmente en niños desnutridos e inmunodeprimidos; siendo importante destacar, que estas enfermedades son prevenibles mediante la vacunación. El resurgimiento de las infecciones por el virus de las paperas entre personas previamente vacunados con dos dosis, ha planteado preocupaciones en el mundo, sobre la ausencia de inmunidad a largo plazo después de la vacunación contra esta enfermedad y ha aperturado discusiones sobre nuevas estrategias para mitigar el riesgo de brotes futuros, incluyendo la posibilidad de implementar una tercera dosis de la vacuna SPR como respuesta a un brote epidémico, frente al cual, además surge la necesidad de estudios adicionales que evalúen la protección a largo plazo proporcionada por tres dosis de las vacunas SPR, así como la rentabilidad de la implementación de ésta intervención. OBJETIVO: El objetivo de la presente revisión sistemática es sintetizar evidencias científicas sobre la seguridad y efectividad frente a parotiditis de la vacuna Sarampión, Rubéola, Paperas (SPR) en personas mayores de 5 años. METODOLOGÍA: La búsqueda sistemática se realizó en la base de datos de Medline (PubMed), Lilacs y Cochrane Library fueron formuladas una estrategia de búsqueda para la pregunta PICO de la revisión, no se aplicaron filtros de fecha ni idiomas, la búsqueda abordó la evidencia publicada hasta 12 de marzo del 2020. La selección de título y resumen y extracción de datos fue realizada por un solo revisor. RESULTADOS: La búsqueda identificó 9 estudios: 1 revisión sistemática, 1 ensayo clínico y 7 estudios observacionales. La revisión incluyó tres estudios en niños y adolescentes. El ensayo clínico se realizó en adultos y los estudios observacionales fueron en adultos y en niños. CONCLUSIONES: No se observan diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los niños que reciben una tercera dosis con los que reciben dos dosis. La vacuna SPR en niños mayores de 5 años presenta pocos y leves reacciones adversas. En adultos sanos, la tercera dosis de SPR no presenta reacciones adversas graves o largo plazo. En población militar, la aplicación de vacuna SPR no se asocia con aparición de diabetes mellitus tipo 1. (AU)

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.

Brotes epidémicos de parotiditis, revisión de la literatura / Mumps outbreaks, literature review

La parotiditis es un infección viral producida por el virus parotídeo. Clínicamente se caracteriza por aumento de volumen de la glándula parótida generalmente bilateral. La estrategia que ha mostrado ser más eficaz para la prevención de esta infección ha sido la implementación de la vacuna tres vírica en los programas de inmunización. En países con población altamente inmunizada como Chile, se logró una importante disminución de la incidencia de esta enfermedad. Sin embargo, a pesar de la efectividad de la vacuna se siguen reportando brotes en todo el mundo, evidenciándose un cambio epidemiológico, trasladándose la edad de presentación clínica desde la niñez y adolescencia hacia los adultos jóvenes. Este aumento en el número de casos ha sido estudiado, determinando que el efecto protector inmunitario de la vacuna decaería con el transcurso del tiempo, contribuyendo a la propagación de los brotes. Con respecto a posibles estrategias para el manejo de los brotes la aplicación de una dosis adicional de la vacunas tres vírica en población expuesta sería una medida que mejoraría el control de los brotes.

Mumps is a viral infection caused by mumps virus. Clinically, it is characterized by increased parotid volume. The most effective strategy for preventing this infection, has been the implementation of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the national immunization program. Among countries with a highly immunized population, like Chile, there has been an important reduction in the incidence of this disease. Nevertheless, despite the effectivity of the MMR, there are reports of outbreaks worldwide, with an epidemiological change, from clinical presentation in childhood, to adolescents and adults. This outbreaks have been studied, and it has been determined that they are due to the waning of vaccine-derived immunity. Regarding strategies for the management of new outbreaks, the administration of an additional dose of MMR, would be an alternative.

Seroepidemiological study of rubella in Vojvodina, Serbia: 24 years after the introduction of the MMR vaccine in the national immunization programme.

Although rubella is usually a mild childhood disease, this infection in early pregnancy poses a serious problem due to its teratogenic effect. The goal of interrupted circulation and elimination of rubella virus was achieved in many countries in the world. The aim of this study was to determine the status of rubella immunity in Vojvodina and evaluate Serbia's progress toward this goal. A total of 3404 residual serum samples from patients of all ages (1 to 84 years) were included in the study. Samples were collected between May 2015 and December 2017 in Vojvodina. Rubella IgG antibodies were determined using an indirect chemiluminescent immunoassay. Percentage of participants seropositive for rubella antibodies was 92.9% in the entire sample. The highest number of seronegatives was in the youngest (1 year) age group (44.7%), followed by the group aged 24-49 (6.4%) and 2-11 years (6.2%). The absence of a higher percentage of children with protective anti-rubella antibodies in the group aged 2-11 can be explained by a lower immunization coverage during certain years. Participants in the group aged 24-49 were born during the pre-vaccination period with lower rubella incidence, leading to the conclusion that not all individuals of that age came into a contact with the virus. Comparing levels of anti-rubella IgG antibodies of seropositive males and females of different ages reveals that the immunity after a contact with the virus and a previously acquired infection is stronger than the immunity after the vaccination. Although the incidence rate of rubella in Vojvodina has been low for the last ten years, there is still a risk of an outbreak due to a decrease in immunization coverage. This study shows that the percentage of susceptible individuals is high, especially considering women aged 24-49, and that additional ("catch-up") immunization is required.

Emerging Topics in Vaccine Therapeutics for Adolescents and Adults: An Update for Immunizing Pharmacists.

Vaccine therapeutics and the practice of immunization provision are ever-changing. As pharmacy-based immunization services continue to flourish in the United States, more and more patients are requesting both routine and travel vaccines in community pharmacies. However, vaccine recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (CDC/ACIP) can sometimes differ from product-specific US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-indicated uses. In addition, changes in vaccine schedules, product availability, and disease outbreaks can present immunizing pharmacists with scenarios requiring a high level of clinical judgment. Thus, it is of paramount importance that all immunizing pharmacists maintain competency in the most recent evidence in vaccine therapeutics, as well as practice standards for vaccine provision and administration. This review provides an update of the most recent literature surrounding emerging topics in adolescent and adult immunizations-highlighting influential studies and recent developments in the prevention of herpes zoster, human papillomavirus (HPV), measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), meningococcal disease, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis. Key concepts discussed include the emergence of the new recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), meningococcal vaccine product selection, MMR revaccination during disease outbreaks, tetanus vaccine product selection, and duration of pertussis immunity with vaccination.

Áreas com queda da cobertura vacinal para BCG, poliomielite e tríplice viral no Brasil (2006-2016): mapas da heterogeneidade regional / Areas with declining vaccination coverage for BCG, poliomyelitis, and MMR in Brazil (2006-2016): maps of regional heterogeneity / Áreas con una caída de la cobertura de vacunación para BCG, poliomielitis y triple vírica en Brasil (2006-2016): mapas de la heterogeneidad regional

A imunização é reconhecida como uma das intervenções mais bem-sucedidas e custo-efetivas, resultando na erradicação e no controle de diversas doenças em todo o mundo. Todavia, uma preocupante redução na cobertura vacinal tem sido observada no Brasil, trazendo o recrudescimento de algumas doenças até então superadas. Dessa forma, no intuito de realizar um diagnóstico situacional que pondere as diferentes regiões do país e a tendência temporal de cobertura vacinal, o presente estudo teve o objetivo de evidenciar áreas com queda da cobertura vacinal de BCG, poliomielite e tríplice viral no Brasil por meio de um estudo ecológico que coletou informações acerca do número crianças de até um ano de idade imunizadas para essas três vacinas, no período entre 2006 e 2016, por município brasileiro. Os dados foram adquiridos por meio do Departamento de Informática do SUS. Foi realizada uma varredura espacial, analisando as variações espaciais nas tendências temporais de cobertura vacinal. Foi observada uma tendência de redução no número de imunizações no Brasil, com quedas de 0,9%, 1,3% e 2,7% ao ano para BCG, poliomielite e tríplice viral, respectivamente. Ademais, aglomerados significativos com tendências temporais de redução da cobertura vacinal foram verificados em todas as cinco regiões brasileiras. O estudo evidencia uma importante redução na cobertura vacinal nos últimos anos, constatando heterogeneidades consideráveis entre os municípios. Dessa forma, uma atenção singular e planejamento estratégico condizente com as características de cada localidade são necessários para o controle tanto da redução de cobertura vacinal como do reaparecimento de doenças no Brasil.

Immunization is known to be one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions, resulting in the eradication and control of various diseases in the world. However, Brazil has experienced a worrisome drop in vaccination coverage, associated with the resurgence of various previously controlled or eradicated diseases. This study thus conducted a situational diagnosis weighing Brazil's different regions and time trends in vaccination coverage in order to identify areas with reduction in vaccination coverage for BCG, poliomyelitis, and MMR. This ecological study collected data on the number of children up to one year of age who had been vaccinated with these three vaccines from 2006 to 2016, according to municipality (county). Data were obtained from the Brazilian Health Informatics Department. A spatial scan was performed, analyzing spatial variations in the time trends for vaccination coverage. Downward trends were seen in the number of immunizations in Brazil, with reductions of 0.9%, 1.3%, and 2.7% per year for BCG, poliomyelitis, and MMR, respectively. Significant decreases were also seen in all five major geographic regions with time trends in the reduction of vaccination coverage. The study evidenced an important reduction in vaccination coverage in recent years, with major heterogeneity between municipalities. Thus, focused attention and strategic planning in keeping with each local area's characteristics are necessary to address both the reduction of vaccination coverage and the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in Brazil.

La inmunización está reconocida como una de las intervenciones más exitosas y costo-eficientes, consiguiendo la erradicación y control de diversas enfermedades en todo el mundo. Sin embargo, se ha observado una preocupante reducción en la cobertura de la vacunación en Brasil, conllevando el recrudecimiento de algunas enfermedades hasta entonces superadas. De esta forma, con el fin de realizar un diagnóstico situacional, que pondere las diferentes regiones del país y la tendencia temporal de cobertura vacunación, el presente estudio tuvo como objetivo evidenciar áreas con una caída de la cobertura vacunación respecto a BCG, poliomielitis y triple vírica en Brasil. Se trata de un estudio ecológico, que recabó información acerca del número de niños de hasta un año de edad inmunizados con estas tres vacunas, durante el período entre 2006 y 2016, por municipios brasileños. Los datos se consiguieron a través del Departamento de Informática del SUS. Se realizó un barrido espacial, analizando las variaciones espaciales en las tendencias temporales de cobertura de vacunación. Se observó una tendencia de reducción en el número de inmunizaciones en Brasil, con caídas de 0,9%, 1,3% y 2,7% al año, en el caso de BCG, poliomielitis y triple vírica, respectivamente. Además, se verificaron aglomerados significativos con tendencias temporales de reducción en la cobertura de vacunación dentro de las cinco regiones brasileñas. El estudio evidencia una importante reducción en la cobertura de vacunación durante los últimos años, constatando heterogeneidades considerables entre los municipios. De esta forma, una atención singular y planificación estratégica, acorde con las características de cada localidad, son necesarias para el control, tanto de la reducción de la cobertura de vacunación, como del resurgimiento de enfermedades en Brasil.

Annual Immunisation Coverage Report 2016.

This tenth annual immunisation coverage report shows data for the calendar year 2016 derived from the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) and the National Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Program Register. After a decade of being largely stable at around 90%, 'fully immunised' coverage at the 12-month assessment age increased in 2016 to reach 93.7% for the age assessment quarterly data point in December 2016, similar to the 93.4% for the age assessment quarterly data point in December 2016 for 60 months of age. Implementation of the 'No Jab No Pay' policy may have contributed to these increases. While 'fully immunised' coverage at the 24-month age assessment milestone decreased marginally from 90.8%, in December 2015, to 89.6% for the age assessment quarterly data point in December 2016, this was likely due to the assessment algorithm being amended in December 2016 to include four doses of DTPa vaccine instead of three, following reintroduction of the 18-month booster dose. Among Indigenous children, the gap in coverage assessed at 12 months of age decreased fourfold, from 6.7 percentage points in March 2013 to only 1.7 percentage points lower than non-Indigenous children in December 2016. Since late 2012, 'fully immunised' coverage among Indigenous children at 60 months of age has been higher than for non-Indigenous children. Vaccine coverage for the nationally funded seasonal influenza vaccine program for Indigenous children aged 6 months to <5 years, which commenced in 2015, remained suboptimal nationally in 2016 at 11.6%. Changes in MMR coverage in adolescents were evaluated for the first time. Of the 411,157 ten- to nineteen-year-olds who were not recorded as receiving a second dose of MMR vaccine by 31 December 2015, 43,103 (10.5%) of them had received it by the end of 2016. Many of these catch-up doses are likely to have been administered as a result of the introduction on 1 January 2016 of the Australian Government's 'No Jab No Pay' policy. In 2016, 78.6% of girls aged 15 years had three documented doses of HPV vaccine (jurisdictional range 67.8-82.9%), whereas 72.9% of boys (up from 67.1 % in 2015) had received three doses.

National, Regional, State, and Selected Local Area Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years - United States, 2018.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends routine vaccination of persons aged 11-12 years to protect against certain diseases, including human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers, meningococcal disease, and pertussis (1). A booster dose of quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) is recommended at age 16 years, and serogroup B meningococcal vaccine (MenB) may be administered to persons aged 16-23 years (1). To estimate vaccination coverage among adolescents in the United States, CDC analyzed data from the 2018 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) which included 18,700 adolescents aged 13-17 years.* During 2017-2018, coverage with ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine increased from 65.5% to 68.1%, and the percentage of adolescents up-to-date† with the HPV vaccine series increased from 48.6% to 51.1%, although the increases were only observed among males. Vaccination coverage increases were also observed for ≥1 MenACWY dose (from 85.1% to 86.6%) and ≥2 MenACWY doses (from 44.3% to 50.8%). Coverage with tetanus and reduced diphtheria toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) remained stable at 89%. Disparities in coverage by metropolitan statistical area (MSA)§ and health insurance status identified in previous years persisted (2). Coverage with ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine was higher among adolescents whose parents reported receiving a provider recommendation; however, prevalence of parents reporting receiving a recommendation for adolescent HPV vaccination varied by state (range = 60%-91%). Supporting providers to give strong recommendations and effectively address parental concerns remains a priority, especially in states and rural areas where provider recommendations were less commonly reported.