A case series of live attenuated vaccine administration in dupilumab-treated children with atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Current regulatory labeling recommends avoiding live vaccine use in dupilumab-treated patients. Clinical data are not available to support more specific guidance for live or live attenuated vaccines administration in dupilumab-treated patients. METHODS: Children (6 months-5 years old) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) enrolled in a phase 2/3 clinical trial of dupilumab (LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL Part A/B; NCT03346434) and subsequently participated in the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE (NCT02612454). During these studies, protocol deviations occurred in nine children who received measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine with or without varicella vaccine; five with a ≤12-week gap between dupilumab administration and vaccination and four with a >12-week gap after discontinuing dupilumab. RESULTS: Nine children (1 female; 8 male) had severe AD at baseline (8-56 months old). Of the nine children, five had a ≤12-week gap ranged 1-7 weeks between dupilumab administration and vaccination who received MMR vaccine (n = 2) or MMR and varicella vaccines (n = 3); among these, one resumed dupilumab treatment as early as 2 days and four resumed treatment 18-43 days after vaccination. No treatment-emergent adverse events, including serious adverse events and infections, were reported within the 4-week post-vaccination period in any children. CONCLUSIONS: In this case series of dupilumab-treated children with severe AD who received MMR vaccine with or without varicella vaccine, no adverse effects (including vaccine-related infection) were reported within 4 weeks after vaccination. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immune response to live attenuated vaccines in dupilumab-treated patients.

Live-attenuated vaccination for measles, mumps, and rubella in pediatric liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Infections are a serious short- and long-term problem after pediatric organ transplantation. In immunocompromised patients, they can lead to transplant rejection or a severe course with a sometimes fatal outcome. Vaccination is an appropriate means of reducing morbidity and mortality caused by vaccine-preventable diseases. Unfortunately, due to the disease or its course, it is not always possible to establish adequate vaccine protection against live-attenuated viral vaccines (LAVVs) prior to transplantation. LAVVs such as measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) are still contraindicated in solid organ transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy (IST), thus creating a dilemma. AIM: This review discusses whether, when, and how live-attenuated MMR vaccines can be administered effectively and safely to pediatric liver transplant recipients based on the available data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for literature on live-attenuated MMR vaccination in pediatric liver transplantation (LT). RESULTS: Nine prospective observational studies and three retrospective case series were identified in which at least 833 doses of measles vaccine were administered to 716 liver transplant children receiving IST. In these selected patients, MMR vaccination was well tolerated and no serious adverse reactions to the vaccine were observed. In addition, an immune response to the vaccine was demonstrated in patients receiving IST. CONCLUSION: Due to inadequate vaccine protection in this high-risk group, maximum efforts must be made to ensure full immunization. MMR vaccination could also be considered for unprotected patients after LT receiving IST following an individual risk assessment, as severe harm from live vaccines after liver transplantation has been reported only very rarely. To this end, it is important to establish standardized and simple criteria for the selection of suitable patients and the administration of the MMR vaccine to ensure safe use.

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.

Safety of measles, rubella and mumps vaccines in adults: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, multiple outbreaks of measles associated with vaccine hesitancy occurred in high-income countries, where measles incidence had previously been low. Most safety data about the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine are derived from studies conducted among children, whereas evidence regarding the safety profile of the vaccine in adults is scarce. METHODS: In 2017, during an outbreak of measles in Europe, Israeli travellers to high-risk locations who were incompletely vaccinated, were urged to complete the two MMR vaccination schedule before their travel. In this prospective cohort study, we analysed adverse events (AEs) of MMR and MMRV (measles, mumps, rubella and varicella) vaccines among these travellers. All participants were followed up using structured questionnaires 2-4 weeks after vaccination. RESULTS: Seven hundred and eighty-five adult travellers whose median age was 49.2 years were vaccinated and followed up. Any AEs were reported by 25.2% of all participants; 11.6% reported local AEs, and 18.6% reported systemic AEs, none of which were severe. In general, AEs were much more common among female travellers (19.4% of males vs 30.1% of females (P < 0.001)). Local AEs, overall systemic AEs, headache and arthralgia were much more common among females, whereas rates of general malaise and fever were not statistically different between genders. We did not observe any significant differences in the rates of total, local or systemic AEs between the MMR and MMRV vaccines. Higher rates of systemic AEs were observed among participants who were younger and probably immunized once with MMR compared to older vaccines immunized once to measles only and to those who were never immunized. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated low rates of systemic AEs and no serious AEs following either MMR or MMRV administration. More AEs were reported among females, and rates of AEs were similar after either MMR or MMRV.

Anaesthesia mumps: much to do about nothing.

Anaesthesia mumps is an uncommon postoperative complication resulting in unilateral or bilateral swelling of the parotid glands following surgical and endoscopic procedures. Our case illustrates the benign course of anaesthesia mumps in a postoperative vaginal hysterectomy patient with no underlying illness and also discusses previous cases in the literature and management strategies.

The pathogenesis of iodide mumps: A case report.

RELATION: Iodide mumps is an uncommon condition, induced by iodide-containing contrast, and is characterized by a rapid, painless enlargement of the bilateral or unilateral salivary gland. At present, the pathogenesis of iodide mumps is not yet clear. It may be related to an idiosyncratic reaction, a toxic accumulation of iodine in the gland duct, or renal function damage leading to an iodine excretion disorder. This paper reports the clinical manifestations and magnetic resonance imaging results of one case of iodide mumps, which occurred after digital subtraction angiography. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 66-year-old Chinese man presented to our department with a 1-month speech barrier and 1 day of vomiting. He had the history of high blood sugar, the history of high blood pressure and the history of Vitiligo. He had no history of allergies and had never previously received iodide-containing contrast. His renal function and other laboratory examinations were normal. During the digital subtraction angiography (DSA), the patient received approximately 130 mL of nonionic contrast agent (iodixanol). Five hours postsurgery, the patient experienced bilateral parotid enlargement with no other discomfort, such as pain, fever, skin redness, itching, hives, nausea, vomiting, or respiratory abnormalities. DIAGNOSES: We thought the diagnosis was iodide mumps. INTERVENTION: Intravenous dexamethasone (5 mg) was administered. OUTCOME: 20 hours post-DSA, after which the bilateral parotid shrunk. By 4 days postsurgery, the patient's bilateral parotid had recovered completely. LESSONS: We found no obvious abnormal sequence signal in diffusion magnetic resonance imaging or the corresponding apparent diffusion coefficient. Our findings suggest that vasogenic edema may play an important role in the pathogenesis of iodide mumps.